Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767

Syrian civil war disruptive activity

Not actually straight-up vandalism or content warring this time on this very contentious page, just a rogue editor (User:Oxycut) bound and determined to create a content fork of Syrian civil war even if no one else agrees with it. The editor repeatedly has moved content to the redirect page Syrian uprising and refuses to discuss the issue on Talk or heed warnings from editors who have reverted him. Perhaps it's time for someone with a bit more authority to tell him his behavior is unacceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war disruptive activity

Not actually straight-up vandalism or content warring this time on this very contentious page, just a rogue editor (User:Oxycut) bound and determined to create a content fork of Syrian civil war even if no one else agrees with it. The editor repeatedly has moved content to the redirect page Syrian uprising and refuses to discuss the issue on Talk or heed warnings from editors who have reverted him. Perhaps it's time for someone with a bit more authority to tell him his behavior is unacceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Newsletter

As part of Steven Zhang's dispute resolution fellowship, we've created a newsletter to update interested community members ongoing developments and research into dispute resolution. I'm asking about to whom we can send the newsletter without it being considered spammy. There are two potential lists:

1. List 1: These are editors directly involved in dispute resolution
2. List 2: These are editors active in dispute-resolution related noticeboards

Here's the draft of the first newsletter, just so you know what it involves: Newsletter

Question: Are either/both/neither lists ok to send out. There is an opt-out mechanism, but, it's opt-out not opt-in. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it opt-in?--Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lack of awareness - if no-one knows about it, they won't know to opt-in. Having the first issue as opt-out creates this awareness and anyone that doesn't want to receive it on an ongoing basis can let us know. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A blurb about it could be mentioned in the Signpost, on the Mediation Committee's talkpage, the Dispute resolution noticeboard's talkpage, and other related talk pages. This seems better to me and could increase awareness of the newsletter, without anyone getting unwanted posts on their talkpage.--Rockfang (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What would be posted on a user's talk page? A brief note with a link? Normally I would oppose anything like spam, but I can see there is a good reason to send out at least the first of these to as many editors as possible (however, please do not post the whole newsletter on multiple pages—far too big). My preference would be for the first newsletter to have a clearer aim: Why are you sending this? Are there likely to be any proposals for significant change? Any overview of future directions? What is the purpose—to make everyone happier? to more easily remove problem editors? to assist good encyclopedic content and resist POV pushers? If sending these unsolicited, please have some method of switching them off for users who have not contributed in the last month. Search for "forum, with" to see there is some missing text. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Johnuniq. I've trimmed down the intended message from the full newsletter to just a single introductory paragraph with a link to the newsletter on a separate page. That should help. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Manbumper

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

Repeated edit-warring on Joan Juliet Buck with BLP violations, taking our references, misrepresenting edits. In violation of three-revert rule within 24 hours: [1][2][3] Please block.--Aichikawa (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know that you and I are in fact Joan Buck ([4]). (Note the "several of us" - who's "us"? - usually a giveaway) User:Dougweller warned Manbumper about edit-warring. Finally, Doug opened a discussion at BLPN, to which I left an extensive (probably too long) comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Request additional review of disruptive editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like a review of editing patterns by a dynamic IP that has been causing disruption on multiple articles and talk pages. I first encountered the user at Talk:Incest pornography#Addition of External Link, then again at Talk:Incest in popular culture#Proposed Addition of a New Section.

Based on the most recent IP comments on their user talk page (which contains material that borders on being an attack page at User talk:150.135.161.45#Opinion), I've since learned that the user has been blocked on Commons for trolling, and indeed has been accused of the same at Talk:Sex positions#Proposed: Addition of animated "reverse-cowgirl (prone)" demonstration, where they also appear to be complaining about the blocks and closed discussions at Commons, as well as making similar complaints at User talk:150.135.161.45 and User talk:150.135.161.194. I haven't searched on Commons for issues there, but their user talk page here pointed to Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, where at least two discussions started from the IP range were closed due to claims of trolling.

The only named user account appears to be Sex-position-demonstration (talk · contribs). Most of the IPs involved appears to be in the ranges 150.135.161.0/24 and 150.135.72.0/24. There are also a couple posts by IPs that geolocate to the same city and may be sock or meatpuppet accounts, such as 216.64.190.250 and 206.207.225.51.

At this point, I don't know if this user is a troll, or if it's an issue of a lack of adequate WP:COMPETENCE, or if they are so stuck on pushing their own ideas that they suffer from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. However, they have at this point burned through my patience with trying to explain issues to them. I'm not sure if others feel there's still a chance to help the user, or if it's time to take more direct action to deal with the disruption (ie: range blocks or page protections). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I haven't notified the user simply because the dynamic IP makes it difficult to contact them. I wasn't sure if the best option was to post on the active discussion threads in which they're involved or if it's better to post on all the known IPs and/or the named account. I'll leave it up to others to choose the best way to notify them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've notified 150.135.161.45 as they are the IP that apparently triggered this report and that you mention first.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from any other issues, does everyone agree that "User:Sex-position-demonstration" warrants a username block? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree pursuant to "disruptive or offensive usernames". BTW, I've also notified User:Zscout370.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Will you please cite the pertinent policy? I searched but found nothing about "disruptive or offensive usernames". How is that username any more "disruptive" or "offensive" than the name of the "sex positions" article? 150.135.161.45 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. The record here doesn't support blocking. It would be improper to block simply because Barek (talk) suggests it. That's not how the blocking policy works. 150.135.161.45 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The references to "trolling" are irrelevant and only confuse the issue. One can't be banned simply because another has accused him of "trolling". Guidelines for dealing with "trolls" are here, but Barek (talk) is disregarding those guidelines. 150.135.161.45 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It's charged above that a user "has been causing disruption on multiple articles and talk pages". The only articles and pages cited are (1) Talk:Incest pornography#Addition of External Link, (2) Talk:Incest in popular culture#Proposed Addition of a New Section, and (3) User talk:150.135.161.45#Opinion; but following those links reveals no evidence supporting the charges. There's been no disruptiveness or personal attacks.

Wikipedia policy states: "some types of comments are never acceptable: ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) No diffs and links support the charges here. This is just Barek (talk) making serious personal attacks, but failing to support his accusations with specific evidence.150.135.161.45 (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be here to attack Wikipedia and Wikipedians with pronouncements about censorship, policy, etc., as well as attempts to disrupt articles. The goal of Wikipedia is to create and maintain articles on encylopedic subjects. That doesn't appear to be your purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I do see "pronouncements about censorship [and] policy", but none of them are baseless "attacks". Can you please specify where you perceive "attacks" and "disruption"? Are you using the term "disruption" in the way it's defined officially, here, or have you some other meaning in mind? Why not support your accusations with diffs and links, as the policy suggests? ("If you contribute an argument to a page like ... incidents noticeboard for administrative attention, it's essential to give evidence for your claims in the form of diffs and/or other links. ...") 150.135.161.45 (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIKILAWYERING, anyone? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

witch-hunt, anyone? - 150.135.161.45 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets not forget WP:NPA, as shown here. While it is possible that a registered user could come to this board and complain about WP:WIKILAWYERING on Wikipedia in good faith, it's highly unlikely that this is the case. 150.135.161.45 (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets not forget WP:NPA, as shown here (full disclosure, it was self reverted by the user). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

While it is possible that an IP could come to this board and complain about rampant penis envy on Wikipedia in good faith, it's highly unlikely that this is the case. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

click — ChedZILLA 00:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I hit a nerve. I thought the better of touching on that most sensitive topic, and corrected my mistake quickly, fwiw. 150.135.161.45 (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

While I personally find jokes about that kind of thing to be funny, it is best to avoid them in mixed company. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

my bad. 150.135.161.45 (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original topic; any suggestions on next steps? Do others believe they can work with the user to address their disruption, or after reviewing the pages mentioned, is it time for more direct measures? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully they're done now and will let it go. If they return and post yet another inane query or off-the-wall accusation, then a temporary block is in order, for WP:IDHT and forum shopping. IMHO. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Has been going on for several days already. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Am I the only one that has reviewed the IPs edits and think he is trolling? And not a particularly good Wikilawyer? I hate to be so blunt, but I find it difficult to think someone has this little clue, and is instead being intentionally obtuse for whatever joy that brings them. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure this deserves as much discussion as it has received. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully support that decision, but as I was involved in one of the discussions I wanted to ensure others supported that action rather than doing it myself. The two primary IP ranges involved are 150.135.161.0/24 and 150.135.72.0/24. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a two-week block of both of the /24 ranges would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course this is a troll. And now he is fat and happy. Block and close.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

When it came to my "statement" the user was upset that I told him I wanted an OTRS email for these images, because there were authorship, sourcing and licensing concerns. Also because the images are pornographic in nature, we needed a release from the subjects of the video before I felt comfortable even wanting to restore the images. I was not the only admin to focus on this issue, but he came to my talk page and was upset to find out that asking for OTRS wasn't "official" policy and demands that "asking for OTRS" must be confirmed as a policy before I can cite it in any discourse. However, at undeletion requests, it is an unwritten rule that if there are issues with licensing, authorship or the nature of the permission, we do ask for OTRS before moving forward. This helps us a lot when it comes to dealing with requests. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Block and move on. We shouldn't waste so much time on obvious trolls. This user has no productive edits and seems to only be interested in grinding an axe about being blocked on Commons for uploading crappy copyvio porn. Kaldari (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked I've blocked two ranges, 150.135.72.0/24 and 150.135.161.0/24 for two weeks for "disruptive editing" (ie: trolling) so that we can all get back to building an encyclopedia. Feel free to close this report. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request a review regarding a proposal - Dispute involved 1 against 3 users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Users involved:

• Bleubeatle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BabbaQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wesley Mouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CT Cooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think that some administrator intervention from neutral non-involved administrators is really required here. Over the last couple of months, I had a dispute with the following users above. I tried most of the methods at WP:DISPUTE and had little success. I eventually took this to the WP:WQA where we made an agreement here but I wasn't quite sure about it so I decided to discuss it with them again a few months later and I got this reply today here. I've really lost all hope of carrying a civil discussion with them. If I say anymore words I fear that I'd be singled out again and condemned to be banned. I really don't want to lose my account all because 2-3 users disagreed with what I had in mind and felt the need to stir it further by taking my posts out of context. So I really need the help of non-involved administrators so that we can channel across this broken communication barrier. I'll be notifying the other users very shortly. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wesleymouse said "Bleubeatle you are violating the proposal to which you have agreed to. I suggest you stop now, before you make things worse for yourself." What else is there to say? Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Request for IP and User

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suspected sockpuppets (in my mind, but not sure)

• Zheek (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Qatarihistorian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 96.255.251.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I recently was searching for this article: Mugham. I observed an entirely (Iranian?) POV-pushing by the User: Zheek. On his talk page the IP 96.255.251.165 was convincing in pushing so called "Iranian sources". Their interests seem to be within the same domain (active since August 2012). The same case is viewable on User: Qatarihistorian (active since 29 July 2012), since his edits are highly suggested being of the same Iranian interests, using the Arabic term "Qatari" as an alibi for pushing entirely Iranian (more precisely Mesopotamian and Central Asian) related sock-organized POV. The IP 96.255.251.165 aroused more suspicion by being involved in a recent Sockpuppet Investigation. Interestingly when the sockpuppets were exposed, suddenly User: Zheek began to undid an edit done by one of those socks on the article: Ergenekon. The IP 96.255.251.165 did the same on the article: Kaveh the blacksmith. More interesting is that the User: Zheek did his edit at 11:05, on 2 September 2012, so before (at 19:33, on 2 September 2012) the IP 96.255.251.165 even informed User: Zheek to be attentive on the articles done by the exposed sock-edits. Supposing I am wrong, then how User: Zheek became attentive on Ergenekon (11:05, on 2 September 2012), when the IP 96.255.251.165 removed the referencing to "Ergenekon" from the "==See also==" segment of the article Kaveh the blacksmith at 21:11, on 1 September 2012. At the same time this is the most fishy point regarding my Sockpuppet Request for these Users. We don't need such POV-Pushing users at Wikipedia. - Intelinside13core (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is for WP:SPI. Doc talk 10:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - Intelinside13core (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 89.131.11.103 Needs Blocking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

89.131.11.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could someone please block the above IP? S/he is violating our rules on WP:CHARTS, particularly our principles on not including airplay charts where normal charts are used. This month the user was warned lots of times for non-constructive editing, the for adding a disqualified chart and now for violating project rules on airplay charts. I've left multiple messages throughout the day but s/he has continued adding charts at a widespread scale and level. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please block? The IP has ignored all requests and is continuing to add the chart to various pages. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is finding an admin who can understand the issues associated with charts. I have no knowledge in this area, but here are a few observations. First, I notice that the IP has been blocked once before (for 10 minutes!) for charting problems. As an admin, that helps me because it sets a precedent for another block if the IP continues the behavior. Second, I notice that the principal (most recent?) problem has to do with a Spanish chart, Promusicae. You've told the IP on their talk page: "Per WP:CHARTS when a song charts on a singles chart do not include airplay charts." I can't find anything in the guideline that supports that, but perhaps I'm missing it as I'm just doing a find on "airplay". I also note there's a lot of comments in the guideline about Promusiae in a table of "typical sources". Is that relevant to the problem? Perhaps if you illuminated the substantive issue better here, an admin would feel more comfortable blocking. Certainly, there's no indication that the IP is willing to collaborate or discuss the problem - that, of course, is supportive of a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please show me the part in WP:CHARTS that excludes airplay charts when sales charts are available? I can't seem to find any such rule in either the text part or the tables. De728631 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It says at WP:Record charts#Dependent ("component") charts. A an airplay chart is a component of a singles chart. Singles Chart = Airplay + Sales. If the Singles Chart is used then Airplay or Sales can't be listed. Admittedly this is better explained at WP:Record charts#Billboard charts for the US and we probably should explain this more for other charts but we've never had an issue with a user ignoring warnings and requets to stop or who's continued to add the charts when multiple users have reverted them on multiple pages. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I can kind of follow what you're saying. The language in the guideline really needs to be cleaned up, though. At this point, it's probably understandable to someone who already understands it but not to someone who doesn't, which is not particularly helpful. :-) In any event, another admin blocked the IP for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Definition of a combatant in Infoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am trying (in vain) to find Wikipedia's guidelines concerning what qualifies as a combatant for InfoBoxes describing battles or wars. I have been basing my edits upon Wikipedia's entries for a combatant or a belligerent but I realize that articles themselves are not considered authoritative. Without some specific guidelines, it is hard to interact responsibly with other editors who have differing opinions on the matter (for example, if two official political entities are at war on foreign soil and the local population takes a side and comprises a significant or majority fighting force, may the local population be considered a combatant?). I am not looking for opinion at this point unless the matter is only defined by the consensus of opinion. I am looking for a Wikipedia guideline or, in its absence, clear precedent. Thank you. --Rereward (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to ask this question at Wikiproject Military History. Try posting it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Took your advice but I still welcome administrator assistance here.--Rereward (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OmicronSquadLeader

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:OmicronSquadLeader has just moved Ed Miliband to High Lord Ragamuffin. Given past history, I suspect an immediate and indefinite block will be a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EdelweissD's ownership issues

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

As can be seen at List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins: Revision history, EdelweissD (talk · contribs) has been reverting in opposition to consensus as to the format of the article. He has failed to respond to comments on his user talk page, and has also twice reverted the addition of a link to the history portal, as can be seen here and here. AutomaticStrikeout 17:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As an involved admin, I've witnessed in the same article that EdelweissD has also been changing the name of Grover Cleveland Alexander from his WP:COMMONNAME. Discussion with three editors at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_pitchers_with_200_career_wins#Grover_Cleveland_Alexander on August 28 supports the name to be listed as "Grover Cleveland Alexander". Editor was warned on August 28 about edit-warring on this issue [5]. Here is EdelweissD history of changes regarding the person's name:

1. September 1 [6] Changed to Old Pete Alexander
2. August 28 #1 [7] Changed to Pete Alexander
3. August 28 #2 [8] Changed to Pete Alexander
4. August 27 [9] Changed to Grover Alexander
5. August 7 [10] Changed to Pete Alexander
6. August 4 #1[11] Changed to Grover Alexander
7. August 4 #2 [12] Changed to Grover Alexander
8. August 3 #1 [13] Changed to Grover Alexander
9. August 3 #2 [14] Changed to Grover Alexander
10. June 15, 2012 [15] Changed to Pete Alexander

Another issue with the editor on the same page is the entry criteria for the list. Consensus at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_pitchers_with_200_career_wins#List_entry_criteria was declared on August 28 that the list should be pared from the players with the 500 highest win totals to only include players with 200 wins. The user has still reverted three times thereafter. Here is EdelweissD's history of changes keeping the list with 500 entries:

1. Aug 7 [16] EdelweissD adds entries to make the list 500 entries long
2. Aug 7 [17] Discussion started on article talk page regarding list entry criteria.
3. Aug 28 00:46 [18] Consensus declared that list should be pared from 500 entries to players with 200 wins
4. Aug 28 06:23 [19] EdelweissD makes list 500 entries long again.
5. Aug 28 16:05 [20] EdelweissD notified on their user talk page of the consensus
6. Sept 1 13:57 [21] EdelweissD makes list 500 entries long again.
7. Sept 1 20:16 [22] And again

EdelweissD has elected not to participate in the aforementioned discussions related to their reverts. Editor has 0 talk page edits in their editing history.

Edit history comments by EdelweissD have included:

• "Major changes should be done in a new page. This is top 500 wins list."[23]
• "unjustified major change of no real value"[24]
• "Page has been formatted thus for years. Drop the know-it-all attitude please."[25]

—Bagumba (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

See also this recent warning by Baseball Bugs. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

EdelweissD took out the portal link, again. Note the very polite edit summary. AutomaticStrikeout 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This issue was discussed on the article talk page, a discussion EdelweissD ignored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this user has any intention of discussing the situation. AutomaticStrikeout 21:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not, except for comments in the edit summaries which make it clear that he thinks it's his own article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, look through his history, and you'll discover he's been on here for 2 years and that is essentially the ONLY article he's worked on. No wonder he thinks it's his. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's very likely the reason for his behavior, but it's not an acceptable excuse. He doesn't own the article regardless of whether or not he thinks he does. He had his chance to make his opinion heard during the discussion and he didn't. Now, he wants to push his way over the consensus. I think he's going to find that consensus will push back and will push harder. AutomaticStrikeout 21:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it started in 2005 as a "Top 100" but was essentially what it is now, 200 wins or more. For reasons unknown, an editor (apparently not the one in question) changed it 4 years ago to the top 500 pitchers.[26] Recent consensus is that that quantity is overkill. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest topic ban

Instead of blocking them right away I propose a topic ban regarding all article pages related to baseball. Given EdelweissD's editing history this will probably have the same effect as a block but they would still be able to edit elsewhere if they so desire. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. If nothing else, it might compel him to communicate directly with other editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Bugs. It wouldn't have to be permanent if EdelweissD was willing to stop the edit warring. AutomaticStrikeout 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems severe as editor has never been blocked for edit-warring. Recommend block for edit warring and with hopes of effecting a realization that discussion is essential in disagreements..—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Either one is liable to get him irritated, and blocking would be easier, i.e. it could be done immediately. But for what length of time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a week for now. Something short might not have much of an effect. AutomaticStrikeout 21:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

SupportStrongly support a week block. The editor has refused to engage or educate themselves on the changes the article has incorporated within the past few weeks. The editor continues to think reverts is the way to go about this, rather than posing questions, listing their reasons for support on the article's talk page, or project's talk page. Latest edit summaries include these two: (20:16 1 Sept) "This completely changes the page. Make a top 200 page without destroying this one. Nothing stopping you from doing that" and (20:19 1 Sept) "You are making a new page. Destroying this one serves no value other than to make you know-it-alls feel important." The editor appears intent on carrying out their vision solely by use of reverting, and now the edit summaries are starting to get a bit uncivil. Zepppep (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While this is being hashed out, I have submitted a 3R report here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:EdelweissD reported by User:Zepppep (Result: 24h). The editor's 4 reverts within the past 24 hours need to be dealt with speedily, although I understand it may take a little while for a ruling to be delivered here. Zepppep (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to the editor who took action upon the 3R. Zepppep (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I support a one week block as well. I just finished cleaning up his latest work. The edit summaries are here [27] and here [28]. Clearly the message is not getting through, so maybe a week long vacation will help. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've blocked the user for the edit warring. This shouldn't effect any of the above and I don't necessarily think a longer block/topic ban would hurt. Swarm ^X 05:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor persisted with a revert and contentious edit summaries. It is obvious all attempted methods at getting through have not been successful; a minimum one week block might. Zepppep (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would also support a one week block. If that still doesn't get EdelweissD into communication we can later discuss a topic ban or other measures. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the current 1-day block doesn't get him to talking, a 1-week block might. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Kind of ironic that he calls others stubborn and says that talking with us is seldom productive. If this keeps up after the block, I say indef him. AutomaticStrikeout 16:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Since he's never talked directly with anyone (at least not under that user ID), he's got no basis for that assertion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully the disruption has ended after the 1-day block.—Bagumba (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it didn't [29]. Instead he thinks now that some of us are "are obnoxiously stubborn, and talking with you is seldom productive". I say further action is warranted. De728631 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Please ignore that, the diffs I showed were from right before the block. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have disappeared, for the time being anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Br'er Rabbit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nothing to see here unless you want to practice using the show button

User:Br'er Rabbit has asserted false, unsubstantiated, inappropriate and uncivil accusations of sockpuppetry against me, apparently based upon a hunch and/or their own personal theories. The thread is located here. It may possibly be a retaliatory action based upon this individual perhaps having feelings of disagreement with comments I made at the larger discussion (the link provided goes directly to a subsection that the user created within the larger discussion), or it may just be basic internet flaming. These types of remarks can have a negative effect upon editor retention on Wikipedia, because they may serve to dissuade editors from continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, some people are likely to view these types of accusations by assertion, rather than by evidence, as insulting. Since I'm well aware that this is the only Wikipedia account I've had in my lifetime, I'm not personally affected. However, other editors could perceive otherwise when statements such as these are leveled against them in this manner. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC) If you want to discuss the reasonableness of the assertion made by Br'er Rabbit, which would be necessary to consider for any potential sanction, you should unhat the closure of that discussion above, rather then start a new one here. Monty845 22:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I'd rather not edit war with the editor who hatted the discussion I've linked to. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Yet you reverted the hatting of this thread already... Monty845 22:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Yes. This facilitated the commentary that has commenced. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Admins are already quite aware of that event, so let me ask bluntly: what admin action are you requesting? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, administrators might not see the information there, because it was hatted, rather than closed with an archive template which retains the visibility of the information. I require more time to formulate a response regarding potential administrator action regarding this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC) If you're falsely accused of sockpuppetry, even forgetting the irony of Jack Rabbit making such an accusation, don't make a big thing of it. Just laugh at it or ignore it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the friendly, useful advice. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Despite any anecdotal evidence to the contrary, admins are generally capable of clicking a "show" button. Can we close this now? Tiderolls 22:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Better start asking candidates at WP:RFA about the fabled "show" button to make sure. Monty845 23:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC) If this matter is being immediately dismissed, is this an indication that it's acceptable for editors to level false statements of this sort toward others on Wikipedia? Northamerica1000(talk) 23:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC) You are well aware that the behavior is problematical, Northamerica1000. Please don't patronize us. Tiderolls 23:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Sure it's problematic. The specific question is regarding acceptability. If it's problematic, yet acceptable, please feel free to close this discussion. Not much point in going on-and-on if the behavior is allowed, despite being problematic. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Maybe you didn't really hear what I said above, so I'll restate it: Don't worry about it. Unless someone is actually interfering with your ability to edit, then there is no actual problem. Just forget Jack Rabbit exists. He can't harm you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I'm sure Br'er isn't the only editor to have picked up on the similarity in editing style and areas between you and A Nobody. Jclemens certainly did, and I have myself. However there is absolutely no way that he or I can be sure, or even confident, of that purely on writing style, hyper-inclusionism, and a tendency for TL;DR screeds, especially in AfDs (something which I note you've actually cut down on now). Given that, and the fact that an SPI has been technically impossible since late 2010, it was probably pointless for Br'er to voice his opinion (and ditto Jclemens, and now myself!), but in an environment where WP:BATTLE is common, such things happen. Indeed, in areas like I/P or The Troubles, such accusations are ten a penny. They do not lead to sanctions against editors; the standard response is that we need proof, or a substantial balance of probabilities to take action. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks for providing your perspective. Perhaps no actions are required toward this editor, if these types of accusations occur frequently, and are common. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing pattern concern

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:IanChris948 has been making a series of edits to various pages to support his own theories. I first encountered him when he made two edits to Masonic conspiracy theories (diff shows both). I then discovered he made this edit and a series of others, where he claimed he knew who the song was written about, and funnily enough, it turned out to be him (which I figured out afterwards by following a trail of evidence). The consequence of the conspiracy theory edit led to User:Blueboar attempting to enter into dialogue on the user's talk page, and the result was not useful. I also received a comment on my talk from this user, and then discovered he had also posted the same comment on his FB page (which he had inserted into an edit). Now he has apparently written a book about this whole theory of his, and inserted that into the same song article. Note that all the edit summaries are misleading, there is blatant self-promotion, and there are other concerns I have which I will not raise publicly. All that notwithstanding, my AIV report was referred here, and I believe some action needs to be taken. At best, this is an editor who is self-promoting his own agenda. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, only to push his own Masonic conspiracy theories. I really can't see how he could become productive, so I've indef blocked - with full support for unblock if he can actually convince someone I'm wrong in that judgment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

88.190.16.36 creating / vandalizing 25 new talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

88.190.16.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created about 25 new talk pages, pasting random material into each. I have been flagging each with {{db-g3}}. Also did some more conventional vandalism. Should I continue to do flag? Jim1138 (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - no need to tag any more, thanks, I'm checking them all and deleting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Kaz and Crimean Karaites/Karaims POV Fork

• User:Kaz moved the article on Crimean Karaites to Turkic Karaites on 27 August 2012.[30]

• As this was turned out to be a contentious move, it was reverted, so on 28 August 2012, Kaz initiated a move discussion.[31]

• Also on 28 August 2012, Kaz edited a redirect page Karaims, so that instead of redirecting to Crimean Karaites, it redirected to Turkic Karaites.[32]

• Then on 29-30 August 2012, Kaz edited the redirect page Karaims into a content fork of the article on Crimean Karaites complete with merger proposal.[33]

• On 30 August 2012, Kaz placed a merge proposal notice on Crimean Karaites, proposing a merge with Karaims.[34]

--Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting the procedures correct. I don't know what a POV Fork is but will be happy if someone can explain it to me. I still find the wikipedia editing protocols inaccessible due to a mental disability. At any rate, it seems the discussion is going along well now and I only reverted the changes because peoples comments were being deleted and moved. The issue is simple really. Karaims are not Karaite Jews, and Crimean Karaites is a misnomer and should never have been started. It should now be be merged into a relevant section on the Karaims article. The majority of voters seem to be in agreement with this. Apologies if I have not been able to access the wikipedia editing protocols correctly, but a disability is something society unintentionally causes in an individual, so it is not my fault really.Kaz 21:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Then please restore the redirect page to a redirect page, and allow the discussion of a move to runs its course.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But Sir, as I have tried to explain to you, Karaims was originally an article [35] before the Crimean Karaites page existed. It should never have been redirected there in the first place, and was only done so by some user who did not understand the difference between Karaims and Karaite Jews. If you like you can delete whichever article and talk page you like. as long as the votes of the people involved are not undermined and the end result is a Karaims article with a sub-section about Crimean Karaims to which the Crimean Karaites page points. I do not have Admin privileges to do all this by myself but if I did I would certainly have fixed it all from the very beginning through a slow process of consultation without anyone's opinion being lost. Kaz 22:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

'The votes of the people'? Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to know that. Facts should never be decided by Majority vote. But then I am confused why such voting proceedures exist. Thankfully the majority in this case agree with the facts. Kaz 05:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A vote (usually known as a "!vote" or "not vote") exists to try and judge WP:CONSENSUS. The admin who makes the final judgement will not look at numbers, but the strength of the policy-based arguments. So, a 12-5 "vote" may actually lead to "no consensus to change" if the 12 were WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes, and the 5 were strongly-rooted in policy dangerouspanda 11:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

So it means as long as there are a couple of people causing trouble about a change, then that change will never happen? What should I think about this page of advice Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules should I ignore it? lol

But seriously, the page was recommended to be merged into the older Karaims article. On what grounds is this merge being prevented? I would sincerely like to know. Kaz 06:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means and I think I just have to continue with WP:BB am I right? If Toddy1 has a source to prove that the overwhelming majority of Karaims are Karaite Jews from Crimea then he should produce it right? Until that time Karaims should not be redirected to Crimean Karaites right? Kaz 07:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Kaz, please fix your signature to include a link to either your userpage, talk page, or contribution page. The Wikipedia guideline for signatures requires a link to one of those three pages be included in your signature; here is the relevant portion of the guideline. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Horologium, but because everything we write can be mirrored across the internet on other sites, I was told several years ago that it is personal choice whether or not to put a link to my user page in my signature. Whoever removed the links for me did so because it protects individual privacy. Is it a must now? I read the guideline you posted, it seems it is still optional no? Kaz 17:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not optional. Your signature must contain a link to either your userpage, your user talk page, or your contribution history. The first sentence of the section to which I linked states that, explicitly. Horologium (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The RM looks to be a bit of a mess and more than a little dodgy (one user returning after two years, one !voting in the first edit, and one relatively new account which made a small number of edits a month ago then suddenly returned). All these were in favour of the move. Number 57 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:GreatOrangePumpkin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Edit warriors blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to add referenced additions to the article about Dostoevsky which were reverted 3 times for no reason. I can't edit the article further as I am sure these will be reverted again =( JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Right now this looks like a content dispute. Try the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, GreatOrangePumpkin has been blocked for edit warring before barely two weeks ago and thinks stuff like that is a joke. [36] And it turns out the other party in that older edit war was JackofDiamonds1, who was also blocked. It looks like this war is over the inclusion (or exclusion) of some ancestry information in the article. Neither side seems to have discussed this issue on the talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Having taken a further look, both blocked for edit warring. Given 72 hours as this is a second offense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP and new user vandalism abuse, threats of violence at article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive; this is my first occasion of notifying, but this seemed too serious to just revert and move on. If I don't do it exactly right, at least I attempted. The article is IBM's The Great Mind Challenge.

The first diif is for an IP: User:117.254.122.214 [37] It was reverted by a bot that left a generic warning. who reverted the bot's corrections. Then I came along to remove some stray text and afterwards noticed the serious vandalism by a newly registered user: User:Iamanone0

[38] [39] [40]

So far, this user has only threated to hunt down and kill the bot for changing back their additions to the article. But I don't want to now add myself to the kill list by notifying this new user on their talk page. I will notify them of my posting on this noticeboard. Fylbecatulous talk 13:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked two of the recently used IPs and indefinitely blocked Iamanone0. If this doesn't take care of the problem, the page can be semi-protected. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Fylbecatulous talk 14:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive reverts by IP 194.22.5.16

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IP user 194.22.5.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have nothing better to do than planlessly reverting other people's edits. Please convince them to stop this idiotic pastime. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC) They haven't received a single warning. Don't you think there is a progressive process that should be accomplished before reporting them to administrators? Isn't there also a board for that? You haven't handled it well at all. Start with a level 1 or level 2 warnings on their talk page.--v/r - TP 15:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Did that. Sorry for troubling you. Go to sleep again. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Frida1983

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – user blocked, article protected for a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please block User:Frida1983 for disruptive editing in a news article Ramil Safarov. Please see the article history. --Yerevanci (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

They have already been blocked for edit-warring dangerouspanda 18:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wüstenfuchs

After discussing ad nausem and repeatedly going circles user Wüstenfuchs (talk · contribs) continues to refuse to get the point. Three of four participants have come to a conclusion and agreed what was the appropriate solution to a dispute, but Wüstenfuchs ignores this, canvasses a user, states "there was no consensus", begins an edit war, and edits the consensus solution to suit his own POV [41], [42], [43]. We have all been very patient in this discussion, but this is just ridiculous and clearly constitutes disruptive editing. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted myself. And two users, namely you and Timbouctou, don't make a consensus. --Wüstenfuchs 21:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It was actually three editors, you keep forgetting User:Czarkoff's participation in the discussion, who also agreed with the consensus you seem to be against. You were given ample time to convince other editors of your view, a huge amount of time was wasted on discussions about the issue in the past two weeks (a casual glance at the talk page will atest to that), and in the end you simply started edit-warring when things didn't go your way. Bringing this to ANI is not only justified but necessary. Timbouctou (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You reverted Timbouctou's edits two times [44][45] and, as Timbouctou points out, "only then did you revert your own revert, but then proceeded to tweak the lede to fit your ideas ([46], [47], [48])." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 22:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me... but I haven't noticed Czerkoff's reply... I reverted the lede. --Wüstenfuchs 22:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan and AfDs

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/GeoSwan and AFDs. This is not a comment on any of the issues being discussed in the thread — it's purely an issue of its size, which was overwhelming everything else on this page.

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Reasons for creating this page This is the largest ANI discussion that I've ever seen without looking in archives, and it's so large that it's dwarfing everything else on the page by a massive margin. Looking in archives shows me that some incidents in the past have grown so large that they were moved to separate pages, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011, so I've created this page on that pattern. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC) User:Geo Swan and AfDs Hi, AN/I. I'm concerned about the sheer number of deletion nominations that are taking place of material written by User:Geo Swan. Users unfamiliar with the history of this are invited to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, but the gist of it is that Geo Swan is one of our most productive content creators—but many of the things he's written do not comply with Wikipedian norms. I have no objection to Geo Swan's material being nominated for deletion. When one editor nominates more than 60 pieces written by Geo Swan in the same month for deletion, then that's a potential problem because the guy's entire corpus is being destroyed faster than he can defend it. Basically, it takes time to defend stuff at AfD, and Geo Swan isn't being given a chance. In my view this is not fair. I expressed my concern to the user involved, DBigXray, here. Was that the most diplomatic phrasing ever? Probably not, and I'll take any lumps I've got coming to me for that. What I found was that DBigXray gives a very robust defence and may not have a very thick skin. So I left it there. What happened then was that in a separate discussion, a deletion review, I saw that the multiple nominations were causing Geo Swan significant distress. See here. As a result of the Deletion Review, the article in question was relisted at AfD, and I expressed the same concerns more forcefully in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed Qasim. You'll see the same pattern, with the robust defence from DBigXray and an accusation from an IP editor that I'm "poisoning the well". Am I? I hate posting on AN/I and I always try to avoid it. What I would like from this is for editors to agree some kind of cap on how many of Geo Swan's articles can be nominated for deletion all at the same time.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Clarification, The deletion review[49] has been wrongly portrayed above. The article was CSD G7ed by Author Geo Swan while an ongoing AfD was discussing it, Due to CSD G7 the article got quickly deleted, and the ongoing AfD (now moot) had to be closed. But another editor User:Joshuaism unaware that it was author Geo Swan had asked from CSD G7[50] started deletion review with WP:AOBF towards Bushranger for closing the discussion and deleting the article. After the discussion at Deletion review the AfD was reopened again and finally closed as delete--DBigXray 11:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC) For further clarity: I did not delete the db-author'd article. I merely closed the AfD as "moot due to G7" as it had already been deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think that there should be a special "rule" just regarding articles created by Geo Swan. One option would be to suggest a change to the deletion policy that would limit the number articles created by a specific editor that could be listed simultaneously at AfD. I don't think this is the ideal option, but I think it is better than having a "rule" just regarding articles created by one editor.--Rockfang (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC) That would probably need a RfC. What I'm looking for at the moment is a specific, immediate remedy.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC) You need context to the poisioning the well comment I made. This was in relation to you insisting that loading the AFD with meta discussion on if someone should be allowed to nominate multiple articles must stay within the AFD discussion rather than being discussed on the talk page or somewhere like RFC or here. Your comments were nothing to do with the value of the article or otherwise. No admin should close the discussion based upon such opinions so the only impact could be to sideline the afd from the issue it is supposed to address. That isn't an issue of if the broader subject warrants discussion. I'd only see a cap on the number of deletions possible if we are also willing to impose a cap on the number of creations. If someone has created a large number of articles which don't have the sufficient sourcing etc. to stand up on their own but then take a significant time to defend each one, then I don't think we should be encouraging such large creation in the first place. Additionally if only one editor (the original author) is the only person who can or will defend an article at AFD, then there is quite a problem with those articles anyway. I#ll also note that you discuss DBigXray as apparently not having a thick skin being an issue, yet the very same thing about Geo Swan you seem to be something we should be sympathetic towards, you can't have it both ways. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Is it your position that user conduct is irrelevant to AfD closes?—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Why should it be relevant? The decision should be made on the merits of the case - on our policies and guidelines. But the main issue for me here is that it appears that most of these articles have BLP issues, and given that, the faster they can be dealt with the better. Normally we might not care about how fast we deal with a large group of articles, but if there are BLP violations, and apparently there are, I'd definitely oppose a cap. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Is it your position that not using appropriate dispute resolution, instead just declaring in an AFD that there is a user conduct issue, is a constructive way of progressing things? Is it your position that content inappropriate to wikipedia should remain there, based on S Marshall (or any other editors) personal judgement that the person nominating it for deletion is not being "fair"? It is my position that user conduct issues are not the subject matter of AFDs, that's what we have dispute resolution for. Presupposing and judging that there is a user conduct issue is pretty much out of order. Your emotive summary of the matter on the afd "DBigXray is going through systematically destroying Geo Swan's entire corpus..." is not likely to be constructive in determining if the article is "useful" for wikipedia or not. It is unlikely to add any particular light to the discussion, just heat. Certainly if I had listed a set of articles for deletion beliving that I was doing the right thing clearing up BLPs etc, to have someone come to the discussions not comment on the substance of it the articles are valid or not. but instead declare my motivation as being to systematically destroy someone's entire corpus, then I'd certainly be annoyed (and I'd also question with who the user conduct issue lies) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC) This all seems rather tangential. If you really must continue this discussion, kindly take it to user talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Sixty nominations in a month is clearly going to overwhelm both the AfD process and the article's creator. It takes 30 seconds to AfD something with Twinkle and move onto the next, maybe five minutes if done manually—either of which is considerably less time than it takes to make a good case to keep the article. I think a formal cap would be instruction creep, but there really is no good reason for one editor (in good faith and employing common sense) to nominate more than one article by the same author every few days. Perhaps the discussions could be placed on hold somehow until GeoSwan has been allowed sufficient time to respond to the nominations and make the case for the articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 30 seconds to AfD ? And what about the time that I spend trying to find sources and look about the notability of these BLPs and following WP:BEFORE prior to nominating these article for AFD, I feel in the above comment it has totally been ignored while it should have been taken into consideration. --DBigXray 10:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC) DBigXray in the boilerplate nominations you kept placing you routinely asserted you had complied with the advice in WP:BEFORE. I am not going to speculate as to why you would make these assertions even when lots of secondary sources did exist, I will only inform readers that I think you routinely did so. DBig, in one of your bulk nominations of half a dozen articles you decscribed them as all being about Guantanamo captives, when several of those captives had never been in military custody at all, at Guantanamo, or elsewhere. Rather they had spent years in the CIA's network of secret interrogation camps, that employed waterboarding and other "extended interrogation camps". I regard this as a really telling mistake, one that demonstrates that, contrary to your claim above, you weren't bothering to read the articles in question prior to nomination, let alone complying with WP:BEFORE. Ideally, no one participating in an {{afd}} should take the nominator's claim they complied with WP:BEFORE at face value, because nominators are human, thus fallible, some nominators are newbies, or have unconsciously lapsed and let a personal bias taint the nomination. Ideally, everyone participating in an {{afd}} should take a stab at reading the article -- at least to the point of reading beyond the scroll -- if it is a long article. Ideally, every participant should do their own web search, even when the nominator claims they complied with WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately, one often sees a lynch mob mind-set develop in the deletion fora. In my experience, when that lynch-mob mindset develops, only the fairest minded participants do more than read the nomination itself, before leaving a WP:METOO or WP:IDONTLIKEIT and this is what I believe happened here. Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Actually, per WP:AGF, you should assume that the nominator has attempted to comply with WP:BEFORE. You just shouldn't assume that their Google-fu (or JSTOR-fu, or whatever) is good enough to assure that their WP:BEFORE was adequate. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Not too much opinion on the overall conflict, but generally, if someone's Google/Jstor-fu is inadequate to research a topic adequately before starting an afd, they should refrain from starting further afd's until they have upgraded their google/jstor skills, per WP:CIR. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC) comment First i have removed 10,000 from the title, this is an attempt to sensationalize this discussion. For the record I have no history of editing or confrontation with Geo Swan anywhere on Wikipedia, and i have no malice against Geo Swan nor with his creations. I have no interest in Geo Swan's contributions whatsoever. I am active at military weapons, ships, History and terrorism related articles. I came across these articles via the categories on terrorism related articles . I have also created BIOs of few militants and militant organizations myself and I have also improved a number of articles on notable Guantanamo prisoners if they agree with the policies "irrespective of who created it" . I nominate articles only when I am fully convinced that they are clear cases of policy violation "irrespective of who created it" . AS the admins have access to deleted pages, they are free to check the deleted pages from my AFDs that I have also nominated several non-notable BIOs and articles created by editors other than Geo Swan if they do not satisfy the guidelines. on Bundling I dont get any special joy in bundling these articles but I have started doing it as I was requested by AFD sorters and AFD contributors to WP:BUNDLE these AfD's for better discussion as single AFDs had to be relisted several times. I accepted that sane advice. Later on few editors protested against bundling and I accepted that and started nominating problematic articles individually. Finally we should always "remember" that it is not me but the community who decides what article to keep and what to delete based on the consensus at AfDs. I am only highlighting that these articles that have problem. Also note that the notability of these articles could not be established even after 6 years and even after extensive search I could not find any sign of notability of the subject and thats when i decide to AfD it, Many other AfD contributors have also tried and came to conclusion that these were poorly sourced WP:BLP articles violating WP:BLPPRIMARY. And ALL of these Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles have either been deleted or redirected. S Marshall above prefers to violate WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person, making false misleading accusations of bad faith. He has never addressed the subjects of the article but only concentrated on making personal attacks on the AFD nominator on these AFDs. S Marshall falsely accused me of making "quite virulent accusations" here on this AFD. I have never made any accusation against MArshall ever, forget about "virulent" or "quite virulent". On the other hand we can see SMarshall had accused me of a Crusade on an AfD which itself is a severe Bad faith accusation on his part to which i left a civil and sane reply on Marshall's talk page[51] to stick to the content and stop doing WP:AOBF. And in reply to that I was threatened by Marshall to be dragged to ANI (Which he has done). From what i See , accusing me of making "quite virulent accusations" is clear case of Lying WP:ABF and WP:AOBF by SMarshall opposite to WP:AGF. --DBigXray 10:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Your 60+ nominations of articles by the same editor in the same month, is the point you should be addressing here.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I am more concerned about these poorly sourced Negative Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles violating WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLP1E as far as I am aware , Biographies of living persons is something that Wikipedia takes very seriously. These articles should have been deleted while WP:NPP but may be it escaped the eyes of new page patrollers as geo swan has Autopatrolled/reviewer rights. Also from the comments of Geo Swan on AfD i feel that he is still unaware of policies of WP:BLP or choses to blatantly ignore them, but then it is not something that i should care about. My concern is the Content not the contributor, I have already made my comment. and explained my position as clearly as I can. I have always followed community consensus and here also I will follow what the community decides to do with these problematic WP:BLPs, I dont have anything else to say here, regards--DBigXray 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Was it just coincidence that you nominated all these articles by the same editor, then?—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC) As far as I know, through AfDs I am pointing out problematic WP:BLPs irrespective of who created it now if Geo Swan has created all the problematic policy violating non notable WP:BLP Articles, then you are Barking up the wrong tree. It is not me but Geo Swan who should make a clarification about it. For the record I have already stated above an i am repeating again, I have also nominated problematic BLPs of other editors and the admins having access to deleted page history can go ahead and check it. I will appreciate if you do not attack me on AfDs in future, AfD contributors should not comment if they are unable or unwilling to address the subject of the article but are more concerned in derailing the AfD debate by making ad hominem personal attacks against the fellow editors as you did on AFD here andhere Also the fact that S Marshall wrote 10,000 AFDs as the section title in an attempt to sensationalize the discussion clarifies that he is more interested in WP:DRAMA than participating positively on Articles or AFDs. --DBigXray 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Was it a coincidence? An accident? Or are you targetting one particular contributor whose edits have caused you concern?—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Please read WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT--DBigXray 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Stop it, the pair of you. The issue here is not (or should not) be why we have all these AfD nominations, but what to do with them and how to give each article a fair hearing and ensure that the author can mount a defence of each one if he is so inclined. Bickering over motives doesn't bring us any closer to resolving that issue. If you don't have anything unambiguously constructive to say, then don't participate in this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC) No, that's only part of the issue. I'm trying to establish whether Geo Swan is being personally targeted—which does matter, HJ Mitchell, and isn't irrelevant at all—and if so why he's being targeted. Sometimes it's legitimate to target one particular editor. If they're a serial copyright violator, for example, then everything they've ever written needs to be investigated. But as a general rule individual editors should not be targeted because of hounding and griefing concerns. 60+ nominations in one month is, prima faciae, damn good evidence of targeting, isn't it. I'd like to start a discussion about whether targeting is justified in all the circumstances, in the light of the RFC/U.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC) The RfC/U itself targets him. It isn't unreasonable for someone to look at it and come to the conclusion that he created a number of dubious BLPs, is it? And then to decide to do something about those BLPs? Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Is that what's happened? I've asked DBigXray, repeatedly, to tell us whether he's targeting Geo Swan or whether this is a coincidence. He won't answer (and accuses me of IDHT among other things because I keep asking). If DBigXray would confirm that he's targeting Geo Swan because of dubious BLPs, then we'd be making some progress here. In any case, the RfC/U does talk about the issue of targeting Geo Swan. I think that what applies to Fram applies to DBigXray as well. Don't you?—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Well If you read my above reply again you should be able to understand how I got to these articles but for that one needs to take out the earplugs out of his ears. Everyone else here knows what the real problem is but as we see above Marshall seems to be hellbent on Getting me banned from WP:Terrorism BLPs. Assuming good faith, for you and your understanding I am explaining this one last time. As said above I am active in BLP articles specially terrorism related I have created several BLPs Abdul Rehman Makki, Yasin Bhatkal, Fasih Mahmood, Zabiuddin Ansari, Naamen Meziche, Iqbal Bhatkal, Riyaz Bhatkal, 2010 Bangalore stadium bombing, August_2012_Mansehra_Shia_Massacre, February 2012 Kohistan Shia Massacre and many more. As we know these gentlemen work in organisations that are often interrelated or work in tandem. Obviously I am expected to come across these terrorism related articles, which led me to these BLP violation articles from the categories. I have tried and improved several of these BLPs and I have nominated the non notable WP:BLPPRIMARY violations Irrespective of who has created them . To be honest I am annoyed at these attempts of making imaginary relationships between me and Geo Swan, when there is none, If you dont believe me go and dig into my contributions and bring up a relationship if you are able to find one, until then STFU ! I hope this puts an end to the silly WP:IDHT statements that Marshall is repeatedly stating above, so that we can now concentrate on addressing the Real Problem of these BLP violations.--DBigXray 16:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I take it that you deny that you are personally targeting Geo Swan?—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC) (Later) Oh, and I'm not trying to get you banned from anything. I'm doing exactly what I said I was doing: I'm trying to get you to stop nominating very large numbers of Geo Swan's contributions for deletion at the same time. And that's all I'm trying to achieve.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I think Marshall has no confidence on our WP:AFD process and least confidence on the Afd contributors and Zero confidence on the AfD nominators. Could Marshall explain why he thinks only Geo Swan has to defend these articles ? do you feel all the AfD contributors are morons hell bent on deleting BLPs ? If the articles are notable anyone should be able to prove the notability and defend it at AfD if the consensus has a view that the article is non notable and/or a BLP violation, then its ought to be deleted. --DBigXray 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC) The articles you list are all related to Muslim terrorists in India, DBigXray. What have you done to improve the articles you nominate or that you considered nominating? What edits have you made to save Guantanamo and other American terrorism related detainees?--Joshuaism (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC) These are the articles that i started, the list of articles in which i have contributed is pretty long and I am not interested in giving another list of articles so feel free Dig into my contributions on Guantanamo and other terrorism articles and help yourself, regards--DBigXray 17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC) It is an unfair burden to make me prove a negative. It is much easier for you to provide the evidence (if it exists) as you should have a better knowledge of your edits than I do. --Joshuaism (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC) SMarshall and DBigXray -- given that this is supposed to be about GeoSwan, could ya'll stop the back and forth? I'd like to hear from GeoSwan themself. The linked RFC/U recommended a mentor -- did that happen? Nobody Ent 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I can't see any indication that it did. As I said, my main concern is the BLP articles, should we be asking for input from BLPN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) The ease with which an editor can defend his contributions should not be an issue in determining AFD - especially not in cases where a single user mass produces content that is substandard, and which includes blps. The problem is with the article mass creation, not with article mass AFDing. If a user creates a large number of dubious articles then he should expect that he will be implicated in a large number of simultaneous afds. That is how the process works. The alternative is to say that as long as you create enough substandard articles you get a get out of AFD free card. That's not the wikipedia I want to be a part of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC) As the guy that submitted the Qasim article for deletion review I feel I should share my concerns. DBigXray is submitting these AfDs at a rate that is too fast for any single user to review the merits of the articles. DBigXray states that he is performing this due diligence, but I have my doubts as all of his submissions consist of copy/paste boilerplate text, and I have not seen any significant edits on his part to shore up questionably notable detainees.Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) The rate of nomination for deletion is a function of the rate of creation. If the Afd rate is too high, it's an issue of the creation rate. Nobody Ent 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Not necessarily true. DBigXray can nominate 17 articles in a week, while GeoSwan did not create all of these articles in the matter of one week. Salim Suliman Al Harbi was created over an entire year after Omar Rajab Amin and GeoSwan and other editors have worked for years at improving these articles. All of this research and time can be wiped out in a matter of days by one "industrious" editor so long as a small but dedicated set of voters support him. Meanwhile the creator is discouraged from canvassing for favorable editors and they likely cannot be found easily after many years anyways. Not everyone can be as vigilant as DBigXRay. --Joshuaism (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Consensus on these nominations seem to only be made by the same editors, Nick-D, RightCowLeftCoast, Anotherclown,The Bushranger, and Vibhijain. With such a small userbase showing an interest in these articles, can we be sure that this is the consensus of the entire wikicommunity, or is it just WP:LOCALCONSENSUS?Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) There's no such thing as the entire wikicommunity; there are overlapping subcommunities. If those are the only editors currently interested in discussing Afds, that's the subcommittee that decides. (Exceptions would be made if there was evidence of canvassing or the like.). Nobody Ent 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I'm currently investigating whether Vibhijain is a sock-puppet of DBigXray. Both share an interest in keeping topics related to India and deleting all of these detainees. They also both have an odd habit of striking their votes (along with the entire attached comment) just before the close of an AfD and then voting to match consensus. (Vibhijain's AfD record)Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Well, you should keep you suspicions to yourself until your investigation is over. If you conclude there's a reasonable chance they're the same editors, take to WP:SPI, not here. Nobody Ent 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Done! Thank you for the recommendation! --Joshuaism (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Each of these nominations have a clear redirect target. but many of these editors vote to delete anyway. The Bushranger has recently started voting "Merge and Redirect", but the events surrounding the Qasim article made me worry he was actually acting contrary to his recorded vote. It appears that I was mistaken about that. Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) With such a clear redirect/merge topic, I don't know why any of them get nominated for AfD and it causes me to worry about efforts at censorship and WP:BIAS. Many of these pages include useful references that without archiving may suffer from linkrot, making research of their individual cases difficult in the future if the page histories are not preserved. Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) DBigXray claims he worries about BLP/BLP1E issues, but if that is the case, is he concerned about the lists of detainees as well? Could these lists be targeted on the same grounds? Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) You dont need to be concerned about my concerns and how I address my concerns, as an AfD contributor one should be more concerned about finding the notability of an article rather than making personal attacks and random Bad faith accusations on AfD contributors. As for the concerns on "What if..." There is a community at AfD that is competent enough to address anyone's genuine concerns on the articles.--DBigXray 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I'd like to see comments on each of these individual issues I've brought up. I understand that it may be necessary to break up my long comment to facilitate this. Please feel free to interupt me between each bulletpoint as it will probably make for better readability. Thanks! --Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Question Would Joshuaism also Like to be blocked (if he is proved wrong at SPI) per WP:BOOMERANG for the shocking display of Bad faith you have shown above ? Also you need to inform Vibhijain that you are implicating him and taking his name in this ANI case.--DBigXray 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you for allowing me to at least contact Vibhijain. It looks like you've already contacted everyone else mentioned. Thanks! --Joshuaism (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Well if you are taking names of editors at ANI you are supposed to inform them yourself, Informing editors who are being discussed here is not Canvassing and your linking to WP:CANVAS above is yet another WP:AOBF towards fellow editors What about my question above ? The Bad Faith shown above is extremely shocking, I think I have already said enough for any sane mind to get a clue, ill take a break --DBigXray 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I make my accusations against you in good faith. I seriously think there are issues with your AfD history and am not trying to discourage good faith edits by actual editors. But this appears to be a crusade on your part and even well meaning edits can be detrimental when editors do not examine the consequences of their actions and the biases at work in their behavior that work to the detriment of Wikipedia and it's community. --Joshuaism (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that's a contradiction in terms.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Well you have already given a demonstration of your good faith by filing a Bad faith frivolous SPI against me and Vibhijain at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray All the best --DBigXray 19:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC) And you have given a demonstration of your good faith at your talk page (archived). --Joshuaism (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC) First you said I am a sock of Vibhijain then you said I am related to Nangparbat If you dont want to see/identify the disruptive misdeeds of this banned sock, then there is nothing much we can do about it.--DBigXray 00:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Regardless of the outcome of any of the rest of this, you've successfully caused at least one editor to add the Guantanamo BLPs to the "list of Wikipeida things I won't touch with a 10-foot (3.0 m) pole." - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Comment The Bad Faith SPI initiated against me by Joshuaism has been deleted as Blatant disruption. --DBigXray 11:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC) (od, without reading the above) I've commented on quite a few of these AfDs, and I think that they're fine. Geo Swan shouldn't have created these articles in the first place and hasn't cleaned them up despite the serious concerns which were raised in the RfC over a year ago (despite being a very active editor in that period), so their deletion is long-overdue. I'd note that almost all of the nominations are being closed as 'delete', with most comments being posted as part of these discussions relating to BLP concerns. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC) I second what Nick-D is saying above. I had come across the GeoSwan Guantanamo-related articles before and I think the sheer number of these articles still sitting in mainspace (usually for years) represents a significant problem. These articles typically rely on a combination of primary sources (Guantanamo trial transcripts) and occasional few brief mentions in the newsmedia - almost always a far cry from satisfying WP:GNG or any other relevant notability requirement. The primary responsibility to do the necessary clean up lies with GeoSwan here. But since that is not happening, anyone else who tries, even to a small degree, to do the needed clean-up, deserves considerable credit. Redirecting some of these articles may be a possibility but in many cases even that is not the right solution and a straight delete is more appropriate. Redirecting is meant as a navigation tool for likely search terms - but many of the article titles in question are too obscure to plausibly qualify as likely search terms. Given the length of time most of these articles have been sitting in mainspace, I do not think there is anything unfair about the situation where a large batch of them gets AfDed at the same time. Nsk92 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC) Comment. I have been notified that I have been mentioned in this ANI, and one editor who is accusing another editor of misconduct have brought me up due to my AfD comments on a group of War on Terror related BLPs. First let me say that I am an active (off and on since 2009) editor within the sphere of military history, as such I have the Military DELSORT on my watch list, as well as other DELSORTs that relate to my participation in other WikiProjects and interests. I do not always make a statement in each AfD, however when I do I do research whether the subject in question meet the applicable notability guidelines, and see if the subject meets anything set forth in WP:DEL-REASON. In this case of these group of articles, I found them through one of those DELSORTs on my watch list, and have rendered my opinion (which other editors may or may not share) after looking for reliable sources that meet the criteria set forth in the applicable notability guidelines. I don't see anything wrong with my actions in this regard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I must disagree with Nsk92 and NickD here. I think it is well established that trying to delete too many articles of the same type at the same times is abusive. It is easily possible to nominate more articles in a short time than can possibly be dealt with, and this gives an unfair direction to the process in favor of deletion, because no one can possibly do the amount of research to defend the articles that would be required in that time. I am not neutral in this matter, however, as I have repeatedly defended these articles when I thought it would do any good. I have only stopped, quite frankly , because I have gotten exhausted by the process of trying to combat what I think is the prejudice against them. anyone who pushes an issue at WP strongly enough can prevail over other editors with a less fervent devotion, and I think this is what has happened here. I think I'm pretty persistent, but i do not really have the fortitude to continue on the losing side forever. There are others here who are willing to keep at something till they eventually win, and they will be able to defeat me. In this case, the opposition has been a succession of editors over many years trying to destroy these articles, and that can be especially difficult for a reasonable person to combat. (I am not saying it is concerted action--just that a number of different people have had very strong feelings against these articles quite independently.) I think Geo is pretty tough minded also, possibly more than I am. The two of us are not enough, and our opponents have by and large succeeded. It happens elsewhere in WP, and if i couldn't live with that i would have left long ago. I've had frequent occasion to explain that to other people with valid complaints that are not going to be satisfied. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC) If the articles are adequately sourced in the first place, shouldn't they be snow keeps? Nobody Ent 09:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I am arguing they would be keeps if it were possible during the AfD to work on them to meet the objects, but at this speed of nomination it is not possible. I am also arguing, as I have in the past, that they would be keeps were there not a strong specific interest in trying to delete articles on this particular topic. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC) The problem with that is to try and rule to limit the amount AFDable becomes a positive discrimination the other way, better an editor creates a lower quantity and hopefully higher quality such that defence is either easy or not required than create a whole ruck which are "questionable" then collapse under the weight of defending/fixing them. i.e. I don't think you can see the problem as one sided. Also I thought wikipedia was supposed to work by consensus without specific examples it's hard to judge but what you describe is to a certain degree indistinguishable from that, if you find yourself constantly fighting a large number of editors with different view, at what point do you think that actually the consensus is against you? It's the classic edit warrior who believes that it's everyone else who hasn't wrong and they are one of the minority which is righteous. To be clear here I'm not suggesting DGG is an edit warrior, merely drawing a parallel - it's always a question of perspective and the suggestion that we legislate against an apparent consensus to protect those who know the truth shouldn't be entertained. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC) As those regularly here know very well, I have from the start consistently argued for keeping articles when the reason for deletion is affected by religious or political or similar considerations (such as small political parties or religious groups or other unpopular positions) . Those are general areas where often the community, or that part of it which chooses to participate, can, like any other group of people on such issues, make it impossible for reason to prevail. I deliberately to try to counter this by an active effort for broad inclusion where these considerations might be a factor. That in many cases the inclination is in fact my own political or religious or philosophical view is irrelevant to my consistency in opposing making decisions influenced consciously or unconsciously by such considerations. As I do this regardless of the particular politics or religion or other standpoint, I don't see how this makes me a zealot for anything but free expression for minorities and the unpopular. Nor do I think I am consistently found arguing in general at WP against a large majority. Often at XfD I am, because I am willing to do so, and express views regardless of the degree of opposition--most editors try to avoid that. I have had the satisfaction over the years of seeing some but not all of these positions become the accepted consensus, because I and a few others are willing to stand up for unpopular positions and take a long term view of it. Sometimes I do not succeed, but i succeed often enough to keep going. Anyone who thinks WP does not sometimes exhibit some religious or political or philosophical prejudice is either not paying attention, or blindly following any majority. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Comment I don't have the time to read the whole discussion, but I saw some false sock-puppetry allegations on me. From my side, one is free to ask a checkuser if these allegations are true. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Also I must point out that almost all of these problematic BLPs were created en masse in 2006, Even After 6-7 years their notability is not established. Even if you take 6 more years the situation will still remain the same, The only source where you find a mention is Primary sources, or at best a passing mention of name in news. As we can see from the RFC also, the problem with these BLP violations has been raised several times, and the author was asked to do something about it. But fact is the author cannot conjure up reliable secondary sources for few of these non-notable biographies to prove the notabilty, as a result not much has been done and the situation remains the same even now. --DBigXray 12:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC) One is free to make a WP:CHECKUSER request against Vibhijain but do not be surprised to be openly mocked by his coterie of friends and then have the request deleted (not closed!) by a friendly admin. --Joshuaism (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC) You don't seem to understand the difference between closing and deleting an SPI page.An SPI case page is usually archived if there is some evidence to prove the point..and if any CU/Patrolling Admin/Clerk makes some comments on it.In the recent SPI page started by you yesterday, you were reporting a well established editor who has been an administrator in over four wikis.Morever, you haven't produced any diffs or any sort of evidence whatsoever..leave the behavioral match!.If you wish to still pursue a RFCU on DBigXray and Vibhijain...make sure you get enough evidences to prove it...not behavior matches! Thanks TheStrikeΣagle 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Like a number of others, I am strongly opposed to GeoSwan getting any more of a free ride than any other editor. Not only is there no requirement that an AfD ought to be held up until such time as the article creator chimes in, hundreds of editors chime in at AfD, surely enough opinions to get the job done. If an AfDed article of his is worthy of defense, then someone will defend it. Ravenswing 12:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC) No, wait, that's not what I said. I never asked for special treatment for Geo Swan. If someone came along and nominated 60+ articles that you, or anyone else, had written in the same month, then I would be here saying exactly the same thing. This is what HJ Mitchell said earlier: More than sixty XfDs in the same month is bound to overwhelm both the user and the AfD system. It's abuse of process. Whether aimed at Geo Swan or not.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC) It's "abusive" to file lots of AfDs? Truly? Are you alleging that these are bad faith nominations? Are the nominations purely on specious grounds? Is there, in fact, anything wrong with these AfDs among the hundred-plus filed every day other than that the articles were created by a single editor? Sorry, I'm not seeing it, and I'm certainly not seeing any reason to fling the "abuse" slur. Ravenswing 08:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC) To answer those questions in the order that you raise them: (1) Yes. To file 60+ XfDs on one user in rapid succession is an abuse of process. (2) No. Whatever DBigXray might think or allege, I have never accused him of bad faith. I presume he is doing this in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless good faith actions can be unreasonable. (3) Yes. There is something wrong with filing so many AfDs at once, which is that it'll overwhelm and demoralise the relatively prolific content contributor who started them all, and also put pressure on our XfD process which is, nowadays, so ill-attended that it mostly consists of discussions that have been relisted for extra input. We get discussions nowadays that have been relisted twice and still nobody independent's had anything to say. Frankly, XfD was already creaking under the strain of Wikipedia's steady decline in active editor numbers, even before this. I see this issue as analagous to the old X-Y relations disputes we used to have in 2009, except that the Guantanmo BLPs do have sources and aren't just a massive case of WP:KITTENS. But the X-Y relations thing was stupid. We dealt with it stupidly. We repeated what was essentially the same discussion hundreds and hundreds of times, because we couldn't find a better process. Let's learn. If this user wants to target the Guantanamo Bay-related BLPs as a class (which is clearly what he wants to do) then we can come up with better ways of doing it than all these XfDs all at the same time. That might mean inventing an ad hoc process or just using an RFC, for example.—S Marshall T/C 09:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Geo Swan here First, I need to make a very serious correction -- I dispute I created a large number of articles that don't comply with the wikipedias standards. Rather I created a large number of articles that measured up to the standards at the time they were created, that, for one reason or another haven't been updated or rewritten so they meet the more stringent standards current today. I am on record, and I will repeat here today, I agree that all articles that don't meet the standards of today, and can't be updated or rewritten to meet those standards should be merged or redirected. The first Guantanamo related article I started was that of Murat Kurnaz. Its original state falls very short of today's standard this is not evidence that I am serial creator of non-compliant articles, rather it shows how our standards have evolved. The Murat Kurnaz article has been updated and rewritten, so I think most people would agree it meets today's standards. Why haven't I made sure every article on a Guantanamo captive I started was updated or rewritten, to meet today's standards, or that it was merged or redirected, if that wasn't possible? Short answer -- wikistalkers. Long answer, its complicated. As others have reported, DBigXray has accused me of personally attacking them, in multiple comments, when all I thought I was doing was sharing what he had written to me. So, let me state that it is not my intention to attack his character, or try to read his mind as to his motives. Having said that, DBigXray, in trying to defend the high volume of the {{afd}}s on articles I have created has made statements which are just not supported by his contribution history. He claimed he encountered me and my contributions "at random". In fact our first interaction was in June of this year, in the 2nd and 3rd {{Tfd}} for Template:Kashmir separatist movement. I thought it was a problematice {{Tfd}} for a number of reasons, like that the nominator had been edit warring and using inflammatory language in his or her edit summaries. Here is a comment I made, where I said it looked like those favoring deletion did not seem to have been prepared to try collegial discussion, prior to claiming the template was hopelessly biased. In his reply he claimed that if I looked at the templates revision history I would see those who favored deletion had tried discussion. I did look at the revision history, and tried to explain how "discussions" of controversial topics that take place in edit summaries are triggers for edit warring, as the other party has to partially or fully revert you, to reply, and that it is far better to have a discussion that can be read later by third parties, on the relevant talk page. Was what I saw in this discussion a small group of pro-India nationalists, trying to win their way in this template, without regard to the wikipedia's policies? I just checked DBigXray's four edits to that template. His edits in the template itself seemed reasonable, and not instances of edit warring. But his comments in the {{tfd}} were defending the blatant edit warring of the nominator, who has a long history of being blocked for edit warring. DBigXray's first nomination of an article I started was June 15, less than a week after that Tfd closed. DBigXray has claimed he has shown no animosity towards me, and has not been harrassing me. This also not supported by his record. (See User talk:Geo Swan#Participating in Deletion discussion) In those first few {{afd}} DBigXray told me that I was knowingly violating policy, and was in a conflict of interest, because I had not explicitly noted that I was the contributor who started the articles in question. An uninvolved third party came along, and explained to DBigXray, that I was not in a conflict of interest, and wasn't violating any policy -- but not before DBigXray's demands became extremely unpleasant. With regard to DBigXray's original point -- they wanted the articles to be redirected to the articles on captives of their nationality. On July 11th, 12th and 13th I redirected 300 articles to the articles on the captives of their nationality, with an edit summary of "redirect as per User:Geo Swan/Redirecting Guantanamo captives articles to the list articles on their nationalities". In that note I explained that I thought some of those articles could be updated to meet the current standards. But, if so, they would require multiple hours each. I said I would seek opinions from others, prior to turning any of them back from a redirect to an article. Geo Swan (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Thank you Geo Swan for finally making a comment on the discussion about the articles, but rather than addressing the content and lack of notability that needs to be explained you choose again to point the fingers at the Nominator, Please note that your opinions/accusations with out proof have no relevance. As for the change in policy, I am not familiar with the old policies but i believe there cannot be a dramatic change between the BLP policies of then and now. WP:GNG is something that needs to be satisfied anyhow. May be at the time of creation it was thought that more sources will be added as newer sources come, out, but we should accept the fact that many of these were examples of WP:BLP1E and I am not sure how waiting for more time will get you more sources. Also I should point that Geo Swan had declared about the benefits of making a Fake show of good faith while harboring bad faith. I hope the admins will see how non-related things are being connect with imaginary explanations. Connecting the template discussion with Guantanamo articles that too after so many days is something I would call as ridiculous. I have never targeted Geo Swan in my AFDs, but Geo Swan has made slant remarks of bad faith at both the nominator and the contributor. Even in his above comment we see the same has been done. What I see here is a case of, "when there is no way to prove a BLP violating articles notability through fair means then go around making bad faith accusations against the Nominator and implicate him however you can." and a few great examples of this have been presented above in the thread. I am not going to make any more comment on the WP:AOBF above and below, I believe I have already said more than enough about my stand and I leave it for the admins to decide--DBigXray 13:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC) You ask us to assume good faith of you a lot, I notice. You're targeting one particular user, aren't you? With 60+ AfDs in the same month aimed at the same person, it's completely obvious that that's what you're doing.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I dispute I counseled "faking good faith". I think a fair-minded reading of my comment is that I counseled continuing to struggle to give the appearance one was still assuming good faith, when one felt one's correspondent had shown bad faith, because: (1) in spite of a heated suspicions, they might merit the assumption of good faith after all; (2) continuing to show the appearance of good faith, in the face of what seems like bad faith, can make your correspondent return to good faith behavior. I didn't say, but I could have added, it is better for the project overall, when at least one party to a discussion can continue to show good faith, than to have all parties ignore WP:AGF. Geo Swan (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Replies and comments from other users Anyone who nominates this stuff should be given a barnstar. At this point, Geo Swan should be topic-banned from any military/War on Terror/Guantanamo-related article. We've been cleaning up his mess for, what, a year now? Either we're sifting through dozens and dozens of primary-sourced prisoner BLPs at AfD or addressing the junk still leftover in userspace via MfD. Enough is enough. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) The barnstar of wiping an entire topic off of Wikipedia? I don't think I've stumbled across that one yet. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC) as you say, if one is determining on not having articles on an issue, a good course is to prohibit their proponents from even speaking up. I said above why I will defend unpopular positions, and this suggestion is an illustration of what will happen if at least some people do not do so. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Similarly if one is determined on having articles on an issue, a good course is to prohibit proponents of that from even speaking up, by (say) trying to limit their ability to have deletion discussions on them, or by persistently badgering them about their motives - all of which can be witnessed above. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC) I would encourage Mr. Swan to start a website with the prisoner bios. I think this is valuable material that needs to be "out there," even if WP might not be the place for it. Ironically, such a website of scholarly bios might provide the basis at some future date, when more is published by others, for a restoration of these biographies to WP in a form compliant with current BLP standards. I also would like to add that I think Tarc's tone is out of line and unbecoming. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - First of all, I have no idea where assuming good faith has gone and went, as a colleague of mine would say. I completely agree that, when Geo Swan started his mini-project on detainees, it was certainly within the parameters of normal editing for general notability. Some people need to give him a bit of slack. Well, as we know, consensus can change around here, and in this case, I see that it has. Even I, often accused of inclusionism, have moderated my practices and idea(l)s, as documented in April 2011 and May 2011. In fact, I detected a growing consensus in the spring of 2011 of a tightening of the outcomes of debates at AfD. We also saw that ion the massive clean-up of unreferenced BLPs a while back. So I think you can't blame Geo for being upset that the Project is changing around those issues. It is particularly cruel to post 60 AfDs, which overwhelms the deletion process -- especially when so many North American Users are on vacation! Geo has been a perfectly fine editor, and remains so. I would not topic-ban him in such circumstances, and like DGG, I defend his right to a minority viewpoint. Geo's work has, on the whole, been of great benefit to the Project, and it would be awful to lose another useful User. On the other hand, we really need to construct a more specific guideline or to clarify written consensus that we have been merging the merely or barely notable BLPs on detainees into groups of articles - such as Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay -- leaving individual articles only for those detainees who are most clearly notable. I hope this comment is helpful for the discussion. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Here is a diff in which two editors tried to talk to DBigXray, and he/she removed the discussion with the word "badgering".  The issue which Geo Swan was trying to address is relevant to this entire discussion, because the diff shows that DBigXray removed material from an article seven minutes before bringing it to AfD.  This is a situation which makes it easy to read consensus from the mind of the nominator, which is that the deletion nomination was insufficient on its own merits and needed help.  The deletion discussion for Habib Noor stipulates that there was reliable primary material, but there was no WP:BEFORE analysis as to what to do with the reliable material as per WP:ATD alternatives to deletion.  Each argument in the AfD discussion is consistent with a merge result, and the most efficient way to have brought feedback into this system was for an administrator to have closed the discussion as WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion, WP:NPASR, early on July 2.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC) And here we have another WP:AOBF, You are not able to see the content removed yet you assume that it was obviously my cardinal sin to do that, with complete disregrard to WP:AGF. The content was a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY& WP:COATRACK and had been removed by several other editors in past also but Geo Swan (for whatever reasons) had reverted the problematic content back into the article. --DBigXray 23:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Just a note that the diff where "...DBigXray removed material from an article seven minutes before bringing it to AfD." had no bearing whatsoever on the subject's notability, being general material about the tribunal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC) That doesn't explain why the material was removed.  And it doesn't change that the nominator saw the article as something to be edited, not as something that would soon disappear.  However, I have redacted three words that are not helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I know that I have started to edit an article, removing badly sourced material, unsourced promotional stuff, whatever, and only then realised that the problem was simply that the subject of the article wasn't notable anyway and then took it to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, and mileage may vary and people are not perfect; but such truisms are not helpful or relevant; for example, you wouldn't have re-thought your position and had the article at AfD seven minutes later, would you?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Comment by uninvolved editor OpenFuture: The argument here is that it's hard to defend many articles being sent to AfD. Instead it should somehow be hard to keep Wikipedia policies in place regarding articles, and that you should be able to "override" WP:N etc by creating many articles at once. That of course doesn't make any sense. The problem here is the assumption that it is hard to "defend" articles. This is false, articles does not need defending at all, and you need to spend zero time defending them. Several editors take a look at the AfD and if the article has merit, then it stays. The article creator needs to put no time on defending the article at all. What takes time is not defending articles, but creating good articles that can survive an AfD. If Geo Swan is creating articles at such a high speed that he does not have time to make the articles good enough for Wikipedia, then he should slow down the article creation, and instead put his time and effort into making the articles good enough that they survive an AfD or even better, don't get AfD'd at all. As such there can be no limit to how many of an editors articles get an AfD per month or day or hour or year. If the editor creates good articles that fulfill basic Wikipeda requirements, then this is simply not an issue. If he get's 60 articles AfD'd per month, then he needs to slow down article creation and concentrate more on quality and less no quantity. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, of course, if that was what was happening you'd be right. But what is happening is years of work are being attacked by a couple of users in a very short time frame. The same thing happened a few years ago, and one of those two users later tried the same tactic on me. (The other is banned.) And I can tell you that it is not fun seeing someone combing through your contributions for things to revert, delete or report. Geo Swann has been very open about his work, and very amenable to making changes, merging articles and other improvements, and for this he should be commended. Asking the "deletionists" to behave colligially is a good idea, and should be responded to positively. Rich Farmbrough, 06:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC). From an editor who has had nothing to do with any of these articles: That many AfD nominations that quickly for articles (apparently) in those conditions is absurd and, further, disruptive. I would love to see a proposal to prevent DBig from nominating absolutely anything to AfD for a time, but I won't suggest it here. After all, the damage has already been done. When created, these articles passed the standards of the time. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC) We need to keep article creation somehow accessible to everyone. There must be other ways to stamp an article, other than AfD. When I read articles, I do notice the warnings on attribution and original research, and I do take them into account, readers are not dumb. But articles need to be able to have their existence awarded even in their rough form, even if it takes five years to get the article in it's final accepted form. I thought this was what WP was al about. I just hate seeing entire articles gone, even if they start out as all original research. Jdesmet (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC) Fundamental problem of Wikipedia At the core, good faith supports all the positions expressed above. A fundamental problem of Wikipedia is the incoherence between Notability and Verifiably. The former says articles can exist if the subject is notable, even if entirely unsourced; the latter says unsourced material can be removed. But you just know that turning a totally unsourced article into the blank page (per V) is going to bring the wrath of WP upon you (Pointy!) (because of N). Likewise burden says the writer should be sourcing the stuff, whereas before says that noticing an article might not be encyclopedic suddenly makes the noticer responsible for fixing it. Nobody Ent 22:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC) wp:BEFORE does not make the person who notices that an article "might not be encyclopedic" responsible for fixing that article. Before doesn't even kick in unless you decide not to fix an article but to delete it instead. If you doubt whether the subject of an article is notable then we have tags for that and if you consider that a fact or even a whole article needs sources then we have tags for that as well. Only if information is contentious or blatantly wrong does it need to be summarily removed, and in such circumstances there is no obligation on the remover to check first to see if it can be sourced. Most of the time Notability and Verifiability work well together, they only start to seem incoherent if you take an overly deletionist attitude and especially if you treat verifiable as the same as verified. ϢereSpielChequers 08:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Which essentially invalidates WP:BURDEN's alleged You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Because sticking a tag changes an unsourced article or section into an unsourced article or section with a four year old tag on it. Nobody Ent 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Checking for reliable sources doesn't really take that long. Google News, Google books and Google Scholar, and if you can't find anything there, then I think an AfD is acceptable. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I think the main issue is that a topic can be notable (WP:GNG isn't the only guideline) when insufficient sources exist. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD I'd propose that DBigXray be asked by the community to nominate no more than 2 or 3 articles week by Geo Swan. Issues of socking, ABF, etc. aside, there is no rush to get these removed (and if BLPN feels that in fact there _is_ a hugely pressing need to remove articles that have been 6 years we could redirect them I suppose). Support as proposer. There is certainly debate about bad faith, BEFORE, socking and notability. But no one seems to disagree with the notion that high-speed AfDs make it difficult to fix these articles before they get deleted (which I think we'd agree is optimal if they are fixable). Hobit (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - - I believe that this is a reasonable proposal that I might even consider supporting. But AfD is not clean-up and I believe that there are few detainee articles that require deletion as nearly all of these articles have a good merge/redirect candidate list. Has anyone considered nominating these articles at Proposed mergers? It will allow DBigXray to address his concerns while giving Geo Swan and other interested users time to fix keep-worthy articles as well as transfer usable references and information into articles that they will eventually redirect to. They currently have a backlog of 3 months, and so long as these nominations are limited to two or three a week, these detainees and detainee lists should be workable without being overwhelming. Limiting nominations to three a week would also limit any disruptions caused by False consensus or local consensus and without the threat of deletion, my worries about censorship would be alieved. So long as no other users are nominating detainee articles this should be workable. Thoughts?--Joshuaism (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Nope. Speed limits do not address problems of "bad faith, BEFORE, socking and notability". This is just another attempt to stymie the AfD process through the introduction of arbitrary barriers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose: I'm with Chris; if these nominations are on specious grounds, if they are poorly executed, if the subjects are discussed in significant detail by multiple reliable sources, as the GNG enjoins, then there are grounds for speed limits. I am, however, unalterably opposed to the AfD process being changed to suit a single editor's convenience. If the articles pass policy muster, there will be people defending them at AfD, as is always the case. If they do not pass policy muster, then any one editor's presence is irrelevant. Ravenswing 08:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Support On the 14th Aug BigXray notified GeoSwan of eight AFDs and MFDs in under an hour, including two in one minute. Slowing down would give DBigXray more time to properly look for sources, and take some of the heat out of the situation. ϢereSpielChequers 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Chris and Ravenswing explain it well. Should he slow down the rate of his nominations out of courtesy? Perhaps. Should he be forced to slow down through sanctions? No. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose Per Chris,Raven and BushRanger.Enforcing sanctions on a user who creates legit AfDs' only to reduce the work load(back log) of AfD process seems ridiculous. TheStrikeΣagle 09:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Look at the RfC linked to in S Marshall's opening statement. Geo Swan was (or should have been) aware of the problems with his articles after some 200 or so were deleted through AfD and the like. When left alone after the RfC ended, he basically did nothing to correct the problems with his articles. The problem is not the speed of the current AfDs, the problem is the existence of these articles for many, many years, and the reluctance of Geo Swan to clean up his articles and his userspace. The desired outcome of the RfC was "User:Geo Swan voluntarily refrains from creating anymore BLP-related articles (broadly construed) in the mainspace or in userspace until both his existing articles in the mainspace and in the userspace are checked and made fully compliant with BLP (and other policies) or deleted." Geo Swan still does not understand or accept that his view on sourcing (reliability and independence), notability (and the fact that it is not inherited), and BLP is different from the generally accepted Wikipedia norms. I don't only oppose this actual proposal, but would prefer this counter-proposal: Topic ban Geo Swan from all BLP related articles and from all Guantanamo related articles. Fram (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Unless I'm missing something, the 134,000 hits argument was made by a different editor. Kanguole 10:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks, struck out the comment for now (reading too many AfDs and mixing things from one with another). Will look for a better example. Fram (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Striking out doesn't work as I would like it, have removed the comment now instead. Fram (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose, and support Fram's counter-proposal above. Nsk92 (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Support - the mad rush of AfDs have overwhelmed the system. As Joshuaism points out, much of this can be done through the ordinary merger and editing processes. Furthermore, as Wier Spiel Chequers notes, we need to take out time for non-urgent deletions. I also strongly urge editors please do not censor minority viewpoints by way of topic ban; it will not only create further hassle/discord/incivility, but will do great harm to the Project by driving out productive editors. Bearian (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC) What "minority viewpoint"? Do you mean content-related, or policy-related? When someone has created hundreds of articles over years and years that need deleting, most of them for WP:BLP1E reasons, but continues to maintain that they should be kept, then there comes a point that one has to conclude that he is so far out of sync with our policies that some other way to enforce these policies should be found. A topic ban (from article space only perhaps) is one way of addressing this. A mentor was also suggested as a possible solution in the RfC, but I don't believe that the message of the RfC has had any effect, apart from me staying away from Geo Swan for a year. Not really the result most people at that RfC saw as the most urgent or necessary... Fram (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Errr ... exactly how "overwhelmed?" Are you seriously asserting that a process which receives between 70 and 120 AfDs a day is "overwhelmed" by sixty AfDs filed over the course of two months? This is absurd hyperbole at the level best. Ravenswing 12:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC) I think the system is overwhelmed too. Many people only follow AfDs in areas they care about. That there are 100s of others isn't relevant if many are showing up in the same area at the same time. And the cut-and-paste nature of many of the votes and nominations implies that even those responding are overwhelmed (or at least not looking case-by-case very well). Also, a bit of AGF would help here. You may disagree with people, but it helps avoid terms like absurd hyperbole and the use of scare quotes just because you disagree with something... Hobit (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) AGF is not a suicide pact. If you want to be treated seriously, don't make bogus arguments and use them to try to enact sanctions on editors to push your ideological agenda. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Weird, because all I'm doing is pushing for content to have a fair shot at being fixed before being deleted. I'm not pursuing ideological goals (or I don't think I am, not sure if you mean wiki-goals of trying to keep articles that can be fixed to meet our guidelines (true) or wider geo-political ideological goals (false)). I'd not considered this a saction before but clearly it is. I'd be quite happy with just agreeing that in general we should limit the number of AfDs to some reasonable count when a single author is involved if that removes that concern. The problem I'm having is that you seem to be seeing motivations which just aren't there (or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statements). I feel I've proposed something fairly reasonable. I don't mind losing the debate (ok, well a little) but the ABF coming from you all is just odd and seems to be really overkill. I'm not quite sure where all the heat is coming from, but the rage some of you appear feel for this issue seems to be coloring your view. Thre are valid views on the other side the debate. Please acknowledge that and move on. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Weird, because all the Oppose advocates are doing is rejecting the notion that AfD needs to be changed because some people (heaven knows why) finds an average of one extra AfD a day to be an onerous imposition. As far as a "fair shot" goes, some of these articles have been hanging fire for years. If neither GeoSwan nor his supporters have sought to bring these articles up to notability standards, nor seem to find the time to do so in the week an AfD usually lasts (as opposed, for instance, to discussing the matter at length here), I can't see why they ought to be given special consideration ... especially since the community, by and large, feel that they do not satisfy notability guidelines. (After all, if you believe that the subjects are notable, what prevents you from recreating any article for which you've done the research after the fact?) That aside, for someone urging AGF and opposed to terms you don't like, you are quite quick yourself to put words in the mouths of others and impugn "heat" and "rage" to those you oppose. Why is that? Ravenswing 05:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) You are right, I shouldn't have used those words. I couldn't see any other explanation, but AGF says I should assume one exists. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose there's no reason to stop these perfectly valid AfDs (almost all are closed as delete), and as Fram notes Geo Swan has been given heaps of time to fix up this mess involving BLPs he created but has failed to do so. A topic ban for Geo Swan as proposed by Fram has a lot of merit (especially as he's still been creating highly questionable articles on Guantanamo-related topics in recent months), but that should be considered as an entirely separate process. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Support, for the moment. We should create some kind of task group or sub-process that can take all these articles together as a class. Spamming AfD with them all and watching the same users copy/paste the same !votes into all these different discussions is inefficient and impracticable.—S Marshall T/C 11:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Comment: Is there some other means of deleting these articles other than at AfD? Were such a task force to conclude that the articles did not pass muster, would they not have to go to AfD all the same? Would not, in fact, those AfDs have to be considered piecemeal, because bundling a mass amount would never be acceptable? In short, no change ... other than creating another bureaucratic layer, which is what I would call "inefficient and impracticable." Ravenswing 12:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC) If I've read DBigXray's point #2 up-thread accurately, then originally DBigXray created multiple noms only to be told that this was unworkable and that they needed to be nominated individually. Catch-22. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) The task group would presumably pop everything within scope into an unindexed space such as the incubator, then merge everything that can be merged, redirect everything that can be redirected, and whatever residue is left over could be removed with CSD G6 or G7.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose - No reason for special treatment, nor reason to stop valid AfDs. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose Per Chris Nobody Ent 16:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Getting these god-awful embarrassments off the project needs to be encouraged, not tied up with wiki-red tape. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose as I think I've made clear above. If we have a load of articles that need AfDs, then we get a load of AfDs. It's not the fault of the nominator that these articles exist. We need to consider Fram's proposal also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose Chris nails it. It would be helpful if DBig voluntarily slowed down by half or more, just out of a sense of fairness, to allow others the opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff here, but imposing it is a non-starter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC) SupportThese AfDs are an abuse of process, and unfair to sensible consideration of the articles. I don't see why a pause is a non-starter--I think it's elemental fairness. No afds conducted at this frequency can be valid--only fair treatment with time for work and consideration makes a valid AfD. I note the hostility against Geo for his work on this topic. There seems to be an animus here which I find hard to justify on either political or personal grounds. If it is on political grounds, I think it would be motivated primarily by a desire to avoid articles on the topic, regardless of possible ways to rescue them; the attempt to enact a topic ban would then be downright suppression of ideas which are temporarily unpopular or uncomfortable, and shows a total incomprehension or disagreement with the concept of an objective encyclopedia. There's another so-called encyclopedia that does in fact work that way; it should serve as a warning against any similar tendencies here. If it is personal, then it is necessary for those with this sort of feeling to stay away from anything involving Geo. Who they are is obvious enough without naming them. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Wow. Deletionists = Conservapedia. Well, that's me told. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Ambivalent as to practicality, but endorse the spirit of the suggestion. I don't have any great desire to see most of these articles kept on Wikipedia, and I suspect I would agree with most of DB's nominations on a case by case basis, but I agree that the current approach isn't working out. Nominating dozens at once, which effectively overwhelms the ability to individually defend them regardless of quality, is problematic. A topic ban as initially suggested is definitely not suitable, but bear in mind that deliberately limiting the rate of deletion doesn't work out very well either. If the material is in fact inappropriate for Wikipedia, we would want to remove it sooner rather than later - saying "you can't delete that this month, there's too many AfDs already" is definitely undesirable. We could try grouping AfDs into a joint nomination, but especially where BLPs are involved it doesn't work very effectively - the variation between one case and another usually derails the discussion, and ends up with them all relisted individually to get a better discussion. (I believe there has been at least one bulk-AfD in the past with this topic.) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Strongly Oppose as being in direct opposition to fundamental Wikipedia values and policies. See my longer comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Strong oppose First my decision on AfD Solely depends on the notability and its adherence to the wikipedia policies and my WP:BEFORE not becuase an XYZ user had created it. The proposal wants me to check the article creator first which is simply ridiculous and will give a wrong message and set a wrong precedent, one should be more concerned about the content rather than the contributer. Its the over-emphasis on contributer that creates so much WP:Drama DBigXray 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Fram. The problem is the person who creates the articles after than they can defend them, not the person nominating for deletion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose If articles aren't encyclopedic need to go to AfD we shouldn't be forcing people to hold back. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose with comment It seems to me that placing an arbitrary restriction on a user is a very slippery slope indeed. Any user should have the right to attempt to improve Wikipedia. However, it seems to me that a blitzkreig style nomination to AfD is problematic. Therefore, why not make it so that the creator or a significant contributor to an article, in combination with an established and known non-sock puppet user, can delay an AfD or the closure of an AfD upon request. Therefore, if a user needs more time to defend or improve his work, he can get it within reason. 67.0.130.248 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Support as the most logical proposal I can currently see here. Also strongly against Fram's proposal as illogical given the facts in evidence (specifically article age). --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Support and a harsh {{trout}} to every opposer. I think there is a serious misconception and I've never been more disappointed in my fellow editors. These articles were created over a span of years at a time when they were in line with policy. Not that this justifies keeping the articles. What it does justify is time in deleting them. It will take time to bring these articles in line with today's standards if they can be. Nominating these articles for AFD all at once amounts to WP:GAMING the system. It is impossible, literally impossible given the hours in 7 days, to fix years worth of work. Every one of you needs a trout for not seeing this. AFD is an effective process because editors on both sides are given time to discuss, research, and come to a consensus. Targetting an editor's articles and putting them all up for AFD in a short amount of time is going to give you a biased consensus because the effort needed for the keep side is substantially greater and literally impossible to reach. Your going to be deleting articles that can be improved. And FYI, I fall greatly on the deletionist side and even I see how wrong this is.--v/r - TP 14:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC) BLP trumps ANY claim of "gaming" and such issues must be addressed IMMEDTIATELY upon being discovered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC) You've lost your mind. Gaming is the use of policies such as BLP and AFD in bad faith and requires a STRONG attention to what is going on. You need to look at what is going on before you blindly adhere to policy. Otherwise you're falling victim to exactly what they want you to do instead of using your noggin--v/r - TP 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose Addressing problematic BLPs should not be delayed. Geo Swan or anyone else who wishes to develop the articles so that cease to be problematic should be allowed to request up to two or three articles to be userfied in their space at a time. As and when they develop these articles to a state where they can be placed in mainspace then the users can request copies of further articles to be made available for them to develop.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Please look at the table below. DBigXray nominated 16 articles for deletion in a span of 7 days. What would you do if it were you? Fix them or tell the project to go fuck itself? The hounding nature of these AFD noms is going to hurt the project more than improve it. The task is made impossible to fix. Perhaps every one of these articles could be kept if given the proper attention. Perhaps Geo Swan might even be amiable to doing the work themselves. The delete and then ask questions later method isnt a viable method for a massive deletion of 6 year old articles that don't adhere to today's standards. If your concern is BLP, then point out specific BLP concerns to be addressed.--v/r - TP 20:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Support. Two or three nominations per week seems generous. Why does he need to nominate so many? It is unreasonable to swamp the process with such frequent nominations. Everyking (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose - I have more of an issue with the fact that these problematic articles were created in the first place. Onus is on the creator to make sure those articles are reliable, prior to submitting them to the article space. If that was in fact done in the first place, I don't think this thread would exist. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose. The rules on BLPs were strengthened to deal with the potential legal threats Wikipedia (or, strictly speaking, its editors) risk for potentially libellous material. These BLP changes have put the onus of better sourcing and verifiability on the articles' creators/maintainers. I don't see that quasi-batched deletions of Guantanamo inmates are an abuse of process. I have in the past batch deleted or had merged many articles that were part of a category, type or formula, and feel that under certain circumstances that tool must remain available. Articles should stand or fall on their own merits, and I would welcome anyone to put up for AfD any article I created or contributed to in the past. Articles get created far more easily than they can be deleted, and many get created for the wrong reasons, and are below specification. There is no need to place limits on nominations – the process is sufficiently transparent and enjoys adequate scrutiny. What I would like to propose GS and DBX to cooperate: let them, and anyone else who would wish to inject themselves into the process, work together instead of nominating for deletion, to merge or userfy all the 'offending items'. They would consider whether to merge or userfy, thus allowing GS to work on those inadequacies in his own time and at his own pace whilst getting problematic articles out of mainspace (reducing the risk both to GS and WIkipedia). As a last resort and for a small minority of remaining articles, and only where the parties cannot agree, should the article be taken to AfD (with all the inherent risks of that course of action). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Support Overwhelming the process means "victory by exhaustion", and is a bad faith tactic. While I actually would have voted to delete most of these had I seen the debates, a better way of doing it than this would have been to have a centralised discussion about the entire class of articles and what bar should be set (like an AfD, with a time limit, but without a deletion outcome.) Then a few editors classify them based on this, and the ones that fail that check can go to AfD in one batch nomination. (I'm just thinking aloud here.) Orderinchaos 09:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC) No special treatment for Guantanamo captives I don't think the Guantanamo articles should get "special treatment", nor do I think my contributions should get "special treatment". With regard to {{blp1e}} whether some of these articles are instances of it, and whether I have ignored or don't understand it -- what constitutes an "event" is a highly subjective judgement. As someone noted above the participants in these {{afd}}s who favour deletion are disproportionately contributors who have self identified as military experts. And, those who self-identify as military experts don't recognize that when captives were charged before unprecedented Guantanamo "military commissions" were no longer individual known only for one event. The self-identified military experts don't recognize that when independent third parties report captives were arrested, tried, convicted or acquitted after they were repatriated to their home countries were no longer known for one event. That other contributor above suggested that the opinions of the self-identified military experts represented a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, an overall minority view, and might not reflect a project wide view. Those who disagree with covering Guantanamo captives expressed a lot of impatience here. Hundreds of hours have been spent on {{afd}} for these individuals. I am going to propose a topic-specific notability guideline -- but not to get special treatment for Guantanamo captives. We have topic-specific notability guidelines WP:POLITICIANs, and WP:CRIMINALs. Those who self-identify as military experts want us to have a topic-specific notability rule for WP:SOLDIERs. I am not proposing a topic specific notability rule for Guantanamo captives, but rather for everyone captive who is held in some kind of extrajudicial detention. Bowe Bergdahl is also held in a kind of extrajudicial detention. If he had never been captured he would be no more notable than the less notable Guantanamo captives. That female South American politician Íngrid Betancourt who was held by guerillas for half a dozen years, then freed in a daring rescue was also held in a kind of extrajudicial detention. Waterborne Iranian guards captured a small boat with a half dozen Royal Navy ratings, a few years ago, they too were held in a kind of extrajudicial detention. Íngrid Betancourt was just one of about fifty political captives the guerillas were holding. I would see the topic-specific notability rules for extrajudicial captives applying to all of those fifty. I suggest that adopting topic specific notability rules here would avoid anyone thinking {{afd}} closures were instance of mere WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and could be specific as to what should or shouldn't class an individual as someone known solely for one event. Here I suggest some topic specific notability criteria for extrajudicial captives, for comment. Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC) BLP is a tricky business at WP, as you know. I'd suggest you start a site called guantanamowatch.org or some such to make sure that biographical information is not lost to those searching for it — and as a reminder of ongoing American human rights abuses with respect to the Bush-Obama regime's illegal detention program there. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC) It's a start, although currently too targeted towards Guantanamo detainees at the moment. There are some very good ideas in here regarding having a book written about them (surprisingly not already a part of WP:ANYBIO), being tried in a military commission (should probably be broadened to anything described as a kangaroo court), being named on a most wanted list, multiple incarcerations by different countries, and compensation. Have there been any notability guidelines proposed for POWs, Political prisoners, Prisoners of conscience, or just prisoners (other than criminals) in general? --Joshuaism (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC) No, we don't set up special notability categories for living people who are considered to be the victims of injustice by editors as you're basically proposing here. To be frank Geo Swan, you seem to be trying to use Wikipedia to further some kind of campaign against the Guantanamo Bay regime. The notability criteria you propose are hopelessly biased and fundamentally inconsistent with WP:BLP (for instance, you suggest that detainees become notable if the US Government labels them a "recidivist" as (in part) "This meme has been strongly challenged by legal scholars and human rights, who found, when one looks closely at the named individuals, it seems that for some of them all they had to do to get listed as "recidivists" was to agree to be interviewed about conditions in the camp."). Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC) Wait, wait, wait... Nick-D, are you saying that people who are declared recidivists, terrorists, and/or enemies of the state by the US government are not notable? --Joshuaism (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC) What's being said here is that they are not made notable simply by being declared those things. Being declared a recidivist, terrorist, and/or enemy of the state =/= automatic notability. They still need to pass WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPEOPLE, and/or whichever other guideline is relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Hear hear. It is a staple of people attempting to save non-notable articles to hotly declare, "But X makes them notable!" No, meeting the requirements of the GNG and the pertinent subordinate notability criteria is what makes them "notable," as Wikipedia defines the term. So far, WP:USAHATESHIM is not a valid notability criterion. Ravenswing 05:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Wrong! I'm saying that the initial capture and release is a separate incident from the declaration of recidivism. If there are reliable third party sources that report on these two separate events then the suspected terrorist is not a WP:BLP1E and the remoteness in time between the two events show continued interest and coverage.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Note that even if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply WP:GNG does. Appearing on a "list of people we don't like" doesn't confer squat. (Also note that if it did it would, ironically, make Wikipedia's systemic bias situation worse...or do we start assuming that Soviet Enemies of the State are notable? What about India's? Ecuador's? Grand Fenwick's?) Note also that "continued interest and coverage" =/= "significant coverage". - The Bushranger One ping only 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC) You forgot to mention China. And Singapore. And this list has a number of enemies of various states. Not all of those listed were imprisoned, many are of unquestionable notability, but others could be ripe cadidates for AfD if they were scrubbed as hard as these detainee articles have been. Would you recommend a strait down the list mass AfD of these articles? I would not. It would be more helpful to have a guideline to point to when we encounter non-notable imprisoned activists and freedom fighters. --Joshuaism (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC) "When we encounter non-notable imprisoned activists and freedom fighters" - we need to do the same thing we do with any non-notable person who has an article - delete the article, Q.E.D.. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Interesting concept you have there. So how many separate sources do you think it takes to meet GNG for a detainee? Because your history on BLP AfD's shows you hold detainees to a higher standard than voice actors(AfD - 0 sources), footballers(AfD - BLP1E), African government officials(AfD - 4 tangential mentions), and um... random people tangentially related to JFK?(AfD - BLP0E). These were all from the past two months while you've been happily voting to delete and merge Guantanamo detainees for failing GNG and BLP1E. I could not find one single detainee that you have voted to keep. How much continued coverage and how many secondary events will it take for you to consider any of them as notable? But at least you have shown consistency when it comes to deleting local political nominees. It would appear that you hold these secondary guidelines for WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NFOOTY, and WP:POLITICIAN in higher regard than GNG. Is this why you oppose a guideline for prisoners?--Joshuaism (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC) In cases where there is not a list to be merged to, I err on the side of keep. When there is a list to be merged to, I err on the side of merging. In those cases, as far as I know, there is no list or other article to merge-and-redirect to, which there is for detainees and political candidates. If there was a m+r target I had been aware of for those, that would have been my !vote, as there was not (that I was/am aware of), I !voted to WP:PRESERVE. As for "how much continued coverage/secondary events" - if they get arrested for something else, or become outspoken public figures, by all means; otherwise let's respect their privacy after their traumatic experience. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC) WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC) exactly--Guerillero | My Talk 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I agree. These mass AfDs are tenditious. We should work together to hash out a guideline that will separate the wheat from the chaff in these detainee articles and will prevent contentious AfDs.--Joshuaism (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC) ...you seem to have completely missed the point. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Did you follow the links? I think you are looking at 500 Watt sarcasm. I'll admit I'm not sure what direction it's pointing or if it's directed at us all. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I think it can be said with certainty that it is pointing squarely and only in Geo Swan's direction. Hundreds if not thousands of stubs on Guantanamo detainees and relates articles over several years, which btw are also being exported to other wikis such as wikialpha and guantanmo.wikia.com. This is an editor on a clear-cut agenda here. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry Bushranger. I don't see Wikipedia as a Zero-sum game.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Comment in regards to new notability essay. Anyone can write an essay; additionally it has been my experience that getting a new notability essay passed is very difficult. Also, the weight an essay receives is determined by the weight given to it by the community. The reason why certain essays, such as WP:SOLDIER carry weight is because of how it came to be, and has evolved, and it's continued use and support. Therefore, if one wishes to create an essay regarding notability of terrorist I suggest that WP:TERRORISM is the best place to find a group of editors interested in the subject, create a WikiProject consensus on what above and beyond WP:GNG would be considered notability within the scope of the project, and host the notability essay in a subpage of that wikiproject. As with SOLDIER, GNG comes first as it is the paramount notability guideline that all others spring from.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC) And if I saw the editors who participated in these AfD's at WP:TERRORISM (members list) I would move this discussion there. Clearly the community that is commenting right here is the one that should participate in shaping this guideline. It should be something we can all hold each other accountable to.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC) This isn't solely about Guantanamo captives though. Take an article like Jeffrey Groharing, which was prodded back in 2008 by an editor wholly separate from the RfC or the current AfDs (as far as I am aware). It has the same problems, i.e. a total lack of notability (hidden in part by the inclusion of pure trivia like "finished 1048 out of 9629 in a Marine Corps marathon"), and the counter-arguments are again cases of what Geo Swan thinks is notable, not what RS have found notable, like "I'd like to ask nominator, how many other lawyers can he name who have acknowledged withholding exculpatory evidence?". Or things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagram detainees' uniforms or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which makes for interesting reading. Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold (2nd nomination) and the accompanying DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 8. Fram (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I think Jeffrey Groharing ia one of the worst articles I've ever seen. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC) We all know that you have an involved history with Geo Swan, Fram. Please do not try to bias this discussion by pointing out other problematic articles by Geo Swan. Wikipedia has no deadline and WP:OTHERSTUFF can be addressed at another time. This section was created to discuss the possibility of setting a guideline for the notability of Guantanamo detainees and other prisoners. Geo Swan also created the article for Bowe Bergdahl and look at how it has blossomed! While, Bergdahl does not meet the standard for WP:SOLDIER, I doubt anyone would propose an AfD on that article now, even with its such humble beginnings. Perhaps that same magic can be worked on some of these detainee articles Geo Swan has made. But no one will be willing to put in the work if there is little certainty that the article will be preserved. Let's establish which one's are candidates for notability by creating this guideline. --Joshuaism (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC) That reasoning is backwards. If they put in the work, the article will be preserved. Therefore, claiming that no-one will be prepared to put in the work if there is a risk the article is deleted is not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think it is unreasonable to view a person's captivity at Guantanamo Bay as a status (like a career in music) which can generate multiple independent events of news coverage (capture, trial, protest, lawsuit, deal with Palau to resettle...). Wnt (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan The proposal (made informally above, more formal here as a separate section) is to indefinitely topic-ban Geo Swan from all BLP-related articles and from all Guantanamo-related articles, in article space and in the userspaces. He would be allowed to comment on talk pages, in AfDs, and so on. The reason for this proposed topic ban is that he is the only editor I am aware of who has had hundreds of articles on these sensitive topics deleted through AfDs and Prods, has had an RfC on the same topic, and is after more than five years still doing the same things and still arguing in favor of these articles, ignoring policies, guidelines and consensus, preferring to create a new guideline to be able to keep most of these articles. He has had ample time to clean up his act and clean up his many still existing articles (main space and user space), but instead it comes down to other people to find the problems and get them removed. After the RfC, he continued creating BLPs and Guantanamo related articles of very dubious notability, e.g. Camp Five Echo, Hamidullah Khan (Bagram captive), Ehsanullah Ehsan (Taliban spokesman) or the already deleted David Conn (judge). An article like Mansour Nasser al Bihani would not fall under the ban, but whether it should have been created is rather dubious as well. User:Geo Swan/tm was created as a copy-paste move of Tariq Mahmood (detainee) at the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Mahmood (detainee), and kept around since then, in violation of WP:STALEDRAFT. There is also something like User:Geo Swan/Abdul Razik, one of the many abandoned articles in his user space, which seems to be a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. WP:TLDR version: Because too many of his creations are problematic (at least with regards to notability, and often also for WP:BLP reasons), because he should by now be well aware of the consensus that many of his articles shouldn't have been created and that many of his userspace pages should long ago have been deleted (cf. the many successful AfDs and MfDs), and because he continues to create and edit articles and userspace pages with the same problems anyway, I propose the above topic ban. Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Support: if BLP is really a serious policy, it needs to be dealt with seriously. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Does it need to be this strong? Would simply banning the creation of new articles on the subjects in question suffice? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Perhaps. The wider topic ban would also prevent edits like this one (see the rest of the history and the talk page discussion for what was wrong with it), but I agree that preventing the creation of such pages is the main argument for the topic ban. Fram (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose -- Are you serious??? So many of Geo Swan's articles have been deleted (some too soon) only because there was a change in the Wikipediet temperament about the depth of this subject. Before that, many of these articles had been there for years -- and I've seen someone on C-SPAN praise Wikipedia for its GTMO coverage. It's not his fault that the sensitivities here have changed toward deletionism. And what are you going to do when those sensitivities swing back again? -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC) Comment: Quite aside from that Wikipedia's ongoing trend over the last several years has been to tighten notability standards - something at which opponents looking for a cheap slur wave the "deletionism" flag - not to yoyo back and forth, I daresay that should sentiments change and GeoSwan wants to revisit the issue, he can raise the issue and seek relief. Ravenswing 14:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose -- I obviously oppose this topic ban. I am not really familiar with the wikipedia's precedents for imposing topic-ban -- but surely it should be triggered by a record of terrible judgment or terrible bad faith? I've listed all the BLP articles I started since the 2011 discussion here. I suggest there that a topic ban on starting BLPs should be based on looking at the record of BLP articles started since the 2011 discussion. My challengers seem to be claiming that I have ignored those discussions, and created new articles that use the kinds of references that are no longer considered satisfactory. I don't think my record shows that. My note has a subsection -- does the record of BLP articles I created merit a topic-ban? I encourage anyone considering weighing in here to look at a handful of those articles and reach their own conclusion as to whether I genuinely show a pattern of starting articles. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I have noted at the talk page there that at least six of those pages are not BLPs. And you haven't included pages in your userspace either, like the now deleted User:Geo Swan/tm. Fram (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Support On the basis of his statements and the problematic nature of the articles he's created since the RfC, Geo Swan is continuing to use Wikipedia to push his personal views, regardless of core policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose. Don't use a sledgehammer where a nutcracker will suffice.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Conditional Support: I agree that a strictly construed topic ban against creating such articles is merited, given GeoSwan's ongoing fervor in pushing articles which plainly fail of notability under current standards. I don't see that a ban against editing such articles is warranted; such should be reserved for persistent vandalism or edit warring, sins of which GeoSwan has not been guilty. Ravenswing 14:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Comment It might make sense to issue a ban on creating articles of this sort directly in mainspace, while leaving it OK to edit existing articles, and also OK to submit proposed new articles through WP:AFC for approval/import by other editors if the articles meet standards. On general principles, I do like the idea of leaving AFC available as a filter, in cases of good faith but excessively enthusiastic article creation, where there's still reasonable likelihood of something of merit coming out of it. I'm neutral on the suggestion in this specific case for now, since I haven't (so far) examined the disputed editing enough to be sure it's the right thing. Note: This is revised from a !vote to a comment. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC) oppose Yet another self-destructive wikilynching 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Holding something against a user for something created years ago doesn't even stand up at RFA applicants, but to honestly try and topic ban a user for something that was made back in 2011 should meet with a procedural close as the window on such matters has long since expired. Considering that the proposer of the current topic ban has a history of being involved in the matter, the opportunities for such things presented themselves long ago. A storm in a teacup perhaps, but these AFDs and much of the content already deleted or removed cannot be personally verified by a majority of users and the issues within do absolutely nothing to address the changing culture of Wikipedian's interpretation of notability guidelines. The matter is unfair to GeoSwan, regardless of a years old RFC, to address the concerns. A new RFC should be done, and from the events after THAT RfC bear reason to topic-ban, only THEN should such a proposal be brought forth. AGF still stands and much of this dispute falls under disruptive editing. GeoSwan should be given considerable time and leeway to address the matters in a formal setting and context that is not ArbCom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC) I am "holding something against a user" for creating similar things over years and years, right until now. I have left Geo Swan alone after the RfC, to make sure that any continuation of the problems wouldn't be caused by or blamed on me. This was requested by a number of people at the RfC. The result of this is not only that the problematic pages have stayed on Wikipedia for much longer (and have been joined by a few new ones), but also that aapparently any resolution I'm trying to find now is impossible because "Considering that the proposer of the current topic ban has a history of being involved in the matter, the opportunities for such things presented themselves long ago." Nothing has changed since the old RfC apart from me staying away from him for over a year, so there is no reason at all to request a new RfC. He has had all the time anyone could reasonably need, giving him even more time before any action is taken is not productive. Why did I need to point out two examples of problematic pages in his userspace, one from right before the RfC, one from afterwards? Didn't the RfC and the countless MfDs send a clear enough message about what is acceptable and what isn't? Fram (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC) As you say, the RfC did not change things. The appropriate response to that is for you to stay away from him indefinitely. To the extent there is a case to be made, you are too involved to make it. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) No, not at all. Some people at the RfC indicated that if I left Geo Swan alone, the problem would magically disappear. Surprise: it didn't. There was no agreement that I did anything wrong, I voluntarily stayed away to give him a chance to clean up his act without even a semblance of any pressure. The result was that basically nothing happened, until a new round of AfDs by other people indicated that the problems with his articles (including some new ones) persisted. The solution is not to chase away the messenger. As for your invocation of "involved": I know of the problems that existed and exist, having first hand experience with them. I have tried to solve them by different means, while all you have done is stalling and trying to protect and serial BLP violator. If there is anyone who should stay away from this, it is you, not me. Your intervention in the RfC only led to dozens of poor articles on non notable subjects staying in the mainspace for a year longer, and BLP violations lingering around in userspace as well. Please don't lecture me on what I should do, and turn your attention to the actual problems instead. Fram (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Strong Oppose as an unnecessary wrecking ball. Might be willing to support a topic ban on creation outside of AfC. This, however, is ridiculous. We would do better to limit the number of GeoSwan's articles that can be deleted in a given time period. Absolutely absurd and not in any way called for. --Nouniquenames (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Support - Obviously. This usr has caused nothing but time-wasting grief for the project in this topic area. The majority of these detainee BLPs have had to be deleted over the years. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose You've got to be kidding me. This is just is disgrace. Do we, as adults, hold no better problem solving skills then calling for the other parties head? It's like a fucking game of "who can call for desysop first", "who can call for topic ban first", "who can call for site ban first." Really, I'm just sick at the way Wikipedians are handling this issue. No historical perspective at all.--v/r - TP 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose The analysis below indicates that the problematic articles are old. Unless people show that there Geo Swan is currently producing crap articles, then the past issues are irrelevant.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose. I see no basis for a penalty. Everyking (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose - I would think that this thread has served as a wake up call for Geo, and a penalty, especially at this rate, is innapropriate. -- MST☆R (Chat Me!) 06:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose GS should be obliged to follow WP:BLP in any new article he chooses to create on any present or past Gitmo inmate. We don't need any more unsubstantiated junk in mainspace, so I would further suggest that all such creations be done first in userspace, and moved by consensus to mainspace only when the criteria have been fulfilled. He should also be ordered to either bring up to spec or {{db-user}} any article he has created that he does not see any prospect of being brought up to standard. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Proposal to refer to Arbcom We're stuck. We've already been to RFC/U stage, and AN/I isn't solving this.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Worth more consideration.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Worth dropping altogether. -Nouniquenames (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC) What issues should be referred? I agree that it's the next logical step if further dispute resolution is needed, but the AfD process is working well at the moment in relation to these articles, and there is was little support above for the proposal that the nominations slow down, so ArbCom probably wouldn't accept a case on that basis. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC) The issues that I see are:- (1) Is Geo Swan being singled out and targeted? Assume that there is no evidence the many AfD nominations are retaliatory or vindictive. (2) If so, is it a problem that he's being singled out and targeted? Are any actions necessary to protect him? (3) Noting that there's very significant overlap between those who participated in the RFC/U and those who participated in the AN/I thread, are the AN/I thread's (lack of) conclusions reliable? I also have two related questions which would probably be outside the case's formal remit, but per curiam, opinions would be welcome: (4) is it possible to overuse the AfD process by making many repeated nominations in a short period? If so, how can we identify overuse? and (5) Should prolific content contributors enjoy any special rights or protection in the AfD process, or is it the inalienable right of all users to AfD material they consider unencyclopaedic?—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC) 1-4 I'm not sure of, but I'll comment on (5) and say absolutely not - that would be another version of the whole "vested contributor" thing that makes some editors 'more equal than others' and 'above the law'. If "anyone can edit" - which WMF has defended come hell, high water, or even editor consensus - then "anyone can delete", and creating a special caste of "AfD-proof" editors - which would be the inevitable result, regardless of good-faith intent - isn't something Wikipedia ever needs. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Slippery slope arguments are a kind of informal fallacy. I'm not proposing to create a caste of AfD-proof editors. My opinion is merely that one person shouldn't have more than, say, ten pages created by another person at XfD simultaneously provided the creating editor is a good faith editor in good standing (i.e. not a known sockpuppet or under investigation for copyright violations or whatever). It's true that this means that if someone was a prolific content creator, it wouldn't be possible to eradicate their entire corpus at once. To that extent our most productive editors, provided they're in good faith, would enjoy some measure of protection. That seems right to me because the purpose of all Wikipedia processes is to help productive editors in good standing to get on with what they do best, and to protect them from vandalism and excessive amounts of bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I completely understand you're not proposing that; I don't doubt your good faith in the least, don't worry. It's just that, unfortunatly, from my observations on Wikipeida behavior that would be what such a measure would, inevitably, turn into - in perception, if not in fact, an in a way the former would be even more toxic than the latter. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC) My concern is that if it's okay to play this AfD-bombing game with Geo Swan, then it might very well be okay to play it with others. I mean, let's imagine someone vexatiously or retributively nominated everything ever written by S Marshall at AfD; I could defend one, two, or three articles. I couldn't defend sixty. In the circumstances I'd simply quit Wikipedia in disgust. Letting people XfD very large amounts of material simultaneously is an invitation to hounding and griefers.—S Marshall T/C 06:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC) OK, let's imagine someone started nominated everything written by User:S Marshall, at the rate of 2 per day. Even if they skip the GAs, after the snow keep of Agriculture in the United Kingdom and Badger culling in the United Kingdom, and the strong consensus for keep for Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 and Antje Boetius, all without any need for defence from you, someone will be here at ANI asking that the nominator be banned from AfD, and it will be unanimously carried (if they haven't been blocked already). That is not the situation here. It's about the content, not the numbers, and that applies both in creation and deletion. Kanguole 11:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC) As Kanguole said, WP:POINTy AfDs get sniffed out in a hurry and result in speedy closes - this has actually happened at AfD a couple of times in the past year. They get detected and dealt with under the current process just fine. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Hmm, and it's up to AN/I what constitutes a disruptive pattern of nominations? I don't like that idea very much. An AN/I thread can be fair and constructive, but it's often a highly subjective popularity contest. I'd rather have some sort of heuristic or objective way of assessing what's disruption and what isn't.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Of course, when you have 200 or 300 articles you created deleted afterwards, one can wonder whether they still are "in good standing" or whether creating articles really is "what they do best". AfDs (and MfDs) are not "vandalism" and not "excessive amounts of bureaucracy", they are in some cases the only way to get rid of massive amounts of sub-par or non-policy compliant articles. He was given the chance to go through his articles and clean them up (delete or redirect the problematic ones, improve the other ones with better sourcing and so on), but he didn't. He still wanted to keep things like the Starbuck's at Guantanamo article, wasting time on "excessive burocracy" instead of just G7 deleting it. Perhaps, instead of giving extra protection, we should create a process that after let's say 50 successful AfDs of anyone's articles, a CCI-like process is started to check all their articles instead? Fram (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I have already brought your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habib Noor.  This one AfD deleted four articles where the nomination does not analyze the WP:ATD alternatives to deletion, and the nomination and every argument is 100% consistent with a merge.  Likewise, current community consensus is to merge, not delete; so if it is really true that there are 200 to 300 Guantanamo AfD deletions, the fact that they were deleted seems to mean that the community now needs to run 200-300 AfD discussions through DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Just becasue consensus changed doesn't mean past AfDs need to be DRV'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC) We are here to build an encyclopedia.  How are we going to restore these articles if not through DRV?  Unscintillating (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC) By writing fresh content based on the reliable sources and inserting it in the articles that the articles deleted under the old consensus would have been merged to under the new consensus? - The Bushranger One ping only 11:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC) There is no purpose to writing "fresh" articles here.  Please restore the relevant deletions to the incubator so that they can be merged.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Er, you misunderstand me. I'm not referring to writing new articles. I'm saying to write new paragraphs in the merge targets that the previously-deleted articles redirect to. And I honestly have no idea how the incubator works. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Incubator is described at WP:AI. I think the idea is just to get the old material back so that it can be reworked into the redirect targets. Userfying it would work as well as incubation in this case. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Going to Arbcom would also give Fram the opportunity to express his grievances. But I see little appetite for the idea.—S Marshall T/C 06:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC) I agree that unfortunately it may be time to involve arbcom. This is esssentially a behavioral issue, or possibly several behavioral issues, and as such is within their perview. Previous attempts at dispute resolution, including this one, have failed to resolve the situation. Dropping it, like permanantly dropping it by all involved parties, or taking it to arbcom seem the only remaining alternatives. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC) If by "dropping it" you mean that people like me don't interfere one way or another, and simultaneously that people (not me if you like) are allowed to continue to nominate articles for AfD (or MfD) like they are doing now when they feel it is needed, then I have no problem to drop this. I would much prefer if this could continue the way it was before this ANI discussion, without involvement from me and without any special rules protecting Geo Swan or his articles beyond what is applied to all other editors. Fram (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC) That appears to be the outcome of the discussions above: there's clearly no consensus for the proposals that a) the AfDs slow down b) that Geo Swan be topic banned or c) Geo Swan's suggested special notability criteria. As such, there isn't really much to take to ArbCom (who are likely to reject a case as the community appears to have sorted out the above proposals), and things can keep on going as they were before. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Again we are stuck.  I think that the reason this needs to go to Arbcom is because the administrators are disempowered.  Multiple opportunities have existed for individual admins to intervene.  DBigXray left no ambiguity regarding his/her WP:INCIVILITY, no diffs are needed.  Yet we are still one admin short of the number of administrators needed to respond to this issue.  Next, it only needed one administrator in early July to see that DBigXray was not analyzing the WP:ATD in nominations, and to issue procedural closure WP:NPASR for correction.  Next, it appears that we have 65 to 300 deletions that need to be restored so that they can be merged because we are here to build an encyclopedia and this is current consensus.  Yet no administrator has so far picked up the slack given one administrator's declination or inability to start the process.  There is something disempowering the administrators that is stopping the improvement of the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC) It's not just inability. I would not consider myself able to do it, because I've been involved in a good many of the discussions. What I do see is a great reluctance of most people to get involved with articles or debates on this general subject--it must overall be a matter of general embarrassment to anyone sympathetic with the need of the US to defend itself to see it defending itself in this manner. I speak on the basis of my own feelings--I consider it much too upsetting a topic for me to actively help geo with these articles, though I have consistently defended his right to work on them. For after all, that is the best solution: adding sources. I consider the claims of BLP 1E as misconceived, and an attempt to avoid serious work on them by rejecting even the possibility of sourcing--I cannot see how people do not realize that they are already regarded individually as martyrs--very wrongly in some cases, not unreasonably in others, and that this will be of continuing historical importance. Especially do I see the frequent argument of DO NO HARM as absurd beyond reason--as if anything WP could do could harm them more than they have already been harmed. If we truly care about lessening harm, we would cover them in detail. When BLP is used opposite to its purpose, then it warrants examination of why we let it happen. I apologize for going back to the actual issues underlying this, instead of an immediate solution, but I think only by doing so can we clarify the situation. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Could someone look at some of the articles mentioned in DBigXray's post of 16:52, 18 August 2012,[52] and check whether they appear neutral? Are we seeing some kind of POV dispute between DBigXray and Geo Swan, playing out at AfD? Maybe there should be an interaction ban, which would stop these AfD's. Here in this thread, per Unscintillating's comment, I'm finding DBigXray's approach to be unhelpfully aggressive, if that matters. I'm also not understanding what the problem is with userfying or incubating the deleted Geo Swan articles. Is there a list of them somewhere? 69.228.170.132 (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Proposal to allow Geo Swan To slow down the AfD process I believe that if Geo Swan is intent on improving an article that was nominated for AfD so that it meets all guidelines that it was nominated for, then he should be able to do so. The common user, when faced with a single or a couple AfD's on articles that he created, can try to improve the article(s) to meet wikipedia's standards. However, when faced with a large number of such AfD nominated articles, it is almost impossible to defend your work in the allotted time. What I propose is that: The article is resolved according to a normal AfD if Geo Swan does not post asking for this extension. The article is still resolved according to AfD if Geo Swan's post is not seconded by an established user in good standing. If such a request is seconded, but improvements and/of a thorough defense have not been made in the allotted time, and the result of the AfD is otherwise delete, then the article is deleted, BUT the AfD discussion remains open until the granted period of extension has passed,or until Geo Swan or another user has made the required changes to the article or the creator of or a significant contributor to the article has posted a thorough defense of the article. A copy of the original (deleted) article will be in the AfD discussion during this time. At the end of this period of extension, an admin reviews the AfD discussion, and either closes the AfD discussion if no or insufficient defense/changes were made, and reopens the discussion if the changes/defence substantially changed the argument. This resource is only available if a large number of articles by the same author are simultaneously nominated. This is unavailable for speedy delete nominations, which likely seek to resolve a legal issue rather than a content one. This prevents a libellous unsourced BLP from hanging around on Wikipedia. Note: I am a relatively new and inexperienced editor in wikipedia, so if this looks insane, it probably is. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC) With all respect, I think that you misunderstand the problem here. Most of these articles are being deleted as the individual's only claim to notability is that they are one of the hundreds of people to have been held in Guantanamo Bay and gone through its associated legal system(s). As such, they are being deleted per WP:BLP1E, and no amount of 'improvements' to the article can get around this fundamental notability issue. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) As per Wikipedia:Notability (people) "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate."  Ordinary editing includes merges and redirects, and merges and redirects are considered to be improvements to the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC) User:Tazerdadog, thank you for your interest in these {{afd}}. You may be a newcomer, but I think you put your finger right on one of the key difficulties of DBigXray's 100 {{Xfd}}. Two minutes prior to nominating Hozaifa Parhat for deletion DBigXray excised over 17 kilobytes of material, with the justification "per WP:BLPPRIMARY". That 17K of material contained over a dozen perfectly valid third party references that there is no question were secondary sources anyone but DBigXray would consider WP:Reliable sources. If you meant to suggest that we are all volunteers here, working on articles in our spare time, and that no one should be expected to try to respond to dozens of {{xfd}} at the same time I wholeheartedly agree. On July 11th I went on record in User:Geo Swan/Redirecting Guantanamo captives articles to the list articles on their nationalities with plans to redirect all Guantanamo articles that I thought did not measure up to our current standards. I then redirected over 300 articles, as documented in here. I said I would look at these articles, one at a time. I said when I thought I had prepared a new draft that I thought would meet today's standards I would seek the opinion of trusted senior contributors, and would only turn the article from a redirect back to an article, if they concurred. I thought this was a perfectly reasonable compromise. Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC) User:Nick-D Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that every single one of Geo swan's articles should be deleted per WP:BLP1E, and that these articles cannot be saved. I believe that this compromise is still a good idea. Geo Swan would develop a sense of why the articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia in this case, and the whole situation would be defused in an uncontroversial manner. However, if any of the articles can be improved to the point where they no longer are candidates for deletion under WP:BLP1E, then Geo Swan should have the time and opportunity to do so. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC) This situation is a little bit unusual, but my general advice (maybe not a good idea in this specific case) to someone trying frantically to save an article before an afd deadline is that they should just save a copy of the content offline or in userspace, let the deletion close, and continue to improve the saved copy at their leisure. Then once the saved copy is up to standards, they can recreate the article. It's generally no big deal if a low-interest article is temporarily offline. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) It is good general advice, however Geo's working notes in user-space have also been attacked in the past, he has been denied refunds by one of the admins who have gone for his pages, and of course the advantage of on-wiki notes is the linkage, particularly in this very complex but specialist field, of which Geo is probably one of the worlds top ten experts. The advantage of allowing Geo to change them redirects, is that the putative problem is solved. The fact hat he has already dealt with hundreds of them shows that it can work. No one else need then worry about makin AfDs etc etc, and if, perchance, someone other than Geo wants to recreate the article, the work that has been doen to date isn't thrown away. It seems a good solution, my only quibble is that even so we are loosing a lot of useful information, due to muddled thinking about BLP. Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC). The "working notes" that were mainly copies of deleted articles that stayed there for years? And the "denied refunds" for copyright violations and actual BLP violations (like linking completely unrelated names to a list of "suspected jihadists")? Hey, there's a thread where Fram is involved, let's jump in and give our own version of the truth? You did the same just days ago in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 113#Dennis Brown using abusive language as a moderator, where you were rather absolute in your claims but lacking in any actual evidence or convincing arguments. Please stop wasting everybody's time with such posts. Fram (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC) You have given a very good argument for not deleting those articles that geo moves to his userspace, but the same people who are supporting the deletions in mainspace are doing just that. I think I would accept a solution where all the afd'd articles in this batch get moved to userspace, and all the ones in userspace deleted by MfD are restored. It is possible to rescue a just passable article in about a half-day if one is doing nothing else, but I find it takes me considerably longer to make an article good enough to stand up against a multiple determined challenges on a controversial subject. I'd allow normally about a week each for these articles, but since on the one hand geo works on other things also and will have other challenges to deal with, and many of the sources are very difficult to find; while on the other hand geo is a faster writer than I am and many of these articles have very similar problems, he should be able to do about two a week. That allows him a year for this batch of a hundred, and proportionately for others--if he does not have to defend additional articles at AfD or MfD. We have in the recent past at MfD allowed somewhere between a month and 2 months for a single article (which would come to over a decade for the present articles)--but that's usually for a beginner who needs to learn how to do it, so it shouldn't need take anywhere near that long. More generally, it is possible to fix a single article in time to rescue it at AfD. I have done it maybe 50 times here, and some true experts here have done many more than I have. So the proper and obvious general rule at AfD is not to nominate articles faster than they can be fixed. Not everything is of course fixable, but if there is any chance at all for a good faith editor, more than 7 a week is not realistic for anything that would pass speedy--it is biasing very strongly towards deletion, and the WP deletion policy is to save whatever is savable. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC) This is probably not the right place to dump these articles, but the incubator at least deserves a look...Tazerdadog (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC) If somebody has a list of the deleted articles, I can try to scrape them from a wikipedia mirror. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Oppose. No justification for special treatment. See my proposed solution above. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Analysis of DBigXray's AFD nominations I am compiling a list of DBigXray's AFD nominations and the results so far are going to change the outcome of this discussion. Please hold all judgements until the table is posted.--v/r - TP 15:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC) AFD Article Creator Date Nominated Date Created Result 1. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Ameziane_v._Bush Geo Swan 17-Aug-12 13-Nov-08 Still at MfD 3. Articles_for_deletion/Mohamed_Anwar_Kurd Geo Swan 16-Aug-12 18-Jul-06 Redirect 4. Articles_for_deletion/Salim_Suliman_Al_Harbi_(2nd_nomination) Geo Swan 16-Aug-12 25-Nov-07 Redirect 5. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Sohail_v._Bush Geo Swan 16-Aug-12 12-Dec-08 Still at MfD 6. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Sliti_v._Bush Geo Swan 16-Aug-12 21-Jan-09 Still at MfD 7. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammad_Gul_(Guantanamo_detainee) Geo Swan 16-Aug-12 19-May-06 Redirect/Merge 8. Articles_for_deletion/Omar_Rajab_Amin Geo Swan 16-Aug-12 11-Apr-06 Redirect/Merge 9. Articles_for_deletion/Hozaifa_Parhat Geo Swan 15-Aug-12 26-Apr-06 Redirect/Merge 10. Articles_for_deletion/Bahtiyar_Mahnut Geo Swan 15-Aug-12 7-May-06 Redirect 11. Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Mohamed_(Guantanamo_Bay_detainee) Geo Swan 15-Aug-12 9-May-06 Redirect 12. Articles_for_deletion/Akhdar_Qasem_Basit Geo Swan 15-Aug-12 7-May-06 Redirect/Merge 13. Articles_for_deletion/Salahidin_Abdulahat Geo Swan 14-Aug-12 9-May-06 Redirect 14. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Civil_Action_No._08-cv-1230 Geo Swan 23-Aug-12 2-Dec-08 Still at MfD (Improperly Tagged) 15. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Civil_Action_No._08-5424 Geo Swan 14-Aug-12 9-Oct-08 Still at MfD 16. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Mohabat_Khan_v._Bush Geo Swan 14-Aug-12 25-Nov-08 Still at MfD 17. Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Ghappar_Abdul_Rahman Geo Swan 14-Aug-12 9-May-06 Redirect 18. Articles_for_deletion/Oybek_Jamoldinivich_Jabbarov Geo Swan 14-Aug-12 25-May-06 Redirect 19. Articles_for_deletion/Muhamed_Hussein_Abdallah Geo Swan 14-Aug-12 1-May-06 Redirect/Merge 20. Articles_for_deletion/Jamal_Abdullah_Kiyemba Geo Swan 14-Aug-12 3-Oct-05 Redirect/Merge 21. Articles_for_deletion/Habib_Rahman_(detainee) Geo Swan 11-Aug-12 25-May-06 Redirect/Merge 22. Articles_for_deletion/Nahir_Shah Geo Swan 11-Aug-12 25-Apr-06 Redirect/Merge 23. Articles_for_deletion/Gul_Zaman Geo Swan 11-Aug-12 25-May-06 Redirect/Merge 24. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Mussa_Yakubi Geo Swan 11-Aug-12 25-Oct-06 Redirect/Merge 25. Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Zahir_(Guantanamo_Bay_detainee_753) Geo Swan 10-Aug-12 20-Jan-06 No Consensus 26. Articles_for_deletion/Gholam_Ruhani Geo Swan 10-Aug-12 20-Apr-06 Redirect/Merge 27. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Kamin Geo Swan 10-Aug-12 6-Oct-06 Redirect/Merge 28. Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_Hussein_Ali_Hassan Geo Swan 9-Aug-12 3-Dec-07 Redirect/Merge 29. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Ouali Geo Swan 9-Aug-12 13-Nov-06 Redirect/Merge 30. Articles_for_deletion/Muhammed_Qasim Geo Swan 9-Aug-12 26-Jan-07 Delete 32. Articles_for_deletion/Salim_Suliman_Al_Harbi Geo Swan 16-Aug-12 25-Nov-07 No Consensus (Mass AFD) 33. Articles_for_deletion/Muhammed_al-Darbi Geo Swan 5-Aug-12 7-Sep-06 Delete 34. Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_Zindabad TopGun 35. Articles_for_deletion/Hindustan_Zindabad Vibhijain 37. Articles_for_deletion/Walid_Said_Bin_Said_Zaid_(2nd_nomination) Geo Swan 8-Jul-12 29-May-06 Delete 38. Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Ould_Abdel_Aziz Geo Swan 7-Jul-12 10-Oct-07 Delete 39. Articles_for_deletion/Sameur_Abdenour Geo Swan 5-Jul-12 25-May-06 Delete 40. Articles_for_deletion/Farhi_Saeed_bin_Mohammed Geo Swan 3-Jul-12 29-May-06 Delete 41. Articles_for_deletion/Abdel_Hadi_Mohammed_Badan_Al_Sebaii_Sebaii Geo Swan 2-Jul-12 26-Apr-06 Delete 42. Articles_for_deletion/Mahrar_Rafat_Al_Quwari Geo Swan 2-Jul-12 25-May-06 Delete 43. Articles_for_deletion/Assem_Matruq_Mohammad_al_Aasmi Geo Swan 2-Jul-12 24-May-06 Delete 44. Articles_for_deletion/Habib_Noor Geo Swan 2-Jul-12 21-Apr-06 Delete 45. Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_Ali_Hussein_Khenaina Geo Swan 30-Jun-12 19-Dec-07 Delete 46. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Abdullah_Taha_Mattan Geo Swan 30-Jun-12 16-Nov-08 Delete 47. Articles_for_deletion/Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi Geo Swan 30-Jun-12 28-Apr-06 Delete 48. Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Rahman_Mohamed_Saleh_Naser Geo Swan 30-Jun-12 20-Jul-06 Delete 49. Articles_for_deletion/Salah_Bin_Al_Hadi_Asasi Geo Swan 30-Jun-12 2-Oct-07 Delete 50. Articles_for_deletion/Abdulah_Alhamiri Geo Swan 30-Jun-12 2-Jun-06 Delete 51. Articles_for_deletion/Kushky_Yar Geo Swan 29-Jun-12 12-May-06 Delete 53. Articles_for_deletion/Jabir_Hasan_Mohamed_Al_Qahtani Geo Swan 27-Jun-12 21-May-06 Delete 54. Articles_for_deletion/Khalid_Malu_Shia_al_Ghatani Geo Swan 27-Jun-12 14-May-06 Delete 55. Articles_for_deletion/Said_Muhammad_Husayn_Qahtani Geo Swan 27-Jun-12 21-May-06 Delete 56. Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Hamid_al_Qahtani Geo Swan 27-Jun-12 21-May-06 Delete 57. Articles_for_deletion/Rami_Bin_Said_Al_Taibi Geo Swan 27-Jun-12 22-Apr-06 Delete 58. Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Bechtold_(2nd_nomination) Geo Swan 25-Jun-12 2-Nov-08 Delete 59. Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_A._Gregory Geo Swan 25-Jun-12 29-May-08 Delete 60. Articles_for_deletion/Sultan_Sari_Sayel_Al_Anazi Geo Swan 23-Jun-12 25-May-06 Delete 61. Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Muhammed_Abdel_Aziz Geo Swan 23-Jun-12 13-Dec-07 Delete 62. Articles_for_deletion/Musa_Ali_Said_Al_Said_Al_Amari Geo Swan 20-Jun-12 20-May-06 Delete 63. Articles_for_deletion/Sa_ad_Ibraham_Sa_ad_Al_Bidna Geo Swan 19-Jun-12 25-May-06 Delete 64. Articles_for_deletion/Fahd_Salih_Sulayman_Al_Jutayli Geo Swan 19-Jun-12 24-May-06 Delete (Close call) 65. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Abdel-Rahman_al-Rashed Geo Swan 19-Jun-12 18-Jan-10 Delete 66. Articles_for_deletion/Sultan_Radi_al-Utaibi Geo Swan 19-Jun-12 18-Jan-10 Delete 67. Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Owaidan_Al-Harbi Geo Swan 19-Jun-12 20-Feb-09 Delete (CSD G7) 68. Articles_for_deletion/Fahd_Raggad_Samir_Al-Ruwaili Geo Swan 19-Jun-12 26-Mar-09 Delete 69. Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Abdullah_Al_Zahrani Geo Swan 18-Jun-12 18-Jun-09 Delete (CSD G7) 70. Articles_for_deletion/Abu_Dujan_al-Afghani 63.203.204.67 18-Jun-12 71. Articles_for_deletion/Haji_Yacoub_(Al_Qaeda) Geo Swan 18-Jun-12 10-Feb-09 Delete (Userfied) 72. Articles_for_deletion/Sheikh_Younas_Azam Rajput m16 17-Jun-12 73. Articles_for_deletion/Keiler Geo Swan 15-Jun-12 10-Jan-12 Keep 74. Articles_for_deletion/Frankfurt_(icebreaker) Geo Swan 15-Jun-12 11-Jan-12 Keep 75. Articles_for_deletion/Rahmatullah_Mansoor Geo Swan 15-Jun-12 11-May-07 Delete (Userfied) 76. Articles_for_deletion/Ongiara_(ship,_1885) Geo Swan 15-Jun-12 25-Apr-12 Keep (near-unanimous) 77. Articles_for_deletion/Kwasind Geo Swan 15-Jun-12 21-Dec-11 Keep (Unanimous) 78. Articles_for_deletion/Fadil_Husayn_Salih_Hintif Geo Swan 15-Jun-12 5-Oct-06 Delete 79. Articles_for_deletion/THE_LEGEND_〜Final_Live〜_(Heartsdales_album) Rawrimhungry 28-May-12 80. Articles_for_deletion/THE_LEGEND_(Heartsdales_album) Rawrimhungry 28-May-12 81. Articles_for_deletion/Ultra_Foxy_(Heartsdales_album) Rawrimhungry 28-May-12 82. Articles_for_deletion/Super_Star_(Heartsdales_album) Rawrimhungry 28-May-12 83. Articles_for_deletion/Sugar_Shine Whitetigerx8 28-May-12 84. Articles_for_deletion/Radioactive_(Heartsdales_album) Kurisuta Roozu 28-May-12 85. Articles_for_deletion/N.S._Boys_Hostel PhotonSpeed 4-May-12 86. Articles_for_deletion/St._Thomas's_Hall Judepais 23-Apr-12 87. Articles_for_deletion/Bishop_Heber_Hall Macabreday 23-Apr-12 88. Articles_for_deletion/Sapana_gardens Prameetc 2-Apr-12 NOTES: I did not save date created and result data when the article creator was not Geo Swan. Also, this is a list of AFDs started by DBigXray and not an all inclusive list of articles created by Geo Swan and sent to AFD. List generated from this tool. Also note, the numbers on the left are generated by that tool and some numbers are missing. There are 84 articles in that list, not 88. 4 pages DBigXray created in Wikipedia: space were not AFDs and were removed from the list. My analysis: There is a strong argument that Geo Swan has not learned his lesson. However, it appears to me that all but 5 of the articles nominated predate 2010. Of those 4 that were after 2010, they were all kept. This shows me that it's not that Geo Swan hasn't learned a lesson, it's that policies have changed and he never went back to update these articles. It appears that DBigXray has focused on Geo Swan. 83% of DBigXray's AFD nominations have been Geo Swan articles. In my opinion badgering behavior. I suggest DBigXray be banned from creating AFDs on Geo Swan articles for 6 months or limit the rate to 2/week. If DBigXray's nominations are purely coincidental, then why such the huge lean toward Geo Swan? Why are there not more articles mixed in there while he randomly searches Wikipedia for articles to delete? Not all of these articles are the same subject area. Some of them are boats or judges. So how did DBigXRay stumble on those if his focus was on Guantanamo detainees? At one point between 15 Jun 12 and 22 Jun 12, Geo Swan had 16 articles up for AFD. It is impossible to address the concerns raised in an AFD for 16 articles in a span for 7 days. Most editors take several days to even write 1 article. There is a lot of research involved and not enough time given to properly weigh an article. This is why I feel the above is a huge misconception. User:Fram's proposal for a topic ban is just plain nonsense. Are we really going to topic ban a guy for articles created 6 years ago that don't adhere to today's standards?--v/r - TP 18:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I do think this analysis supports my position, folks.—S Marshall T/C 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC) The analysis focuses on DBigXRays nominations, not on Geo Swan's articles. No conclusions about his articles since 2011 should be drawn from this analysis. An AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge), for a page created in April 2012, did result in deletion (and redirection of two similar pages). Two pages in his userspace, created after the RfC, were only deleted after I pointed them out in a section above here. Then there are Olienny Valladares Capote and Adolfo Pablo Borraza Chaple. If one out of ten of your BLP pages created the last year have been deleted or redirected, plus some pages in your userspace, plus some pages that are of very dubious notability like Ehsanullah Ehsan (Taliban spokesman), then there still is a clear problem. Fram (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Examining those few articles you support indicates you have a criterion of "very highly notable" for this subject, rather than the ordinary standards elsewhere. Your own analysis reinforces my view that you should avoid the subject, because it is one you do not judge fairly. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "Those few articles I support"? I gave examples, based on a very unclear question you asked. As for whose standards are the more correct here: my AfDs, before you shut me up in this area, were nearly all supported by the broader community. Your opinions on them were not supported by the community (or policy), and your opinion to keep sometimes blatant BLP violations in this area (or from this user) don't make you the best person to decide who should or shouldn't avoid this subject. Your opinion is noted (and was well known before this) but will not be taken into account by me. Fram (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Plus of course, one fatal flaw in your analysis and conclusions: the DBigXRay AfDs for articles created after the RfC were not about BLPS or Guanatanmo related articles, so their keep results tell nothing about my proposed topic ban at all. My proposal may be "plain nonsense" or not, but drawing that conclusion from this analysis is plain nonsense, as it doesn't address the issue at all. Fram (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Well, hang on a moment, Fram. When you say "it doesn't address the issue", which issue? I accept that it doesn't address the issue that you've been exercised about, relating to the many BLPs created by Geo Swan. The issue that I've been exercised about is whether DBigXray is targeting (or indeed stalking or hounding) Geo Swan. This is why I find TParis' table very telling indeed. I'm not saying that Geo Swan's contributions shouldn't be brought into line with Wikipedian norms; I'm just saying that I don't think this is a fair way of achieving that end.—S Marshall T/C 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC) I was basically replying to TParis, and his comments about my proposal ("the issue" in my post). The other issue, of DBigXRays AfDs, is obviously directly addressed by the above table, so while we may disagree on the conclusions one may draw from it for "your" issue, it is correct to use it in that discussion. Apologies for being unclear about what I was referring to. Fram (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) You're right. The scope of your proposed topic ban would be better argued had I focused on Geo Swan's AfD'd articles rather than the articles DBigXray nominated. I striked that part and I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks! We all make mistakes, most of us don't admit it though, so this is much appreciated. Fram (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Yeah, well, here's my analysis: I see a string of AfDs that have resulted in the articles being removed or redirected ninety percent of the time. Those decisions weren't made by DBigXray; they were made by the community. The concerns raised was that the subjects were not notable, and the easiest way for those concerns to have been allayed was for GeoSwan to have written them to an acceptable standard in the first place. I argued this uptopic, and I'll restate it now, but there is no part of deletion policy which requires decisions to be put on hold until the article's creator chimes in with a personal defense of his or her work. If the community determines an article does not meet acceptable standards, that is the measure of their research. Moreover, TParis' assertion that you can't possibly defend sixteen articles in seven days is nonsense, and suggests ignorance in how things go at AfD. I've seen some of our more prominent inclusionists defend that many articles in a single DAY, and oftentimes with a good bit of legwork. Unlike TParis - I daresay - I've spent considerable time at AfD, and have voted on several hundred AfDs, and *I've* chimed in on as many as twenty AfDs in a day. Do I spend a ton of time on researching them? Probably no more than five minutes apiece for the most part, but five minutes is all most AfDs take. Defending sixteen AfDs at that rate takes an hour, including time spent typing. Some people might consider that a monstrous imposition. I do not. Finally, I've been in the same position as DBigXray -- finding a couple suspect articles written by the same editor, going over the editor's contribution history, finding several more, and then grimly determining to go through the entire contribution history, and finding out that almost everything the guy wrote was illegitimate. The end result was the AfDing or PRODing of over forty articles and an indef block on the creator. This isn't "stalking." This is the due diligence we all should be doing as Wikipedia editors, if we find an editor who consistently writes articles which do not meet Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or about subjects which fail of notability. Ravenswing 02:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC) You might want to do more research before saying I have no AFD experience.--v/r - TP 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Ravenswing, if anything, you show that you do not currently grasp the effort that can be required to defend articles when in AfD (and possibly do not realize that life outside of Wikipedia can also consume time). This list supports slowing down the AfDs, and likely supports banning DBig from going anywhere near nominating an article for deletion. That would be due diligence. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Let me get this straight. I've got a bit over 5,000 edits at AfD, spanning seven years. You have about 120 edits at XfD, spanning three months. You may want to reconsider critiquing me or any other editor as to what effort is or is not required for defense at AfD. With what experience do you make any such crack, never mind as uncivilly as that? Ravenswing 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC) My apologies, Ravenswing, as I did not mean to be other than civil and I was. The edits at XfD have taught me (including through my own mistakes) that an article worth saving may take significant expenditure of time to defend, particularly if using something other than GNG to establish notability. Once an initial defense has been mounted, it can be easily evaluated (and often only takes a few minutes), but given that the author was tasked with mounting the defense of multiple articles in a short span of time, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that the same result is guaranteed as the more customary one to two at a time most commonly encountered. In fairness, Ravenswing's rather endearing faith in our XfD process appears to be shared by DBigXray. These are users who honestly believe that XfDs will lead to reliable outcomes, apparently in the belief that there's an inexhaustible supply of people who didn't write the articles but are prepared to do the work involved in coming to their defence.—S Marshall T/C 07:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC) (Slightly later) That's open to misunderstanding and I should have spelled out the conclusion I was drawing:- these are good faith editors. There is no justification whatsoever for banning DBigXray from XfD as suggested above. All that's necessary is a request to slow down and stop targeting this one particular editor.—S Marshall T/C 07:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC) In response to the editors above, ahem. For one thing, we are all volunteers here. We devote the time we wish to devote - sometimes quite a lot of it - and I'm the least person to cast stones at anyone who wishes to spend time outside of Wikipedia. Feel free. There are tens of thousands of editors quite ready to carry on without your personal presence. For a second, sorry; I stand by my statements. Defending an article at AfD doesn't require filibusters, rebuttals of every Delete voter or endless plunges into the Internet. With very little effort, one can readily establish reliable sources and news reports on 99% of subjects. If I can't find ANY reliable sources talking about a subject in the significant detail the GNG requires in five minutes' time, odds are that no such sources exist. If I CAN find two such sources - and far more often than otherwise, finding such sources takes about thirty seconds, not five minutes - no other defense is generally necessary. Ravenswing 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC) As Geo Swan's most recent work has been accepted by the community, I believe we cannot simply write Geo Swan off as an incompetent editor. Wikipedia's standards have changed over time, and those articles that were deleted under today's standards may have been (and probably were, although I do not have the experience to make that call) acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines when they were written. Additionally, it seems likely that Geo Swan could invest 4-6 hours in any given article to improve to the point where it could survive an AfD (Please correct me if I am wrong, Geo Swan). However, asking him to do this to 16 articles in a week is unrealistic, absurd, and impossible. (Note: I am not talking about a simple defence of the article, I am talking about a substantial overhaul of the article). Geo Swan needs the opportunity to do this work. Therefore, one of two courses of action seem plausible to me: 1) Allow Geo Swan to "delay" the AfD process as per my above proposal 2) Move the controversial articles to the incubator so that Geo Swan has a fair crack at bringing them up to standard while keeping substandard articles off of Wikipedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Like I said above, you start from an incorrect statement and draw conclusions from there: "As Geo Swan's most recent work has been accepted by the community" is not true: the AfDs cited above are for ships, not for BLPs or other Guantanamo related articles. The one AfD for a BLP created since the RfC did result in a delete (plus the redirection of two similar articles), two other BLP articles have been moved from the mainspace to his userspace, and two userspace BLPs have been deleted after I drew attention to them here. Fram (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Yes, as Fram notes, there continue to be serious problems with Geo Swan's editing. To add to the various post-RfC articles noted above, I'd also note his Night raids in Afghanistan article which, when created, was hopelessly biased - the entire article consisted of criticism of these raids (including the inevitable Guantanamo link) and presented them as US-only operations and there was nothing about the justification for these operations put forward by the US military (the US military has stated that they are a "critical" component of its tactics in Afghanistan; whether one agrees with this or not, it needs to be in the article) or the substantial Afghan military involvement. After I added some material on these topics to the article Geo Swan added yet more Guantanamo-stuff. This isn't incompetent editing; it's intellectually dishonest editing which is aiming to push his stated POV. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC) @Nick-D Friendly reminder to assume good faith. @Fram I contend that if Geo Swan wanted to, he could update most to all of his articled to the point where they would pass an AfD after putting 4-6 hours of work into them. (again Geo Swan, please correct me if I am wrong.) Therefore what I propose as a test is that you select three Geo Swan articles that are representative of his contributions to Wikipedia. Then Geo Swan can select one of those three articles to improve to the point where it can pass an AfD. If he can do that, then my proposal, or other alternative proposals will have solid ground to be considered on. If he cannot, then we can proceed with a clear conscience to remove most of his work from wikipedia, and contemplate things like topic bans. We must allow Geo Swan time to improve the article, I suggest 3-5 days, but that is a matter for consensus. 174.28.43.114 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC) AGF is not a suicide pact. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC) I don't claim that the following are representative of his contributions: many remaining articles he created are about notable subjects and will never be deleted at AfD, so no point in listing those. Many other, more problematic ones have already been deleted of course. I gave above a few examples of relatively recent articles of dubious notability, e.g. Camp Five Echo (from December 2011), Hamidullah Khan (Bagram captive) (November 2011), Ehsanullah Ehsan (Taliban spokesman) (December 2011) or Mansour Nasser al Bihani (December 2011). Older, remaining articles of dubious notability include articles like Abdur Rehman (Libyan) (April 2008) or Designated Civilian Official (March 2008). These are just examples, not the best or the worst of his articles. Fram (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Fram, are there any individuals connected with this general topic whom you do think notable? DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) "This general topic" being...? I'll assume for the time being that this is a genuine, not a rhetorical question, and that you mean the general topic of Guantanamo / Al Qaeda / ... Obviously, someone like Bin Laden is notable. But also people like Baltasar Garzón, Alberto J. Mora and Neal Katyal, or Omar Khadr, Hamed Abderrahaman Ahmad or Abd Al Rahim Abdul Rassak Janko. Why do you ask? You may have missed my statement right above yours, "many remaining articles he created are about notable subjects and will never be deleted at AfD". This includes some of the articles I listed here, and other on the same or similar topics. Fram (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Support S. Marshall's request. It's both reasonable and right. (Discussion of Fram's request is too confused for this forum. Maybe a new discussion on that somewhere). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Analysis of relevant AfDs is not complete without including AfD nominations by User:Vibhijain.  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustaq Aksari was nominated on 17 June, there were eight nominations on 22-23 June, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ubaydh Al Tunisi was on 25 June.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC) A different tack I think we're using hammers on screws here. It seems Geo Swan has created hundreds(?) of articles which some others feel don't belong on Wikipedia for notability and/or BLP reasons. Certainly, when many of these articles are taken to AFD, the consensus is delete. While Geo Swan agrees that some of the articles do not fit our current standards, there is disagreement as to what fraction need improving and what fraction just need to go. Unfortunately, this is being turned into a user conduct problem, with discussion of behavioural restrictions, when it is really a policy interpretation problem. Rather than user conduct RfC's, editing restrictions, or AFD nomination throttles, could we somewhere have a discussion on what are the right principles (based on content and sourcing, but fleshed out in more detail specific to this topic area) for which of these articles should be kept? Then, once there is consensus, there could be a time for interested parties to improve articles that can be made to meet the bar, followed by noncontroversial housecleaning of articles that clearly don't and never will meet the bar, and finally individual AFD discussions for the handful of articles where the answer is still unclear. I repeat: there is no user conduct problem here. Everyone is behaving reasonably according to their perception of the situation. It's just processes designed for evaluating articles one at a time or solving user conduct issues will not get the job done. That's why the issue is hanging around for years. Martinp (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for some common sense and perspective. As someone who has !voted on GeoSwan AfDs in the past, I've always Assumed Good Faith on his part, and on the part of those who were nominating them. Both sides are following guidelines and policies as they see them. There has been no bad behavior from either side, and I even notice that DBigXray has taken a break from nominating more articles while this discussion has been going on (without getting any credit for that)—only one in the last two weeks. Martinp, I'll repeat what you already repeated: "There is no user conduct problem here." All of the time spent discussing the editors should now go toward the broader discussion that you are recommending. First Light (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Close requested I've requested a close of this discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Another issue User:Geo Swan's userspace is a terrifying tangle of half-written articles, userspace drafts, userfied AFD casualties, and redirected nonsense. I had asked him (in October of 2010) to clean up his userspace. ([53]) Whether it is because he is unable to or unwilling to deal with the mess he has created, he has over 80 redirects, and most of them predate my query to him about fixing them. Some of these are to new targets within his own userspace, and some of the them are to article space. Many of these redirects are redirects from mainspace to his userspace on WP:BLP targets, including some articles which were deleted at WP:AFD. I would propose that at the very least that he be prohibited from creating any new articles (in userspace or in mainspace) until he cleans up the mess in his userspace, and deals with the BLP violations he is currently harboring). On some of these, he has promised that he will soon request a history merge (this one is from October 2010; still sitting in userspace. Others have been moved back to mainspace (Farah Stockman was moved back to mainspace in July 2010 [54], yet the redirect remains). On 14 April 2009, this link was moved from userspace to mainspace ([55]) and then to a new location in mainspace ([56]), and yet the old redirect remains within Geo Swan's userspace. Here is another article redirected to mainspace on 19 May 2009, with the redirect still in place. This redirect hasn't been edited by Geo Swan since March 2010, and hasn't had a substantial edit since 12 September 2008. This article has been lounging around in his userspace since September 2007 with no edits from him; I submitted the redirect target for deletion([57]), and the redirect itself should be deleted at the same time as a CSD:G8. This page is the top result of a search within Wikipedia for a WP:BLP subject; the article itself was deleted in January 2011, and there have been no edits from any editor since October 2011, and no substantial edits since July 2011. (This is a WP:BLP issue, since it is the top result from the internal search engine in Wikipedia.) Here is another one, which he acknowledged is unsuitable for article space; the redirect target has not been substantially edited since October 2010. This BLP link was restored to mainspace on 3 August 2009, but the redirect still remains. This article was moved to mainspace on 8 August 2008; ignoring the likely BLP violation of the article (read the talk page, which notes multiple individuals with the same name), a cross-namespace redirect should not remain in place for four years. I won't bother listing all of the rest of the redirect nonsense; I trust that the sample I have provided is enough to make my point. Horologium (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Redirects from mainspace to userspace are a no-no, and speedy deletable, I believe. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC) given the frequency of the attacks on both the articles and the userspace version, some confusion is inevitable. Expecting someone to clean up detail while the major work is being attacked at the rate it has been is even more unrealistic than expecting him to deal with all the AfDs at once. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) What about the long period between the RfC (and earlier requests) and the current "attacks"? He has had plenty of time, but didn't take any action then. He wasn't expected to clean up "while" defending articles, he was expected to do this much earlier already. Fram (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC) why compromise is going to be difficult Most of the compromise solutions above discuss making the deleted articles available in userspace. But I notice todays MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/TalibanBounty. This rather reinforces the view that those out to attack the articles will attack any manifestation however harmless. There is no point in stopping AfDs by a move to userspace if the deletion attempt will be continued there. This insistence on using MfDs for the purpose has of course happened many times before to these articles. Whats distinctive here is doing this now, at the moment when this is about to close. This gives an indication that the unfairness of those opposing the articles is likely to continue unless those uninvolved step in to stop it. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) The incubator is an alternative to userfication.  The incubator is specifically designed for articles that were deleted at AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC) MfD applies there also. Tho perhaps I should not be giving people ideas. DGG ( talk ) 13:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC) As the initiator of the MFD the is the subject of DGG's ire, note that I found that as the target of one of the over 80 redirects in Geo Swan's userspace. He has been aware of the redirect issue for quite a long time, as my initial post (in the section immediately above made clear); I asked him to fix the redirect mess almost two years ago, after the RFC had closed four months before the RFC was initiated. And as for my timing, I am sorry that classes started two weeks ago, and I have been spending much less time on Wikipedia as a result; I had a grand total of ten edits in the ten days prior to that post, and my last post to one of the dramaboards (AN or AN/I) was in June. I would have contributed earlier had I been reading AN/I, because I am aware of this issue, and think that something needs to be done. A lot of the material stored in his userspace is primary documents about individuals who fall under the threshold of notability, and always will; a lot of pages are simply userfied pages of articles which were deleted at AFD; there are reams of "draft" articles which will not reach the threshold of reliability, and there are all of those redirects, some of which are clearly non-compliant (as noted by Bushranger). I tagged the page for MfD because I found an essentially empty, disused page as a redirect target. It certainly caught someone's attention, because all of a sudden, after a five-year hiatus, it's getting used again. Maybe it was just lost in that sea of subpages. Horologium (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC) You're making DGG's point for him. The proposed compromises will not work because people who share your view will use MfD to undermine them. I don't personally think that's an issue, provided there's some kind of speed limit on how many of Geo Swan's contributions can be at XfD all at the same time.—S Marshall T/C 16:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not opposed to closing down that MfD early, but my point (although it was not the point about the MfD itself) is that Geo Swan has so many pages in his userspace that he has redirects to pages which had not been edited in five years, which is a pretty solid argument that he needs to do something about the mess. I'm have no problem with sandbox or other "storage"-type pages which get limited editing (that's why users can create multiple sand-box style pages, and I have a couple of my own that haven't received much recent love), but long-term storage of deleted article is prohibited, and the interesting Category:Stale Userspace drafts, which I just discovered, has over 400 pages from Geo Swan's userspace (they start on the first column of the seventh page, and continue through an entire page dedicated solely to his userspace, and into the second column on the ninth page). These haven't been edited in over a year, and most of them have no edits (other than bot edits) since well-before the RFC. Several of them (I didn't do an exhaustive list) have no edits since 2008 other than bot edits or adding userdraft templates. The issue is that there are MANY names in these articles, most of whom are private individuals and fall under the WP:BLP policy; the essay WP:HARM is relevant here about pseudo-biographies. Almost everything on these pages is supported by primary documents (usually legal process documents, which is problematic under BLP, and almost every single one of them also falls into the WP:BIO1E guideline, they fail meet any other notability guideline, and most likely never will. That is why this issue keeps coming up. Horologium (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I'll just (again) toss in my 2 cents and mention I think slowing the AfDs would be a good idea. Were I closing this, I'd consider creating a process where the BLPs in question were userfied, with a "may not take to MfD for 2 years" note. As GS moves the articles into mainspace, they'd then be eligible for AfD. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC) A horrific idea. Quite aside from the completely arbitrary definition of STALEDRAFT at two years (which is at least four times longer than possibly practical), BLPs should be on a shorter leash than most content, and the significant history here means Geo Swan should be on a shorter leash than the average BLP writer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Humm, I thought someone might object, but I really didn't foresee that strong of an objection. Let's assume, for a minute, that there is general consensus he should be allowed to fix these articles and needs a fair bit of time to do so (I'm not asking you to agree that _is_ consensus, just assume it is). What way forward would you propose? Userfication seemed the least painful. The incubator would also be fine with me. But perhaps you have a better idea? Hobit (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Well, no. Let's not argue hypothetical situations here: let's argue the one we have in front of us. This is an editor with a long history of creating articles on topics that we don't deem notable, getting them userfied, and then leaving them there forever. As recently as yesterday, he reaffirmed his belief that his userspace is his to use as an archive for this stuff if he pleases. There is little to suggest that any of this will change if we officially endorse this strategy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion is just a bit split. Coming up with a compromise would be good. Do you have one? I've tried, others have tried. But those who are really upset by Geo Swan's work really haven't come forward with any way forward. Even if you think none of his work is possible to expand and make appropriate for Wikipedia (something that's plainly untrue) it's pretty obvious that opinion isn't one-sided on that. What's the best way forward that takes that into account? Hobit (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC) The current situation already is a compromise. Until the RfC, the worst of his articles and user space pages were nominated on a regular basis. After the RfC, this stopped to give him a chance to improve the salvageable articles and delete or merge the others. This didn't happen (with very few exceptions). Now someone else starts nominating some of his pages for deletion again, and most of his nominations end in delete or merge as well. Now some people again want this to stop, to give him a chance to clean up. Nope, we tried that already, didn't work. We don't need to propose a compromise, we can just continue as before. That seemed te only thing that actually worked. Fram (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I would support moving all of Geo Swan's work to the incubator temporarily (or at least all of his BLP articles. There they can be resolved by community consensus at our leisure. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Support userfication --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC) In addition to userification and the article incubator -- compromises suggested after this thread was opened, I am going to remind everyone that on July 11th I personally redirected approximately 300 of these articles. I've acknowledged that by the wikipedia more stringent current standards many of those article no longer measured up -- although they did measure up to the standards current when they were started. I am repeating this as several contributors who have weighed in here have stated or implied that I am a serial creator on non-compliant articles. This has not been true in the past, and it is not true now. For some of the individuals held in Guantanamo new good quality references exist, and for others they don't. I am not suggesting, no one else has suggested, that the wikipedia should keep articles that don't comply with our current standards. I think that redirection of all the deleted articles -- with their full history -- is preferable to either userification or the article incubator. Practically every single contributor has acknowledged that some guantanamo captives merit separate articles. But what distinguishes the individuals who merit separate articles different from the other captives? In #No special treatment for Guantanamo captives I suggested that rather than having special treatment for Guantanamo captives it would be useful to have a discussion over all individuals who are held in some kind of extrajudicial detention. Other individuals are currently held without charge, or have been in the past. I suggested the same criteria should apply to Bowe Bergdahl, Ingrid Betancourt as apply to the Guantanamo captives. Ingrid Betancourt would already have been notable, as per WP:POLITICIAN, prior to her kidnapping. But Bowe Bergdahl was an ordinary captive, prior to his capture. Many of the arguments put forward for deleting articles on Guantanamo captives would apply equally to Bergdahl. A couple of contributors have stated or implied that my suggestion we have a broader discussion was tricky, or deceitful. Sorry, their comments were, IMO, unfair and disruptive. I suggested a range of criteria, starting with being the author or the subject of a full-length book. For all I know it may turn out that most people who read those suggested criteria stop there, at the full length book criteria, and don't go any further. If that is the conclusion of a broad discussion over criteria for extrajudicial captives, I will cheerfully work within that. Some contributors, in the sections above, have stated that the many non-keep closures from DBig's nominations should be regarded as proof that the wider wikipedia community doesn't support covering Guantanamo captives in separate articles. Well, a small handful of the same contributors showed up for those {{afd}}. I suspect that, as others have suggested above, those closures included instances of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that would not be supported by the wider community. For instance, DBig nominated for deletion articles on individuals who were charged with war crimes, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Zahir (Guantanamo Bay detainee 753), and Sufyian Barhoumi, who he shoehorned into an omnibus {{afd}} of insufficiently related individuals. Barhoumi was charged three times under each different version of the the Military Commissions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed al-Darbi is another of DBig's {{afd}} that I consider questionable. What it show is that DBig didn't even bother to read the articles, prior to nomination, so that he could write an accurate nomination. He described all the individuals in this mass nomination as former Guantanamo captives, when three of them had been held in the CIA's network of secret interrogation camps. It is an important distinction, and one DBig could not have overlooked -- if he had spent 20 seconds reading the article prior to the nomination. What I would like is: Quality control volunteers to be careful not to nominate articles for deletion at a pace that can't meaningfully be responded to -- not just articles I started -- not just articles related to terrorism. Due to the problematic nature of many of these recent {{afd}} I request all the recently {{afd}} that were closed as delete should be changed to redirects, with the full contribution history. Due to the recent {{afd}} having a narrow cross section of the community participating -- a narrow cross section who I suspect do not reflect the position the wider community would make, it is important we have a wider discussion of the notability of individuals who aren't kidnap victims, and who aren't convicted felons, who are nevertheless being detained without charge. I agree that WP:ANI is not the correct place to resolve which extrajudicial captives are notable. I am not sure where the appropriate place for the wider community to clarify these issues would be. This is not an attempt to get special treatment for Guantanamo captives, as the same consensus that emerged from this discussion would apply to Bowe Bergdahl, Ingrid Betancourt, all the current political prisoners in Cuba proper, in China, formerly held in Chile and Argentina. I see this consensus applying to all the captives held, without charge, in western countries, like Mohamed Harkat. Geo Swan (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I fail to see what "the same consensus that emerged from this discussion" is referring to. Which discussion, and what consensus? Fram (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I believe it's referring to a desired consensus from the current discussion, which died above for lack of any interest in there being a WP:NPOLITICALPRISONERS (as the only reason for there being a special notability guidline for political prisoners (which would, presumably, be more lenient than WP:NPEOPLE, WP:SOLDIER, WP:GNG etc) would be so that we could WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by having articles on them), so it's being tried again after the de facto consensus from the previous try above was "current policies are adequate and apply". - The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Also, as a final comment in response to Geo's comments above - Geo, perhaps "the wider community" might or might not agree with what you believe is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, but you can't force people to !vote in AfDs, and the silent majority is not necessarily always on your side. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC) That's what I thought as well, but it seemed a bit strange to use "the consensus that emerged" as if it somehow supported his proposal, so I hoped for a different explanation. Fram (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Geo Swan, I'm fine with the redirected article thing as a reasonable way forward. Redirects are cheap, and it keeps the BLPs out of search engines as well as deleting them does. And with the history there, they can be improved and unredirected when (and if) they are improved to meet our notability guidelines. But I agree with Fram and The Bushranger that it's not clear how the community feels about these. It's plain the nominations weren't carefully considered on an individual level and the !votes were stock responses in many cases. But that doesn't mean the outcomes weren't in line with consensus. That said, does anyone object to just redirecting all the questionable ones (which is the vast majority I believe)? I think they all meet the requirements of a redirect. Hobit (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I would also suggest that you go through your redirects and nuke the ones which link to articles which you have moved to mainspace. When you move articles, you can uncheck the "leave redirect" box, so that another cross-space redirect isn't generated. I have no problem with redirects here; in fact, I was going along behind the AfDs that had closed as delete - before the merge/redirect option started being suggested in the AfDs, and largely accepted once it was mentioned as an option - and redirecting the deleted links to the appropriate lists before this teapot boiled over. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Status What's the status of this? Does anyone care anymore? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC) People care.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC) People care, but not enough to actually fix this long-term problem. Horologium (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC) On balance I think you need an admin to close this one. But I will have a go at reducing the size of the rest of the list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I have gone ahead and escalated this just a bit. [58] He's had two years to deal with this, and it's time to actually deal with the problem. I will undoubtedly get flamed from a number of his enablers, but enough is enough. Horologium (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You can reveal the entire discussion by clicking the "show" link. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Grossly offensive Sandbox content

Sandbox changed. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Resolved  – Offensive content deleted, user blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC) User Imtitanium has added this grossly offensive material to their sandbox [59]. They have refused to remove it despite a direct approach to do so. [60]. They have recently been involved in a content dispute which has probably provoked this puerile attack. I have notified them per policy. Leaky Caldron 12:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC) That's probably worth a trip to MfD as it is material not pertaining to the building of the encyclopedia not to mention it violates WP:WEBHOST and, given some of the high profile names involved, could be conceivably a WP:BLP violation as well. Blackmane (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Please see this content [61], relating to specific WP users GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 12:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC) listen I wrote leaky Bull's name wrong. It was leaky Bull. he a writer, a friend, i know him. It is my sandbox not a public wiki article. Get yourself out. --Imtitanium (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Given Imtitaniums interactions with the WP user mentioned in the original post [62] I highly doubt these names were accidental. This is a form of childish personal attack GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 12:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Plus, does this not include "high profile" names? [63] --Imtitanium (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC) that guy's some Sirrocco. james robert is a friend. cmon. --Imtitanium (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC) None of these celebrities are in any actual Big Brother tv show that I can find, so what exactly are we looking at here? Some sort of made up fantasy football-like fictional team, and he's making up these urination and vibrator activities? Tarc (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Exactly!! its imaginary! Get it now? just for fun. DUHHH!!!! Gosh, people. --Imtitanium (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC) And therefore contravenes WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNOT. The sensible thing for you to do would be to tag it with {{db-userreq}} and concentrate on adding factual content to the encyclopedia instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Look at this --> [64]. This guy has aired almost ten seasons. --Imtitanium (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC) The attacks are against wikipedia contributors, not famous people, who said anything about BLP? GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Apparently Nicki Minaj is an actress, not a wikipedia contributor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Leaky isn't a celeb as far as I know, he's a WP user GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 13:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC) omg! It's leaky Bull ok. He a writer. how can you guys not know him.! Arghhhhhh Names got mixed up! :S --Imtitanium (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Userspace is not a playground for sick minds to make up stories of famous people urinating on each other, or for creating pretend reality tv articles in general. I'll send the whole lot off to MfD unless an admin steps in and speedies this crap now. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC) it's removed. Next time you're in my face. talk politely. You got a sick mind. How dare you speak to me like that! Be in your wiki-limits. --Imtitanium (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I've been away an hour and came back here expecting a result. This is a simple matter of a gratuitous, offensive personal attack against me. He has my user page linked throughout that "game" page. I don't care what the page is for, I want the offensive material removed and the user Admin. warned. Leaky Caldron 13:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC) I'm going to speedy this page very shortly unless someone comes up with a very good reason I shouldn't. To the extent the people named are Wikipedia contributors, it's inappropriate; to the extent the people named are public or semi-public figures, it's also inappropriate. I don't see why we want to spend a week on MfD arguing about this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Beaten you to it NYB. Imtitanium - please don't even attempt anything like this again. GiantSnowman 13:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Many thanks to all concerned. Leaky Caldron 13:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC) what abt this? this also has some public figures involved. [65] --Imtitanium (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Blocked This guy's behavior is just erratic and disruptive. It doesn't show any signs of stopping and he doesn't seem to get the point. I've given him a week block but I think he's going to be heading done an indef based on WP:CIR soon. I see quite a bit of reverting other users in his edit history that make me think he has trouble getting along and working collaboratively.--v/r - TP 14:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Indeed. He does have a point about the other user though, as from a quick glance the stuff at User:Sirocco758/Sandbox5 and the other sandboxes there appear to be the same type of problematic content. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC) That is not why the case brought. I would say that there is a significant difference in content that is puerile but essentially harmless and gratuitous & offensive material of a sexual nature directly aimed at another editor. Leaky Caldron 16:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Still inappropriate for Wikipedia though. I've MfD'd all of that other user's fake articles.--v/r - TP 16:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

removal of afd notice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Protected--v/r - TP 14:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The afd notice on NEStalgia is being repeatedly removed while the afd is still open. Removal is being done by multiple IPs and accounts to avoid sactions. Can this article be semiprotected to stop this? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, the normal place to make protection requests is at WP:RFPP, though admins will often respond to requests here as well. Monty₈₄₅ 14:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

socks insulting editors

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Warren revealed a group of socks operated by user:Robert Warren. As of now the socks are unblocked and insult editors, who try to keep their POV-warring in check: "When I grow up I want to be just like you: all knowing and infallible!", "some kid identifying himself as "WilliamH"", "the POV zelots". Could someone please have a look. noclador (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"He probably want to make a "Deutche Ordnung" on Wikipedia but he may not realize that Hitler and Goebbels won't be back again". Anyone awake??? noclador (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's better to let possible socks spout off, as it gives them more rope to hang themselves with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Noclador, please discriminate between likely and unlikely socks. Just reading the checkuser reporting page makes it quite clear that Voyt13 is unlikely to be a sock. Accusing genuine people in amongst the socks will not calm the discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ramil Safarov

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This BLP is currently the subject of an edit war involving multiple editors, obviously due to the international controversy Safarov's treatment at home has caused. I have dealt with the edit war at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Brandmeister reported by User:George Spurlin (Result: warning, article protected, one editor blocked 24h) where I announced a full protection of a week's time for the article, since there were frequent mini-wars about the subject's crime, whether to call him a murderer, and whatnot, so immediate action was needed per WP:BLP. Discospinster endorsed the protection. Of course I have now gotten a few direct requests to change the protection level. I declined a simple request for semi-protection but then it was suggested by another user to combine a semi-protection with a 1RR restriction and possible 1 week sanction since the article is actually in need of neutral editing. Let me quote MarshallBagramyan from my user talk:

"Might it not perhaps be better to put semi-restriction on the article and impose a 1RR/week sanction on all editors who edit it? In its current state, the article is a mess. The grammar is terrible and the article is in dire need of some copyediting. For a topic that is now being fervidly discussed all over the news and internet, and even appears on the Wikipedia main page, I think that at least some edits should be made, at least under the supervision of some experienced third party editors. Just saying."

I think this is a workable solution that allows for copyediting grammatical errors and will keep potential edit warriors at bay. The details however need to be worked out here. De728631 (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What about a 6 month duration 1rr/week rule with an exclusion permitting uncontroversial copyediting without regard to the 1/rr rule and authorization for any administrator to place editors abusing the copyediting exclusion on full 1rr/week? Monty₈₄₅ 22:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would also be useful to define the parameters of the content that is to be edited. I think we can all agree to fix spelling errors and adding or removing a definite article which doesn't belong in front of a noun. But I also think it would help to determine what content might be added, removed, or modified and how to prevent a general, simultaneous free-for-all whereby all the editors take advantage of this opportunity to make a few edits. One way to start might be to have editors place a request at the talk page to edit a certain section and cite the reason, which can then be evaluated in length on the talk page in case there are objections.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That is essentially a 0rr rule, its been done, but only in the most extreme cases. A 1rr/week rule would be a better starting point. Monty₈₄₅ 22:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the big problems with having multiple users editing at the same time is that not all are willing to participate in discussions. How are we supposed to enforce them to discuss? And how is consensus going to be reached without a neutral, third-side "negotiator"? I support the idea of 0rr only in case if you can find a neutral user who is willing to be a negotiator and his decision will be acceptable for both sides. I can't see any other way of avoiding edit wars. --Yerevanci (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected one week by User:De728631. That seems to be a reasonable step. When protection expires it would be fine to put on semi-protection and to impose a 1RR/day restriction, in my opinion. If you want there to be enforcement of discussion then one admin will probably have to assign themselves to watch the article constantly. Another option is to freely hand out WP:ARBAA2 warnings to anyone who shows extreme nationalist bias on the talk page. I see at least one comment in the section at Talk:Ramil Safarov#Neutrality that causes concern. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that one week is going to change anything. In my opinion, the best option for now is to restrict the number of reverts to 0 or 1 and move the discussion of controversial issues to the talk page. And it would be great if there will be some kind of negotiator there, because as you may know Armenian-Azerbaijani relations aren't perfect and so are the relations between the users from those countries, including me and the extradition of Safarov didn't make it any better. I mean, you have to understand that there is a huge emotional things going on and you can't simply ignore that. So, what I suggest is some admin to be there and work on the talk page, listen to both sides, and make neutral decisions that will be acceptable for both of us. That's the best I can think of, otherwise time isn't really going to change anything, other than making the article be out of date. --Yerevanci (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accused of Wikistalking

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

User:Cgersten has expressed concern that I am stalking his edits. There is a bit of history here, going back about two years, but the most recent articles in which both of us have had contact are Tim Ryan, Insider trading, and Grand Hotel (film). As I said, there is a bit of history. Two years ago, Cgersten was trying to add information about a single routine mission over Iraq, that happened in the first few weeks of George W. Bush's 1st term in office. Click here for an example of that edit. There is also this edit] to a Bill Clinton article. I reverted both for non notability. There was also, this edit to Grand Hotel. All of those edits I reverted for either being not notable or poorly cited. So thats a bit of background to how we got here.

Fast forward two years to February 2012. Cgertsen begins to add poorly sourced information to the article Insider trading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Notice that Paul Ryan is not mentioned in the previous edit). Then on August 11th, Cgersten adds this poorly cited edit to Paul Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is reverted, not by me.

Fast forward a few weeks and Cgersten returns to Paul Ryan and adds the same poorly cited controversial material. I was one of three different people who reverted Cgersten. I must make note that as soon as Paul Ryan became a candidate, I added the article to my watch list and had made edist to teh main article and talk page prior to reverting Cgersten on that page. Cgeresten then adds the same poorly sourced syntheses and original research to Insider trading with this edit. I reverted again, but was accused of stalking. Cgeresten re-added the same unsourced information to Grand Hotel (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I reverted again because it is unsourced and controversial.

Cgersten leaves me a comment on my talk page to stop stalking his edits. I asked him to either report me or I will report myself, so he told me he doesn't know how to file an ANI report, so I am reporting myself for him.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not one agrees with my posts, (and a number of posters do not), the point of my complaint is that Jojhutton has been stalking my posts. While I can understand he has interest in politics (e.g., Ryan, Bush, Clinton) and reverted my posts, Jojhutton is obvious stalking my posts as he reverted a post of mine concerning the 1932 picture Grand Hotel, (Betcha Jojhutton never heard of it or seen the movie prior to my post.)

The only way he would have known of my post to the Grand Hotel was to follow my posts, with the intent of reverting my posts.

I am asking Wikipedia to make Jojhutton cease and desist stalking me. --Tuco_bad 01:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)I'll grant that there is no apparent connection between the insider trading stuff and Grand Hotel. However, when one sees a user repeatedly adding speculative or poorly sourced material it is only natural and indeed smart to see if they make a habit of editing in such a manner. I would also note that more than one user has seen fit to revert these edits, many of which do appear to contain original research or synthesis. I also note that Jojhutton has restricted his edit summaries and so forth to commenting only on the edits themselves, not the user who made them. I'd like to hear directly from Cgeresten about this, but my initial reaction is that his edits do indeed violate multiple WP content policies and that he appears to be engaging in edit warring. I would advise him to stop both of those activities and restrain himself to discussing these issues on the relevant talk pages until a conensus has been reached regarding the appropriateness of this material. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not only seen Grand Hotel, but own a VHS copy. And yes it's on my watch list, like a lot of films I like. You may notice that I have quite a few television and film edits. Never seen or noticed the "nipple" scenes that you refer to though. As far as checking your edit history, that is well within guidelines, especially for editors who have a history of making controversial and unsourced OR edits.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to do a slow motion when Garbo/Crawford puts on her nightgown. --Tuco_bad 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC) cgersten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

My "poorly sourced material" includes citing page 1 of the New York Times (Bush & Clinton posts), as for Paul Ryan; citing his Congressional Financial Disclosure for 2008, and the UK newspaper: The Guardian. As for the Grand Hotel. please watch the movie, also you would think a "watcher" of the Wikipedia Grand Hotel article would revert my post if incorrect, not Jojhutton who most likely never watched the movie. --Tuco_bad 02:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC) cgersten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Seeing something in a movie is not necessarily a ticket to inclusion - especially if you have to go through some gyrations to discover it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, the problems with your edits are not all the same, so poor sourcing is not the problem with all of the disputed material. Your edits to Grand Hotel are the very definition of original research. You cannot go by what you think you saw in a movie, espescially for a "nip slip" in a golden age Hollywood movie. You are going to have to find an actual reliable source for that one or you can expect it to be reverted every time you add it. Other issues are giving undue weight in the insider trading article, and elsewhere possible synthesis, that is drawing your own conclusions about the meaning of what a source is indicating. Misrepresenting what the source says is as bad or worse than not having one at all. I'm not saying that is in fact what you did, but if another user expresses such a concern you should try and resolve the issue through discussion, not edit warring.

And that is the real point here, you have been edit warring to push these edits into these articles. I've never seen Grand Hotel, but I would have reverted your edit for the exact same reson: you don't have a source that verifies your edit. When your edits are reverted repeatedly you should follow WP:BRD and discuss it on the talk page as opposed to edit warring, regardles of who reverted you. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Crazy edit-war at Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can an admin step in at Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK? There seems to be a flash edit-war taking place there, involving three accounts and one or more IPs. One of the main culprits, Chetch the Letch (talk · contribs), made their most recent revert after just being warned for edit-warring (albeit on a different article). I can't tell which version of the article should be the restored while it is sorted out, etc. Thanks in advance! Singularity42 (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, Chetch the Letch (talk · contribs) and Chech the letch (talk · contribs) are probably the same editor. When the contributions are compared together, this really causes edit-warring concerns. Singularity42 (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, sorting through this now, hang on. Swarm ^X 01:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, so far Shadow light 99 (talk · contribs) blocked indef as a sock of Goingforgold1234 (talk · contribs). Goingforgold blocked for 1 week.
• Chech the letch (talk · contribs) blocked indef as a sock of Chetch the Letch (talk · contribs). Chetch blocked 1 week. Swarm ^X 02:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Jumbojet2468 (talk · contribs) blocked indef as sock of Chetch the Letch (talk · contribs). Swarm ^X 02:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• Page semi-protected for 2 weeks to prevent continued sockpuppetry. Swarm ^X 02:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• It now appears that Chetch and his socks were edit warring to push through a cut-down version of the article originally performed by Thaaqib.7ameed (talk · contribs), and that the various socks had divided up their edits so that they wouldn't blatantly be making the same edit that Thaaqib had performed a few days earlier. As you can see, Chetch's version is nearly identical to Thaaqib's version. SPI submitted to hopefully determine the link, or lack thereof. Swarm ^X 02:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, you protected the right version. Shadow light(s) is making some pretty bad edits, without much in the way of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not a big concern, but there seems to be an edit warring currently happening at Revolution (TV series) regarding the external link for the Revolution Wiki, being kept or removed per WP:ELNO, and it is a as it contains nothing worthwhile not already covered in that article, between me, an IP (150.203.222.115), and Caringtype1, but I have stopped removing the link, as I'm unsure at this point. Should that link be kept, removed, etc? Just thinking about WP:ELNO. Cheers, TBrandley 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You should probably start a discussion at the talk page for the series because, as things stand, this isn't yet an admin matter. I can tell you that we have thousands of links to other TV show specific wikis like those for Lost, Star Trek , Buffy, Dr Who and on and on. There may not be much at this one now but it may grow. I suggest this thread be closed until normal procedures have been exhausted. MarnetteD | Talk 02:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I leave comments at the article's talk page. Thanks, TBrandley 02:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quebec election - Post-election edit war syndrome

Another election sees a change of government and has already brought with it the usual round of Post-election edit war syndrome between those who want to immediately change all the articles (often including anon IPs) and those who want to wait for the actual handover of power. So far I've had to protect Jean Charest (outgoing Premier) but other articles like Pauline Marois, Premier of Quebec, Quebec and all manner of other ministers' biographies and listings of post holders may also succumb to this. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A swathe of technical articles at AfD today (I think eleven so far), all with simplistic boilerplate nomination, "Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining."

Whilst these articles are indeed highly technical, mostly poorly explained and difficult to understand in their present form, there is no indication that this makes them a WP:DICDEF - and IMHO, these issues make them rather the opposite of what DICDEF and a presumed transwiki to wikt: would be appropriate for. Nor is the nominator calling for transwiki, but (as always, it's TPH after all) outright deletion.

I know that WP:BEFORE is considered to not apply to TPH, past calls for an AfD topic ban of him having been rejected. However these nominations are no more than WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• They're overly technical stubs and I see no way that any of them can be possibly expanded beyond their sub-stub, sourceless state. It's not that I don't understand them; it's that I don't think they're notable. All they do is say "An X is a Y, here's one example" and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• What is an "overly technical stub", in terms of a valid reason to delete, as against a need for improvement by editing?

You have twice used the rather insulting comment " Don't expect the house to build itself." against editors today (both of whom have contribution records that aren't simply dominated by AfD nominations). Yet here you refuse to "build the house" yourself, and you assume the impossibility of anyone else building it either, by deleting articles to make sure there are no foundations left to build upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I refuse to build the house. It's that I have searched to the best of my abilities and not found the equipment to even build the house. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: In the instances that I saw, the best of your abilities could not have been very good. There were numerous scholarly articles on topics about which you said nothing could be written beyond a dictionary definition, and they were found instantly via Google Scholar. And the topics were of a sort that anyone with experience with similar topics would immediately expect that much more could be written. How impressed are we supposed to be, in light of those facts, by your self-reported inability to see how those articles could exist, and your inability to find them in an instant by means of Google, as the rest of us did, when you searched to the best of your ability? Michael Hardy (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone who is concerned about keeping the articles actually found any RS or expanded the article? Because if not, TPH is only stating fact - the article will not improve itself. It is incumbent on those wanting it kept to improve it. Besides, if one is of the position that the article should be deleted, why would one build it themself? GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarity is not notability. TPH's reasons to delete are based entirely on the current quality of the articles, and his understanding of them. None of his points address notability, our only real reason to ever delete. (I've long advocated WP:JUNK, but it's still far from policy.) Then, as he states here, if he doesn't understand a topic, and if he is unwilling to improve the article, he sees it as impossible for anyone else to work on it.

To some extent this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Who wants to work to improve an article that's being slated for deletion by deletion's greatest advocate? This is why TPH's Dalek-like policy of summary extermination for any article that isn't perpetually defended by other editors is so toxic (we used to have WP:IMPERFECT too, but like WP:BEFORE, TPH has seemingly earned himself a free pass on that one). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• i have just reviewed the first 5 and 2 seems fine for AFD the other 3 i can see the point the OP is making some do seem bit over the top for nomation one of them does have a source and i could find one more source, i think the problem is ones i looked at are about new technologies so might get coverage in teh future so it hard one to call. i think both editors are in the right and wrong--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Why is this an administrator issue? What specific policy is being violated which requires administrator action? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Good bloody question. The only nit I would pick is TPH's assertion that Warden's mass deprodding is anything personal. Warden doesn't trouble himself to give reasons for deprodding as a matter of course, whomever the original prodder. That being said, I understand that for inexperienced users, coming to ANI -- and, moreover, coming to ANI without bothering to attempt any other resolution, including notes to appropriate talk pages -- is a hallmark of "OMG SomeGuy Is Doing Something I Don't Like!" Andy is neither an inexperienced editor nor unfamiliar with ANI, and so I am baffled. Ravenswing 20:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Because the repeated nature of this issue, with this editor, means it's time to discuss sanctions, hopefully including a topic ban. Or at least, application of the clueiron and a reminder of his previous agreement to only AfD according to policy, rather than effusive whim. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• If Warden is stalking TPH round removing prods with no explanation then, given that he was warned to use proper procedures in the RFC/U about him, we made need to discuss a separate topic ban for him as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the nominations in and of themselves, though I'm not necessarily sure they should be deleted. Personally, I think this should be closed without action. However, removing prods without explanation is definitely against policy, but Colonel Warden did leave explanations on the article talk pages, so there doesn't really seem to be anything there either. AniMate 21:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• You left a "not" out of the previous paragraph. To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to also... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• To answer Psychonaut: I think the reason this got brought here is that TPH keeps getting repeatedly brought here for his actions at AfD. Whether those are valid actionable concerns or sour grapes I'll leave to others to decide. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• AniMate: he's simply putting a boilerplate "I think this article has merit" note on the talkpage. There's no explanation as to why that might be the case. (I'm not saying these PRODs were correct by the way, merely that following an editor around reverting their PRODs without any real explanation when you've been censured for it before is probably not a great idea). Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• So you're complaining about boilerplating, and breaching previous RFC/U terms? This is an issue about TPH, not Warden. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh for pity's sake. Once again, Andy, you're not an ANI rookie. That disingenuous "You're only supposed to discuss the editor I want you to discuss!" statement would receive a calm correction if a newbie delivered it. You ought to know better. Ravenswing 02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Beginning to notice a pattern here. Warden goes mass-removing prods of mine without explanation. I nominate the article for AFD. Warden says "speedy keep, Hammer didn't do a WP:BEFORE." I say that I did. Regardless of outcome, I get tattled on at ANI. ANI discussion closes because all anyone can do is question why it was brought to ANI in the first place. And finally, no one but Warden and Dingley ever seems to think that I'm doing anything wrong, or at least wrong enough to be ANI-worthy. Hmm... Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• I patrolled AFD this morning, as I usually do. I came across three similar AFDs and found that the articles had all been written by the same editor. I went to that editor's talk page to see what was going on and found that it was covered in PROD and AFD templates. TPH has now rolled back most of these templates; I'm not sure why. Anyway, as all these articles formed a related group, I followed them all up to ensure that they received proper attention rather than being silently deleted by the PROD process. It would have been a lot simpler and less burdensome if a group nomination had been made for these rather than having 11 separate discussions. And, as there isn't much of a case for deletion, it would have been better yet if TPH had just engaged in discussion on the relevant talk pages rather than stirring up all this fuss. See WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• So all of these articles were created by the same editor? And in a spirit of purest GF, TPH just happened to find that each and every one of them needed to be deleted without further discussion (and when that was rejected, deleted a second time to make sure), for exactly the same reason?

Please, if you have to, you have to. But don't tell us it's raining. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• We really need a tool that measures how successful ones AfD nominations are. I mean, TPH is known for nominating ridiculously notable things for AfD, largely because it seems he doesn't actually look for sources. And I just remembered that there is a way to measure that. Scottywong's AfD Stats tool can be tinkered to just show nominated articles. And so I did that. Out of his past 250 AfDs, 85 (36.8%) were actually deleted, while 117 (50.6%) were Keeps/Merges/or Userfys, though the amount of the latter two were not that many. And then 29 (12.6%) were No Consensus. What concerns me even more is the high number of Speedy Keeps, because that just shows an outright not understanding which articles are AfD material. Silverseren^C 02:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Do note that you should disregard the five April 1st AfDs. Silverseren^C 02:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

All the recent speedy keeps were where he withdrew himself. The system works. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• TPH was blocked for making those AfDs. He had been blocked in a previous year and was warned again this year. But he still went on to make not one but five joke nominations! Warden (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• He says "I see no way they can be expanded.", or words to that effect. The fact that there's one person who doesn't see doesn't prove much. Look at this paper. One of the proposed deletions is on the topic of that paper. If nothing more than a dictionary definition could be written on this topic, then how could that paper have been written. I know that this is the kind of topic on which much more than a dictionary definition can be written. The fact that one particular person doesn't see how it's possible tells me only that that person doesn't understand much, a fact that is not interesting. I don't know why this is a matter for the Administrators' notice-board, unless any user who's a fool and goes around unreasonably annoying reasonable people is such a matter. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• ....and one of the articles is about visualizing tensor fields, and he calls it "overly technical" even though it doesn't go into mathematics! How could anyone say that something like _that_ can't be expanded beyond a dictionary definition? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It does smell very much of WP:IDONTLIKEIT... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Not at all WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I saw a bajillion unsourced stubs by the same author. They all looked pretty equally dire to me, and a little WP:BEFORE work showed nothing that looked like it could fix the article's problems. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe he's visually impaired (as well)? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Again, what is there for an admin to do here? Every time I'm dragged to AFD, it's always a.) by Dingley and/or Warden, and b.) results in absolutely jack shit happening but people bitching. If anyone should be topic banned here, it should be Dingley and Warden for constantly wasting ANI space for tattling on me for things that are ultimately not raising a stink over. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Your rate of AfD nominations that don't result in Deletion is actually of concern to the community as a whole, since it's us that have to take the time to vote and discuss in the nominations. If they are clear keeps, then it is a waste of said time. Silverseren^C 05:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not convinced. How's about sampling some other editors to see their keep/delete ratio? I'm definitely not the only one who's ever had a lot of AFDs closed as keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Then that's an issue that needs to be raised with them as well. There's something fundamentally wrong if you're getting more keep decisions than delete decisions. Especially since you're such a prolific nominator. Silverseren^C 06:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• So raise Warden or me at ANI or RFC/U. I see your AfD nominations as poorly thought out, disruptive and harmful to the encyclopedia. I would like to see sanctions imposed to stop you doing that. I see negligible effort on your part to work on improving articles outside of country music, but I never see your AfD nominations similarly reined in to a topic that you have the same core knowledge of. I don't believe I'm alone in seeing your nominations in this light, even though, as you say, absolutely jack shit happen[s] . Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• TPH's prodding is certainly less disruptive than Colonel Warden's chronic removal of prods. At least he makes some effort to explain why, and doesn't lie about the contents of sources or his edits.—Kww(talk) 03:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a running AfD until Warden has said "speedy keep" to it. I'm clearly no fan of the ARS posse's rubbberstamp inclusionism either. The difference is though that Warden (and others') simple wolf-crying isn't disruptive because no-one pays any attention to it any more, and surely not closing admins. TPH OTOH sets a deletion process in train, and if that isn't resisted at the time, we lose articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Section break regarding WP:BEFORE

• Perhaps Section D of WP:BEFORE regarding source searching should be emphasized more, for all that nominate articles for deletion. An unfortunate ongoing trend at AfD discussions are nominations that lack the most basic of source searching prior to nomination. This tends to clog the system with nominations about topics that are clearly notable, often easily discerned from simply opening the Google News, Google Books and/or Google Scholar links that are part of AfD nomination headers, and then just opening and reading some of the links. Other times people base topic notability upon subjective personal assessments of it, rather than the actual notability guidelines, and also don't bother to do a basic source search. Furthermore, deletion nominations are often based upon the appearance of articles and only sources (or lack thereof) within them, rather than the availability of sources (See WP:NRVE). All of these occurrences are unfortunately becoming a constant at Articles for deletion. Perhaps its time for the community to consider making source searching and section D of WP:BEFORE more pressing, or even mandatory. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Some examples of nominations from AfD (they're not from User:TenPoundHammer) that appear to lack source searching prior to nomination, be based upon the state of articles (rather than available sources), and/or based upon subjective assessments of notability rather than WP:N. (This is not intended to denigrate any editors, they're just examples):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel design
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandoned railway
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bertha (golf club)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PVC decking
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Boone
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigasus (politics)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespoke BBQ Company
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Office Box Lobby Recycling program
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rare Coin Wholesalers

There's more, but perhaps these are enough examples at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• That was tried once before, if I remember. But then all the people that routinely nominate articles for deletion went into the discussion and opposed the proposal, with a number of them even stating that BEFORE shouldn't need to be followed anyways and it was up to everyone else to make sure the articles are up to snuff in the first place. Silverseren^C 07:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Therefore, one person's view that a topic is non-notable, which may in some instances be subjective and contrary to WP:N, will continue to immediately have more weight from the start, and it's up to at least two people to counter what could be a faulty argument from the start. Something is wrong with this process. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

people have been claiming that for years. if it were actually the IMMENSE issue that that wailing and gnashing of teeth suggest, we wouldnt be a 4+million articles. -- The Red Pen of Doom 07:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• How many years have people been claiming "that"? Wikipedia continues to evolve, and it's procedures should evolve along with it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The main reason that we get such behaviour is that Twinkle makes it easy. According to Uncle G, the process of starting an AFD was made intentionally arduous so that editors would not do it lightly. Twinkle has now automated most of the steps so all the nominator needs to do is to push a button and cut/paste a reason, which is often perfunctory or one-size-fits-all, as in the case above. The steps of WP:BEFORE are not made easy by Twinkle and so they are not done. In particular, Twinkle does not facilitate the following sensible actions:

1. Checking the article history
2. Checking previous nominations
3. Checking linked articles or interwiki links
4. Searching for sources
5. Starting discussion on the talk page
6. Communicating in a personal way with the author(s) or project(s)
7. Starting a merge discussion
8. Making a group nomination

The main option which Twinkle presents in such cases to nominate the article for deletion and so, per the law of the instrument, that is what is done.

An administrative remedy to overzealous use of Twinkle is the Speedy Keep process. This seems to be little used compared to Speedy Deletion, which is used many times every day — someone even tried to speedy delete one of my own creations yesterday. That speedy was quite inappropriate but Twinkle made it easy and so that's what was done, generating extra work for myself, the admin who dismissed the speedy and watching bystanders.

If more vigorous application of the speedy keep process is not availing, then perhaps abuse of Twinkle might be policed in some way. Is there a code of conduct for its use? Does it maintain statistics which would enable us to monitor problematic use? Is there a technical way of suspending its use by a particular editor, in a similar way to withdrawal of rollback privilege?

Warden (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The reason 'speedy keep' is seldom used is because it is seldom needed. I used to be a strict inclusionist like you; then I took an arrow to the kneestarted studying Wikipedia's notability and deletion policies more (as distinguished from editing policies) - and the majority of AfDs, to my eye, seem to be at least to the level of reasonable doubt that their AfDs are by no means spurious. Yes, WP:BEFORE should be followed more scrupulously by all, but the non-BEFOREing bad apples should be dealt with by dipping them out of the barrel, not by taking a sledgehammer to everyone through changing deletion policies. (Also, IIRC, Twinkle access can not be revoked from a user.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• It would be great if TWINKLE could be modified such that when a user begins to nominate an article for deletion, it presents (at minimum) the {{Find sources}} template, and maybe also a list of alternatives to deletion along the lines Warden suggested. As things currently stand, the helpful mechanism for finding sources isn't shown until after the AfD page has already been created. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Twinkle has many powerful maintenance tasks built into it that can enact immediate changes to Wikipedia articles and discussion pages. Unfortunately, it is apparent that it can be misused, in which a person can run it's script, type something to the effect of "Delete, not notable" and then watch in amusement at AfD discussions what their simple actions cause. This is problematic, because it's counterproductive to building and maintaining an online encyclopedia that is supposed to be based upon encyclopedic principles and consensus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I also note that Speedy keep has a specific area of usage and is frequently misused. Speedy keeps has five specific criteria for usage. 1. Nom withdraws, 2. the nomination is disruptive 3. the nominator is banned, 4, 5 are for policy pages and stuff linked from the main page. If you claim speedy keep but 1+3,4,5 aren't fulfilled then you are stating that the nom is disruptive. Warden, I notice your use of Speedy Keep only matched with speedy keep results about a quarter of the time. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• This record shows that the previous poster has no experience with !voting Speedy Keep.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've personally never used a jackhammer, but I understand the basics. This argument is not the most convincing. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• The indenting of the previous post indicates that it is a reply to my post, but the force of logic suggests that it is a reply to the editor who makes an argument from authority that "speedy keep...is frequently misused".  It is a fallacious argument from authority, as proven by the erroneous quoting of WP:SK#1, where an editor with experience in speedy keep criteria would readily know that "no argument for deletion" is a part of WP:SK#1.  Nor is this the page to establish a theory of misuse of speedy keep !votes.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've posted a link to this discussion on the Twinkle talk page, Here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Update: Some discussion has been initiated at the Twinkle talk page Here, to modify Twinkle to provide links for finding sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

We're supposed to be assuming good faith here. And as long as article creation has no mandatory checks, BEFORE can never be made mandatory. And even if sources did exist, if they aren't suitable for notability or referencing, it doesn't matter if there's a million hits, an AFD is still possible. I agree that zealous misuse of Twinkle is bad, but this all features of Twinkle or other shortcut tools. And the way we deal with misuse is via looking at behaviors of editors that misuse it, not the tool itself. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, editors that use the Wikipedia:Article wizard have to undergo several mandatory checks prior to an article being published in mainspace. This counters the notion that WP:BEFORE cannot be made mandatory per the above rationale, because said checks do exist for some users who create articles. Twinkle can always be improved. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Your comparison doesn't hold water. It fails here: "editors that use the Wikipedia:Article wizard...." Article creation does not have a mandatory vetting process. Some people use tools that make it easier to understand and that is all. Similarly, then, can we say that WP:BEFORE makes understanding deletion easier.--v/r - TP 14:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• A better example of a mandatory "check" regarding article creation is that presently, only registered users are allowed to create articles on Wikipedia. IP users are required to post article submissions to WikiProject Articles for creation, which are then checked by registered users. Conversely, it appears that IP users are able to propose articles for deletion and nominate them for deletion at AfD discussions. This is somewhat unbalanced, because options to have content removed from than encyclopedia are more available compared to options to create content published in mainspace. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Legally, perhaps. For practical purposes? It would be really helpful if hyperbole was checked in at the door, because the fact of the matter - as an AfD frequent flyer such as yourself knows full well - is that AfDs filed by anon IPs are very rare. (Would you like to tell folks, or shall I, how many AfDs you have to go back through to find one?)

  That being said, the "We need to make the deletion process tougher because, damn, people are deleting articles through it" discussion doesn't belong at ANI. It either belongs in a widely-publicized RfC or on the talk page of WP:Deletion policy. Ravenswing 02:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKETENPOUNDHAMMER and these threads I think are beginning to veer into WP:HOUND territory. Reyk _YO! 05:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Fraid that's not the case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I think it is. By my count we now have two ANI threads, one AN thread, and one RFCU started by Andy Dingley this year whinging about TPH. In all cases the general consensus was/is that TPH may have extreme and unpopular opinions regarding deletion, but that there's nothing actionable in anything he's doing. What do you call TPH being dragged to ANI every two months by the same person on charges that have been repeatedly thrown out, if not hounding? Reyk _YO! 03:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
      • It could be 'TPH continuing in borderline-at-best behavior at XfD, but nobody else bothers because they know it's a lost cause', but I might just be overly cynical tonight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Continuance of discussion about User:TenPoundHammer

• TenPoundHammers vote matching rate is ok for an editor [66]. I don't see any issue here. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• You seem immediately forgiving about this matter, rather than addressing the concerns presented herein from the initiator of this discussion. Copy/paste nominations for deletion stating that no sources were found regarding a topic are obviously inferior when the nominator doesn't acknowledge sources already in the articles they nominated.

• Examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asymptotic Decider
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection

— How can no sources be found when they already exist in articles? These types of deletion nominations are obviously counterproductive, and are ultimately injurious to the encyclopedia. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• That's an improper link. You should be using this one that only shows his nomination rate. Silverseren^C 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that list, IRWolfie. The current batch of nominations is obviously bucking the trend, in particular because TPH entered a field he seems to have little if any expertise in. His deletion nominations were all template text saying basically that he doesn't know how to expand the articles, which comes as little surprise. Hopefully this is a learning experience that WP:IDON'TKNOWHOWTOEXPANDIT is not a good reason to nominate something for deletion, even more so when the nominator lacks expertise in the field. Let's call it a learning experience. I don't think any sanctions are necessary at this point. I also hope User:Tobo won't feel too bitten by having his dozen stubs nominated for deletion in one fell swoop. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps editors shouldn't search for articles they may not have expertise in, and then based upon this possible limitation, immediately nominate them for removal from the encyclopedia, eh? Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Notability is based on a presumption that we allow an article on a topic because of its sourcing. The burden to show and demonstrate the presumption has been merited that is on the editors that maintain a page. A random editor that passes an article and sees nothing to indicate notability and does a good faith search for sourcing on that, even if he has no clue what it means, is completely in their right to AFD it, because we cannot assume our readers have appropriate domain knowledge either. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Sure, if you're fine with a concurrent rule that editors who cannot prove expertise in a particular kind of article do not get a say in its defense, either at XfD or through deprodding. Somehow I doubt you would be. Ravenswing 02:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) My impression is that TPH nominated this articles because they were short stubs all written by the same user:Tobo, who although not exactly new has little editing experience. (Inexperienced users sometimes produce articles that are easy marks for deletions or worse, see the case of #user:Daviddaved above, for example.) When I wrote above that this incident should be a "learning experience" for TPH I meant basically what Carl more bluntly said below. Should it happen again, restrictions should be envisaged; we shouldn't give a WP:RANDY too much WP:ROPE, but let's WP:AGF for now that feedback has been received. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that, should this happen again, we should strongly consider some sanctions (e.g. a limit of one AFD per day). Nominations that claim sources cannot be found for articles that already have sources are particularly strange - at the very least these demonstrate carelessness in the nominating process that might be remedied by nominating articles more slowly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone experienced like TPH is saying "no sources" I'm assuming they're talking about secondary, independent, reliable, third-party sources required by WP:V and WP:N. If the only sources for a topic are hiding in google scholar hits, there's a really good chance that WP:V/WP:N may not be met. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You're assumption is baseless, I'm afraid. TPH has shown no sign of literacy in the type of sources involved in these articles. For example he makes this nom: "Dicdef, no sources or notability", but the source already given there is wp:secondary as well as reliable, and just glancing on it, one discovers that the notion has been proposed more than a 100 years ago (see quote on Talk:height ridge). It turned out that we had an article on it already, but TPH's nomination rationale was absurd. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That shouldn't matter. If an article requires sources that are so technical that only those with the proper knowledge/training can identify what proper sources are, perhaps that's not a good topic for a general purpose encyclopedia? I can appreciate that those with the knowledge know exactly where to find the best sources to help improve an article, but if sources are so isolated/difficult to understand that an average reader won't be able to find them, that's a problem. I will argue that the height ridge PROD is a bit of concern in that a peek to google scholar with that term, without even looking at the contents of the papers but the snippets provided, show that the topic is nearly always connected to "ridge detection" so even if sources are poor, that should have been a redirect (as you eventually did). So yes, there may definitely be a few hasty noms in that, but I put that as a speed issue that TPH has to account for, not so much "no, he's not smart enough to be able to tell what proper sourcing it" as being called out here. (I will note, looking at the article link that was give, that the one source is questionable at a secondary source (it tells how to calculate them but not why they are important or the like), but that would be something expected to hash out in an AFD discussion) --MASEM (t) 13:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't claim much expertise in computer vision, but still managed to determine in under a minute that the source was secondary and reliable. The part I quoted on the talk page, which says who proposed the notion and when, involves no math at all. Anyone with basic English skills can read that. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing on reliability (it was a peer-reviewed paper); the secondary nature, however, is questionable. Reiterating of facts in the course of presenting a method of doing it is nothing new, and ergo hard to qualify necessarily as a secondary source. Note that I'm not discounting that it could be a secondary source, but this would be the type of this under discussion at an AFD to determine if that is sufficient for notability. So this goes back to that when someone with enough history like TPH says "no sources", they're likely talking of sources specifically that will meet WP:V and WP:N, and not just that the article exists. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're simply putting words in his mouth. Rapid fire nominations: 19:03 (1) 19:03 (2) 19:04 (1) 19:04 (2) 19:04 (3) 19:05 (1) 19:05 (2) He performed the amazing feat of deciding that 7 different topics are not expandable (according to his deletion rationale) all in the course of 3 minutes. Allow me to doubt that time he spent any time evaluating the sources present or that he spent any time looking for potential ones. Since the articles were previously prodded, let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have evaluated them before prodding, rather than before AfDing. But that was also done at a similar pace: 21:37 21:38 (1) 21:38 (2) 21:38 (3) 21:39 (1) 21:39 (2) 21:40 (1) 21:40 (2) 21:41 (1) 21:41 (2) 21:43. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"should this happen again"

Just how many times does this have to happen before enough is enough? This is far from the first time that TPH has acted in this way, or even that he's been dragged to ANI because of it. As his erroneous PRODs since this thread opened indicate, he has zero respect for either deletion policy or community censure of his actions. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why should nominations for deletion (to remove entire article pages from the encyclopedia) be considered valid when they're based upon speculation which that state no sources have been found, when reliable sources already exist in the nominated articles and were apparently ignored, or possibly not even seen or read? Furthermore, why should this have to be countered by at least two people at an AfD discussion to disqualify the faulty nomination? Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• • WP:BURDEN. Yes, it is completely bad faith to AFD articles where one simple google check reveals plenty of sourcing (and repeatly bad AFDs like that should have that user taken to RFC/U) but if the topic is even moderately obscure, you the creator should be responsible for sourcing it from the start. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The general theme seems to be "too quick to AFD on too little Wikipedian grounds. I don't think it helps (and often hurts) folks to be unguided because they know the ropes and have a posse. Conversely, I don't see anything here meriting severe remedies at this point. TPH, can you accept that maybe you've been a bit too quick to nominate on borderline wikipedian grounds, and agree to back off a bit if it would settle this current report? (and see how that goes) North8000 (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure why we are still here. The AFDs seem in good faith, have attracted a variety of opinions to keep and delete, and no one has explained or pointed to any violation of policy here. There may be some IDONTLIKEIT, but I have to wonder if it is coming from Hammer, or his detractors. Hammer leans deletionist and everyone knows this. Colonel Warden and others are just as biased in the inclusionist camp, this is no secret either. At the end of the day, as long as the noms are in good faith, it is a wash. I recommend closing with no action as there is lots of heat but very little light here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I second the motion to close with no action. I don't see anything that needs admin intervention, other than closing all the Afds after seven days. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Close as no consensus, suggest future moratorium on these discussions: Oh my God...we have one of these threads every couple of weeks. EVERY SINGLE TIME there's no consensus to sanction. Repeating it over and over again and expecting different results is, by definition, insane. Stop this madness! pbp 16:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and moratorium. Come on, people. Every time an ANI is raised on me, all we do is spin our wheels, wasting bandwidth and resources just to come to the conclusion that everyone has a different opinion on me and that nothing really neesd to be done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The rush to close by those with denial tendencies is at the heart of the problem.  North8000 asked a legitimate question.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that this thread discussion has occurred multiple times before says something in itself. Especially when, as far as I can see, the concerns in prior discussions were all valid, as they all involved a series of articles TPH nominated that were clearly notable. While he may have a number of friends that feel he can waste everyone's time in AfD nominations (vastly more time wasted in his AfDs than in this discussion), that doesn't change the fact that his nominations are disruptive and inappropriate. Silverseren^C 17:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• This type of thread may have occurred several times, but the result's always been the same — there is no consensus that I'm "disrupting". Do we really need to keep repeating ourselves this much? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I interpret TPH's behaviour as disruptive edit-warring on a multi-article scale. Of the ten nominations, only one vaguely had any merit to it, the rest were obviously speedy-keeps. The one that may have merit was a one-two sentence stub that could have been manually merged in the obvious way in an instant. Its disrespectful of people's time to set off this kind of delete-bomb, and then expect us to clean up the resulting mess. linas (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Close as no consensus - These types of discussions concerning TPH seem to always end with either a slap on the wrist or a "meh". This ties directly into the deletionist/inclusionist debate (with a splash of "notability"). So because Wikipedians are split on this issue, they will always be split on whether to do anything about what TPH does. In the meantime LOTS of text is added to not much avail. Time to close this and move along. The only way you will deal with these issues is on a case-by-case basis in each xfD. the best I can suggest, considering that, is that TPH should be banned from starting group noms at XfD. But like everything else, I have zero belief that such a restriction will gain enough acceptance to be implemented. I now return you to your ineffectual badminton match : ) - jc37 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  What?? You mean there's been more than one complaint about TPH? This guy is is obviously being disruptive, and his bad attitude is one of the things that drives away good editors. I mean, I assumed that these spree of delete nominations was due to some late-night fuzzy-headed thinking, and that once he woke up the next day, he'd withdraw the nominations. But if this is a pattern, then this is basic disorderly conduct. If he was doing this on city streets, the cops would stick him in the cooler for a few hours so he could think things over. This is not acceptable behaviour for grown-up adult editors on WP. linas (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  If you are looking for every editor to be "grown-up adults", I regret to inform you, with apologies, that you will be regularly (and sometimes spectacularly) disappointed.

  As for other trips to AN, AN/I, and elsewhere, feel free to check out this page's archives, and TPH's user talk page history. Happy reading : ) - jc37 19:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• And in the past few minutes, TPH has gone on a spree of WP:PROD nominations of streets in Kansas City. Again he is being careless: this nomination is blatantly against policy, as we are not allowed to Prod articles that have previously been discussed at AfD. So he's not even checking the article histories of his nominations. Or if he is, he's thumbing his nose at community norms and fundamental policies. It's this kind of ongoing behaviour, which has gone on for years despite years of feedback to him, that will likely eventually lead to sanctions, I predict, even if we're not quite there yet. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just revert it then. TPH knows the rules, it's clearly just an error. I've done it myself before - it's sometimes tricky if the AfD is buried deep in the history (yes, I know this one wasn't) and the closing AfD admin didn't put an oldafdfull notice on the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• That deals with the one article, sure, but not with his ongoing pattern of carelessness with deletion practices, hasty taggings, unwillingness to take seriously his fellow editors' concerns with his deletion practices. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Re Paul Erik: That's more troubling - TPH should realize already that he shouldn't continue nominating things for deletion in the first place while there is an open ANI thread about him nominating things for deletion. Instead he is doing so at such a rate that he re-prods things that have been to AFD. Like linas said above, he needs to stop for a few hours and reconsider what he's doing. If this comes back to ANI I will certainly support sanctions such as a strict rate limit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

    Well, he seem to have been emboldened by the support he has received here. I think that—as with other highly divisive editors—in the long run only ArbCom may be able to solve this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

    • Given that there has been an RFCU against him, you'd stand a fair chance of getting a case accepted. That being said, as far as enormous wastes of time go, Arbcom cases usually can't be beat. (No offense intended to our Arbs, it's not all their fault.) There is, of course, the chance that the case will take two months and end with a non-satisfactory result. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

      • Well, they don't have any cases open at the moment, so it's not like we won't be overburdening them. Though it looks like a case on EncycloPetey will probably be accepted soon. Silverseren^C 23:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

        • Well, if you feel it's warranted, go for it. This Arbcom has shown they're willing to sanction established users at times, though they've been strangely forgiving in other cases. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen many threads of "TPH @ ANI 4 XfD" over the years. Suffice to say that TPH has a rather strict view of WP:NOT, and doesn't hesitate to venture into the XfD/Prod/CSD areas. It's also been seldom that I've seen any actual action taken in these situations. The bottom line for me is that I agree with Dennis and Mark Arsten in that here at ANI - it seems to be a waste of time and keystrokes to continue with further debate. If any admin action (and we are on an admin board) were going to be taken here - I suspect that someone would have done so by now. If ya'all just want to yammer on about it though - by all means, don't let me stop that. — ChedZILLA 23:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• This URL shows that the previous poster has contributed in two AfDs total (seems to also be one as User:Ched for a total of three).  "yammer" (m-w.com) "to utter repeated cries of distress".  I wonder if the previous poster has any objection to being listed as an involved administrator in an Arbcom case.  This is a problem that could be substantially mitigated by one administrator issuing Procedural closure WP:NPASR for inadequately-prepared nominations.  Why should Arbcom become involved with TPH, when the problem only needs one empowered administrator?  What is disempowering the administrators?  I don't think it is "yammering".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Last time TPH was here, several admins (including myself) told him that he was wrong here at ANI and on his talk page. The issue here is that admins (including myself) don't see the current situation as actionable or as a violation of policy. As for ArbCom, I doubt they would take the case since it has never even got to the point of an RFC/U. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, March this year Andy Dingley (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• How I didn't see that after searching is beyond me. Then you are welcome to try to take it to Arb, but again, it appears the consensus is that this one event is a non-event, so I will not be shocked if they refuse to hear it. It is just my opinion (and it appears the opinion of others) that this particular case is weaker than you may perceive it to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not commenting on the edits here, I'm commenting on the editor. This dozen poor quality technical articles would be an arguable deletion under WP:JUNK (which unfortunately isn't policy) because they're not up to scratch as clear, sourced articles. They could be good articles on good topics, but no-one is claiming that they're there yet. TPH's nominations though didn't address that, they were on the far from policy basis that he couldn't fix them, and that he's the only arbiter of article retention (ignoring a vast swathe of fundamental policy around IMPERFECT, community editing and consensus).

Worse than that, even while he's still at ANI for bad nominations, he goes after another bunch of articles about streets in Kansas. Again policy flies out of the window because the Great And Powerful TPH has spoken and he prods a number of technically-unproddable articles. This is not a newbie editor, he should know stuff like that by now. The BF interpretation is that it's an attempt just to swamp those speaking against his deletions by using his remarkable editing rate (each nomination surely carefully thought out within its allocated twenty seconds). The most-GF interpretation I can think of is that there's simply a disconnect in his mind between criticism for one bunch of bad nominations and the second bunch of equally bad nominations perhaps not being the smartest idea. Does he have so little respect for community opinion that despite a substantial ANI thread criticising his nominations, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them and he should continue in just the same manner on a new topic? Or is it that we're just the unimportant little people and he's got Serious Editing Bizniz to be doing, because he's the number #1 editor (or whatever his ranking is these days). Or because getting dragged to ANI by the Lilliputian horde is such a minor annoyance that he doesn't even need to appear cooperative, even while the thread is still running?

TPH is a loose cannon. These nominations are too poorly thought out to stand, too numerous to be ignored as a low risk. He has zero regard for any section of the community, policy, or his past begrudged promises at RFC/U. It's time he was reined in. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Chime in I'm not familiar with this particular case. I am familiar with the editor TenPoundHammer (TPH). For what it's worth, I will chime in. Feel free to heed my words or ignore my words. --Over the last several years, I have noticed that TPH tends to act quickly and in quantity, bringing articles into deletion either by PROD or AFD. Just today I removed a good number of PRODS he posted on Prospect Avenue (Kansas City, Missouri), Main Street (Kansas City), Gillham Road, and a good deal more. Some have already been sent to AFD, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paseo and Southwest Boulevard (Kansas City) (among others). I believe that TPH is 1) acting in good faith, and 2) acting in a way that is disruptive. Yes, that's both. What I would hope happens is that TPH's enthusiasm for Wikipedia is guided. But make no mistake, I have observed this as a long-standing pattern of moving quickly and in bulk. The editor believes that he or she is doing best thing for Wikipedia. The editor is incorrect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• A list of articles and the AfD discussions that this discussion is based upon. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

1. Asymptotic Decider (AfD discussion)
2. Image-based flow visualization (AfD discussion)
3. Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection (AfD discussion)
4. Local maximum intensity projection (AfD discussion)
5. Skin friction lines (AfD discussion)
6. Streamlet (Scientific Visualization) (AfD discussion)
7. Streamsurface (AfD discussion)
8. Tensor glyph (AfD discussion)
9. Texture advection (AfD discussion)
10. Vortex Core Line (AfD discussion)
11. Worley noise (AfD discussion)

• More than half of these nominations disparage another editor.  None analyze WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reckless nominations for deletion waste everybody's time. TPH has consistently for years nominated many many articles just for the sake of seeing which might happen to accidentally get deleted because nobody bothers, rather than for the sake of getting rid of unfixable articles. Either that, or because he sincerely but incompetently does not understand the principles behind Deletion Policy, of improving rather than deleting, and of not sending to AfD with the apparent rationale IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. This is a particularly clear example, as every one of them is heading for speedy/snow keep, though one possible merge has been suggested. These are the two possibilities: either he's out to cause work and commotion, , which is Vandalism, or he does not understand what he is doing, which is Competence. In the discussion above TPH cheerfully points to all the other times he;s been told about this, and has the apparent intention of keeping going. This has gone on for too long. A few of his nominations over the years have been good, so I wouldn't want to block him from nominating for deletion. Perhaps the solution is to prevent him from nominating more than 1 article at a time, 5 times a week at most, by any process. That'll be 250 nominations a year, and if he has to select the proper ones, they'll be 250 good and helpful nominations. (Or else he will make it evident that he can not or will not tell the difference & then we must ban him from the process altogether.) I could think of other more complicated remedies, like never falling below a 80% success rate, but that'll be too difficult to monitor. If he should come across a batch of really bad articles beyond that, and if he tells me or someone else, we can & will nominate them for him. I've removed 12,000 articles already, and I'm glad to do as many more as needed. And there are some good people here who like it even more than I do :). DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  I have doubt whether this will result in anything beyond another "meh" from the community, but for whatever it's worth I'll support DGG's comments. I think an XfD topic ban, broadly construed, is the way to go. - jc37 04:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in that. His actual AfD stats are fairly normal. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• AfD stats, using Snottywong's tool:

• Andy Dingley
• TenPoundHammer
• IRWolfie-

Now note a couple of things: in the cases where the vote was "wrong" (i.e. contrary to end result, which we infer to mean contrary to consensus) then all three of us are running at about 2/3rd match rate. However look at the split between those where we differed from result: Mine are approximately equal (19:14) between voting keep on a final delete, or vv. TPH's though are 31:0 in favour of an unsuccessful call to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• That metric doesn't mean much Andy, since many people only vote for deletes at AFD and never vote for keeps. Some do the exact opposite. I call myself a reformed deletionist, yet my stats show I'm out of consensus half as much as any of you three [67] so the stats are interesting but not conclusive. Hammer IS deletionist, but that isn't against policy. I've called him out previously, but I just don't see these particular cases as being the most egregious examples of sloppy AFDs. The issue is that the vast majority of TPH's work is non-contentious and good work. He has gotten sloppy in the past and was called out then. The examples given here are less than optimal action on his part, but there isn't a clear path to sanctions based on them. As to DGG's idea, I had previously called for an XfD ban on Hammer, but I don't think the current examples justify it and it is doubtful the community is going to find a consensus to enforce a limit or ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Hey I like that tool, do I win as the most retentive?

• but you were out of consensus 21% of the time, vs. my 12% of the time, meaning you just vote to keep everything ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Borrowing a few lines from Tijfo, because they are right on the mark: "The current batch of nominations is obviously bucking the trend, in particular because TPH entered a field he seems to have little if any expertise in. His deletion nominations were all template text saying basically that he doesn't know how to expand the articles, which comes as little surprise. Hopefully this is a learning experience that WP:IDON'TKNOWHOWTOEXPANDIT is not a good reason to nominate something for deletion, even more so when the nominator lacks expertise in the field. Let's call it a learning experience. I don't think any sanctions are necessary at this point." — Mr. Hammer: bad nominations, please don't go chasing tech stubs on DicDef grounds anymore. The nomination phrasing was also pretty, ummm, battlegroundy, so please do give that a miss, too. The Colonel does not have to list a reason for De-PRODding a piece — PROD is for completely uncontroversial deletion nominations and removal of the PROD template implies that there is controversy. Carrite (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Again, there is zero reason to say "oh, this person doesn't have knowledge space in this area, they shouldn't AFD". Every article needs to be written to a general audience, and if an editor doesn't see the appropriate sources or relevance to a general purpose encyclopedia aimed at all audiences, that's a problem. Is AFD the right direction? Maybe not, but TPH has every right to argue the failure of such articles. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • A proper encyclopedia is meant to be educational not just entertainment. Scientific articles are not going to be understand by most people. Look at Lagrangian mechanics for instance. Some of the recent articles nominated were things created by Lagrangian, who has a lot of articles about his creations already on Wikipedia Category:Lagrangian mechanics. Can more than a tenth of Wikipedia users understand any of that? Every article is not aimed at all audiences. We are certainly not a general purpose encyclopedia, but instead one that encompasses all sorts of things. Those who studied this in college and understand it are the only ones that should be deciding if any articles don't belong here. If you don't understand all the math and science, then you don't need to be trying to delete it, simple as that. Dream Focus 12:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
      • "Some of the recent articles nominated were things created by Lagrangian, who has a lot of articles about his creations already on Wikipedia"? You mean "things" based on the theories of Joseph Louis Lagrange (not, of course, "Lagrangian" or "Lagarangian"), but "created" years or centuries after his death? Even without understanding any of the mathematics involved, simply looking at the articles would show you how wrong or uninformed your comments are. Amazingly, this didn't stop you from commenting on the AfDs, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lagrangian-Eulerian Advection: "*Keep. This guy created a lot of notable math/science things." Basically, you have no idea what the articles are about at all, but still feel the need to post comments (here and at AfD) as if you do. Do you really believe that any somewhat capable closing admin would give any weight to such comments? Fram (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
        • That's not really Dream Focus's purpose, though, is it? His purpose is to ensure that the Overton Window regarding notability doesn't shift any further to the side of deletion, which requires that the most hyper-extreme inclusionism be kept in the public eye. Nobody takes it seriously, but by keeping on at it editors are forced to pay lip service to that POV. And yet editors whose opinions lie at the other end of the spectrum are relentlessly hounded, c.f. TPH's fortnightly appearances at ANI for good-faith errors. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• 'Fortnightly'? {{citation-needed}} That RFC/U was six months ago. I count one WP:AN since then, although it appears twice as it was relocated, then re-opened. If it really is fortnightly, and bad enough for someone to be WP:ANing it, then that's surely bringing his WP:COMPETENCE into question.

Not that I'd disagree with your comments on hyper-inclusionism though. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • • and "Those who studied this in college and understand it are the only ones that should be deciding if any articles don't belong here"– if you do think this why are you commenting? And why did you feel qualified to resist the rewrite of the History of quaternions article pablo 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Articles still need to be accessible to all, even if this is only in the lead and few few sections. A topic that is so complex that the entire text of the article can only make sense to a small fraction of the readers is probably far too details and technical to be a WP to start with. Entire technical articles do not need to be fully understood, but the basic concepts of what is being discussed should be made clear in the lead and early sections to provide just enough context for the lay person before more details facets of the topic are brought up. This is why no editor needs to have to specific background to comment on the quality of technical articles. If they can't understand one bit of it (and AGF they're not acting "dumb" on purpose) that's a very valid complaint. Similarly, if they feel the sourcing doesn't give much to notability, they're free to AFD it. As soon as you start to argue for the requirement that only people with expertise in a field be able to comment on such articles, you might as well build up the garden walls between topics. --MASEM (t) 13:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Also, we should remember: we have sister projects such as Wikiversity that can take the more technical articles that are best targeted at a small subset of readers. This is another way of splitting material so that en.wiki's articles remain accessible while the details are still provided by a foundation project. --MASEM (t) 13:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have you read the relentless torrent of perpetual motion crap that is what passes for Wikiversity? The sooner someone takes that out and shoots it the better. Wikiversity really is what the worst press reports describe Wikipedia as supposedly being.

Articles certainly should be accessible to all to whom the underlying topic is possible. However if they're not, they should be fixed, not deleted in bulk, as TPH has tried to do twice in the last week. Tensor glyph is a concept so basically simple that I've explained it to managers, yet here an article was aimed for deletion without any evidence that the nominator had read the first half-page of the linked source (which is still a far better, and eminently readable, explanation of it than our article is). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• If you really want to solve the issue, have an arrangement where a mentor or interested party is required to agree to TenPoundHammers possible nominations before they are done and gives a yes/no. That is, he can suggest the noms, but someone else green lights it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing it, my nomination statistics are fine: [68]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that's worth considering. KWW made a similar offer here in a previous discussion about TPH, but as far as I can tell no one commented on the idea then. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• WP:BEFORE-by-proxy. I'm okay with it, even more so for large batches of similar articles. The "proxy" doesn't have to a specific editor (although that would surely make it simple); posting at a relevant WikiProject noticeboard before nominating several articles for deletion in a certain area would also work. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• This should just be closed with no action. It is clearly a battle between a deletionist (TPH) and an inclusionist (Andy Dingley). Both have differing viewpoints on the encyclopedia. One nominates a bunch of articles for deletion, the other, as far as I can tell from the Snottywong tools, has never nominated an article for deletion. So it takes a little bit of time to respond to the AfD - big deal, if the article is worth keeping, then it is worth someone finding the refs and expanding the article. We need more tolerance here. I'm normally a deletionist, I don't believe that keeping crap improves the project. Recently I tried to save an article, listed it at ARS, and was accused of canvasing by the side wanting deletion. Not much difference from what is happening here, right now. One side of the argument didn't like it, and commented on it. In the meantime I was finding refs, expanding the article, etc. It goes with the territory, if you want to keep an article, then you have a responsibility to find the refs and improve it. Don't then gripe because you have to use your time that way or that it is disruptive, it isn't. TPH is trying to improve the project - and we should just close this now. GregJackP Boomer! 15:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley has certainly nominated articles for deletion; he nominated one of mine, for example. What seems to exasperate him is technical incompetence and so he will blow up when dealing with Randy and it doesn't much matter whether the incompetent is trying to delete an article or create one. As for responsibility, one might equally say that it is the responsibility of those who want articles to be improved to do it themselves — see {{sofixit}}. Warden (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• It is clearly a battle between a deletionist (TPH) and an inclusionist (Andy Dingley). No, that's not the case. At the RFC/U, the view that received the most support was Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer#View by Jclemens. TPH went on to acknowledge that a portion of the community has problems with his deletion nominations, and resolved to be more cautious. His recent batches of PROD and AfD nominations are not showing a cautious approach, and he continues to contend above that it is only Dingley and Warden who have a problem with his deletion work, which is plainly not the case. This could be closed as "no action", but that would unfortunately lead just a step closer to arbitration, as the community continues to be unable to resolve the problems here. (It would be good if one of the people that TPH sees as his supporters would have a quiet word with him about being a little pragmatic about avoiding an arb case.) As I said, I think IRWolfie and KWW have made a good suggestion above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• "as far as [GregJackP] can tell from the Snottywong tools, [Andy Dingley] never nominated an article for deletion."

From the same source you cite, I stopped counting at twenty AfdD nominations - and they're just fairly recent ones. If you're going to slander me as a mindless inclusionist, then check your facts first. Maybe look at how scathing I am about the ARS "Any editor can write any article" approach that gave us the first draft of digital storage oscilloscope.

"I don't believe that keeping crap improves the project. "

Neither do I. However WP:JUNK isn't policy, so neither of us get to delete it, at least not for that reason.

I think the biggest difference between TPH and myself is our willingness to edit outside the bounds of our knowledge. I don't do this: at least very rarely, or only for simple edits. I never make value judgements about other people's areas of interest. I don't understand them, so how can I? I'd like to delete all of baseball, football, country music and a few others, but I recognise that others see value in these subjects, and so I don't try. So if my edits are to fields I understand, then I'm unlikely to question the notability of subjects that I already recognise (like tensor glyph), even if the articles are currently poor. If TPH roams wider, then he's going to see topics that would be as alien to me as a country song. Yet his reaction is to delete them, because if he doesn't know what they are, he assumes that they're nothing.

"TPH is trying to improve the project "

I don't believe that. I think he's doing it (and why he does such a huge volume of it) from some ego-driven reason. He has found something that he can do (although he claims improving tensor glyph is beyond him (and beyond everyone), he still knows how to delete it), and now he's going to do that something, as much of it as he can. I think this has become simplistic and he has lost sight altogether of "Does this action improve the encyclopedia?"

This isn't an AGF/ABF issue. TPH is so voluminous that there's no reason to make vague assumptions about any of his edits, we can see them displayed in front of us now, in statistically significant quantities. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank both of you for answering my post, even if it was a bit of a set-up. Yes, I am aware that Andy has nominated articles for deletion, it is easy to tell from the tool that he has nominated 56 articles in his time here. Of those shown on the list, Andy's noms for deletion were denied by the community 46.8% of the time. This is about the same ratio as TPH's noms for deletion are denied by the community. If, as Andy states, he edits within the bounds of his "knowledge", what does it say about his competence within that area when it is about a 50-50 call on Andy's AfD noms? Note that this is only looking at articles that were actually nominated by each user, comparing each to consensus with the community. When I make an AfD nom, the community agrees 72.5% of the time. Does that mean I'm more "competent"? No, it does not. As far as AGF/ABF, should we also look at your nominations in the same light? As you said, we can look at them in statistically significant quantities. This AN/I should be closed with no action. GregJackP Boomer! 11:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• My two cents: I respect TPH as an editor and have sought his opinions and guindance in the past because he is consistant and seems to interpret policies and guidelines correctly. The original "charge" here is ridiculous. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Two cents: TPH is a well-respected editor and he seems to interpret policies and guidelines correctly. I believe he is doing the right thing and as long as his deletion nominations are done in good faith, this is wash. I also recommend closing with no consensus as there is a lot of heated issues, but no light here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is not an "incedent" TPH is a net positive. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• [after edit conflict] Your comments reinforce what we know, which is that there is division within the community: some people find there is no problem with his behaviour in his deletion activity, while some people see a significant problem that needs addressing somehow. When we had a formal RFC/U about the issue, more people who commented found there is a problem than those who did not. The thing is, addressing this now at ANI (there have already been multiple AN and ANI threads since the RFC so perhaps let's not wait for the next one) might give us more flexibility than dealing with this at the Arbitration level, where the view could well be that the community has not found a way to handle this on its own, and remedies then become more restrictive (topic bans and site bans). This is why I'm being a bit insistent here that alternative measures be considered, such as the suggestion that IRWolfie "vet" TPH's nominations, or DGG's idea of limiting them to a certain number per week. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Fortunately, we don't do these things as a popularity contest, so telling me the number of people who disagreed doesn't change my opinion. Secondly, The two suggestions would be ones I wouldn't support. I find TPH more reliable and even-handed than IRWolfie, so having him vet nominations is a step in the wrong direction IMO. I hold DGG in high esteem, but an artificial limit isn't the right way to go. Eliminating dreck serves to improve Wikipedia. (yes inclusionists, I said that) If it is a crap article that needs nominated, then it needs nominated. A "throttle" of sorts is counter-productive. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And A Nobody's participation?

What a pretty hat Let's not argue after a thread has been hatted (neither below nor inside of the hat). --v/r - TP 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
*cough*. It has been patently obvious for over a year that User:Northamerica1000 is banned User:A Nobody. And it's rich that he and the usuals from ARS are going after an "evil deletionist". Teh BATTLE rolls on. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC) [69][70] You need evidence or you need to retract this accusation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC) You forgot to bitch about the math department "cabal". Tijfo098 (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC) For someone's who's about a hair's width away from being a banned user himself, Jack Merridew (Br'er Rabbit) certainly seems to like living close to the edge. I've never quite understood why editors who are given a second (or third or fourth or....) chance enjoy behaving as if they were never sanctioned at all and are as clean as fallen snow. At the same time, I've cannot understand why the powers that be allow such behavior when they have been magnanimous enough to allow an editor to continue to participate here. It really should be a condition of such "good behavior" allowances that the editor involved should spend their time improving the encyclopedia and otherwise shut the fuck up about the behavior of other editors, real or imagined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC) stfu yer'self ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Yeah, well, I'm not here on the sufferance of ArbCom, bub. You're on pretty dicey terrain, but you seem to think you're invulnerable. I suggest you think again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Br'er - if it's "patently obvious" then please launch an SPI; otherwise retract your accusation. GiantSnowman 08:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) A hare's width? pablo 09:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Observation "teh Rabbi" is hardly the first to make this observation - note the diffs after the timestamp. — Ched :  ?  08:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "note the diffs after the timestamp" ??? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Br'er Rabbit's edit summary contains a link. Reyk YO! 09:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (ec) Thanks. I prefer to have discussion out in the open and not cleverly hidden away. Jack's link was [71] in which User:Jclemens writes]]: There's a difference between a suspicion and an accusation. I am perfectly capable of running an SPI, but have not done so as the evidence for such is not sufficient. You tell me, though: Do you think NorthAmerica1000's editing pattern reminds you of any of the folks in question? If so, then you know where I'm coming from. If not, then my suspicion is unshared and can be appropriately disregarded. I think it's safe to assume that Jclemens never filed an SPI, and that hordes of editors didn't besiege him with their conviction that NorthAmerica10000 was ... well, whoever he thought it was (Jack obviously thinks it's A Nobody, whom I have no particular liking for), so, taking Jclemens at his word, we can disregard that particular opinion, since it was only a suspicion (although Jack seems to think it's been proved in some fashion. Jack, why don't you put your intellect and considerable skills to improving the encyclopedia and stop this petty bullshit? It really doesn't behoove you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC) What the bleep does A Nobody have to do with me? Have we run out of things to say about me and now we're pulling stuff out of our asses? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC) It's generally a bad idea to throw dirt in the eyes of someone who is, in effect, supporting you by pointing out possible issues with some of your detractors. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC) You're right. I misread and thought at first that it was just some sort of Chewbacca defense. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) OK, let's talk about you. Stop being such a hardass about deleting things and spend more time evaluating whether things should be deleted or not. There are no prizes being given out for the most articles deleted, so you may as well take some time to investigate sources to see if the articles you're suspicious of are actually worthy of inclusion or not. Stop putting so much faith in your own perceptions, be a little more aware of the gaps in your knowledge, and stop assuming that if you don't understand it no one does. Look beyond yourself a little more than you do now, because your experience of the world may not be as broad or comprehensive as you think it is. Be a little less proud of yourself, and show a bit more humility about not knowing everying. Anything else about yourself you want to know? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Good grief, what a lot of anger there is. I don't suppose there's any chance of everyone picking up all the toys I see scattered around the floor and just, you know, chilling out a bit? If you think there's a valid case for an SPI, go forth and file one with your evidence. If you think TPH's AfDs are without merit, !vote "keep" on them with your evidence. But I can't see how random name calling, by experienced Wikipedians no less, is going to resolve anything. *shrugs* --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC) The problem is that one could spend a whole Wikiipedia career just tracking TPH's AfD's, and most of us like to do the stuff that we like to do - so unless you've got an anti-TPH bot ready to go, there's a legitimate concern among regular editors about TPH's laser-like focus on deleting articles, since he doesn't seem interested in listening to people's concerns about his activities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC) There is also the reverse problem; what about disruptive keep voters who keep things with non-policy based and silly arguments? As an AfD extends in length, it's more likely it will end in no-consensus, all a keep voter needs to do is a gish gallop of sources and bad arguments. This is principally what some of the members of ARS do. I think a more interesting question than TPD is canvassing in the ARS. They acknowledge that the project exists to canvass for deletion votes: Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#Question: "Though sadly youre probably right, in the sense that if we want to avoid attack, we should minimise the number of times we vote without making substantial improvements. Perhaps it would be safer still to follow North's example."). TPD may be disruptive with his nominations (see my suggestion for how to deal with it), but I think inclusionist canvassing is more of an issue. It's not surprise that the Squadron have turned up at pretty much every TPD nomination that open at present. Some ARS members have keep vote ratios of 97-99% keep; clearly it is more ideological than on the merits of the articles; this is disruptive. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Stupid non-policy based "keep" votes are supposed to be ignored by closing admins. Are you saying that our admin corps can't tell the difference between a legitimate "keep" vote and a bullshit one? I give them more credit than that. But stupid non-policy-based AfD nominations still end up in deletions when they're not contested, because no one's paying attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Stupid non-policy based "delete" votes are supposed to be ignored by closing admins. Surely that means there is no issue here either? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC) And for the bajillionth time, can we close this?! It's never been more obvious that there's no consensus, nor any reason for an admin to be involved. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC) The block account is over 2 years old, it'll be stale. Someone would need to go through and start to look at behavioural evidence. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC) "for the bajillionth time"? C'mon, how old are you, really TPH? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC) link — Ched :  ?  10:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Thanks, Ched, I know what a "bajillion" means. I also know that it's an expression more often used by young people than by old farts like me, which made me wonder.... Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC) I have no idea on the "age" thing - but I'm always surprised when I run into someone my own age on here. Let's just say AARP, and I'll leave it at that. — Ched :  ?  11:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC) So... it's OK to just call someone a banned sock? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC) No, it's not. GiantSnowman 13:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Others apparently disagree and hat this section. So it is OK. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia, everyone always disagrees on everything. However, hatting was correct. This is not the place with dealing with such accusations. GiantSnowman 14:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Given that Br'er's original suspicion was apparently aroused by a comments by a sitting Arb who was at one time one of he-who-cannot-be-named's closest allies, and also given what an outrageous amount of time was wasted on said editor both before and after he started epic-socking across the entirety of WMF's Web presence, I don't think it's beyond the pale to bring up the possibility at ANI, and I'd thoroughly recommend that editors unfamiliar with that whole dismal story not go white-knighting in this particular case unless they genuinely think the accusation is baseless. Still, unless an SPI is actually raised, this is best left hatted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Yeah, Br'er has expert knowledge about the detection of sock puppetry, so we really ought to listen when he speaks on this subject--he knows what he's talking about. Though, as you say, I'm unfamiliar with this "nobody" fellow so I really can't be of much use here myself. I do accept that there are better forums in which to raise concerns about this issue though. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC) All Br'er has done was to link to some comment by an Arb several months ago, which in itself was anything but definitive. That's not evidence, that's hearsay. And it doesn't require any deep expertise to produce that. If ArbCom had evidence Northamerica1000 being a sockpuppet of a banned user (which he denies), they'd have acted upon it. And the other side of the coin is that leveling unsupported accusations of sockpuppetry is often enough the hallmark of a disruptive user. Now I'm not excluding the possibility that the suspicion may be true. But hearsay from many months ago isn't a convincing argument to start an ANI thread. Or maybe the standards have sunk so low around here when dealing with an inclusionist? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Comment – Sorry, but I'm not another previous user that the initiator of this thread may be thinking about. It's an absolutely false statement, and due to this falsity and lack of any proof beyond assertion, also injust. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Singling out other editors because of their ethnicity

I hope this is the right venue to lodge a complaint but I would like to know sincerely what, if any, place comments like the following have on Wikipedia: "I see the page is being heavily edited by users of Armenian origin. I understand you hate Ramil Safarov, however, I suggest you respect other editors and do not oppose to providing opinions and claims of both sides, especially when they are cited. Otherwise, the neutrality of the article becomes questionable. Thanks" [72]. Note that this is coming from a relatively experienced editor who knows about the pitfalls of turning Wikipedia into an ethnic battleground. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has commented on this yet. As far as I can tell, that comment is completely inexcusable and should lead to a hefty civility warning per WP:AGF, not to mention the racially/ethnically loaded nature of the comments. If this is part of an established pattern, then a block is unquestionably in order, IMO. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Protecting_article_Ramil_Safarov it sounds like the article already is an ethnic battleground. And while I know only what I read in the article about the topic, article also does seem to be missing the Azerbaijani point of view, even if we find that point of view objectionable, or unfounded, it should at least be laid out somewhere. (Though that is not something that can be resolved here) The editor was already admonished on the article talk page for the comment. Add a talk page warning and call it a day regarding the editor in question. Monty₈₄₅ 04:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is misinterpretation of my concern about neutrality of the article, and another attempt of using Wiki as a battleground. The first rule of the Wiki is to assume good faith. Why such a hurry up to misrepresent my call to fair and balanced editing as if I'm singling someone out due to ethnicity? The article belongs to the issue involving two conflicting ethnicities in Nagorno-Karabakh War. We can not pretend that its not the case. Wiki experience proved that the articles alike usually involve lots of emotions and edit-warrings. In order to avoid and prevent this, I tried to invite harsh editors to the fair editing, so that we do not approach the issue through the prism of personal feelings, but respect opposite opinions and sources. Good faith has also been overlooked when all my edits and references reflecting views of both sides have been shortly removed. Now, the article looks like private possession of majority editors who are trying to bash any NPOV. Such approach singles out any chance of dialogue. Therefore, I think the only option remains to invite uninvolved editor to moderate every edit. Thanks Angel670 talk 12:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Now see, that is a perfectly acceptable way to express your concerns. You were able to do so without mentioning ethnicity. Do that in the future and leave ethnicity out of it and I am sure you will find it easier to navigate these difficult situations. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If not blocked, this user should be not allowed to edit Ramil Safarov article. His comment already shows his point of view on this case and I can't think of a way he can contribute to the article. --Yerevanci (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Users are allowed to have a point of view, they just aren't supposed to push it in an article, which seems to be exactly what Angel670's point was all along, they just made an unfortunate decision to mention ethnicity in their remarks. I don't see that as being sufficient reason to impose a topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not an unfortunate decision, that is obvious prejudice. Ethnicity, religion, race, sexual orientation, physical looks, language, etc. are not to be discussed here! There is a distinct line between unfortunate decision and prejudice. The question who edits the article the most has nothing to do with its encyclopedic content. --Yerevanci (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Obvious prejudice is not a reason to topic ban an editor unless they let it drive them to edit war or otherwise disrupt articles/process. It does not appear to have risen to that level here. Monty₈₄₅ 22:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why consensus can never be reached with people with attitude like that.--Yerevanci (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, nobody is defending that remark. It was an unbelievably stupid way to broach the subject and never could have led to anything productive in and of itself. However one stupid decision is not necessarily indicitave of an actual pattern of actual prejudice. If you can show a demonstrable pattern of ethnic prejudice from this user, please present the evidence and I will be more than happy to block them. If instead this is what it appears to be, one dumb remark that the user now realizes was a mistake, then there is no need for any sanctions, or to even continue this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That one "stupid mistake" is enough to not believe in his good faith. At least, it is for me.--Yerevanci (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want any administrative action taken here I again ask that you present evidence of a pattern. Your remarks suggest that you do not have such evidence, and that you have decided that it will never be possible to even speak to this user again over this one incident. You can take that attitude if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to come along for the ride. I would suggest you try to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that this user was, however clumsily, actually trying to help. I'm sure it was not heir intention to deliberately infuriate the Armenian users they were referring to. This is obviously a very hot-button topic among Armenians right now, as well it should be, but that does not mean that we condemn a user forever over one mistake. They probably should avoid the topic at least for a while, but the chances of a formal topic ban at this point are slim to none as such sanctions usually require evidence of a recurrent problem. Again, proffer that evidence, or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I was born, I never expected anything from anyone. And it wasn't me who reported the comment, so I have no claim to anyone. --Yerevanci (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You have one of the most entertaining debating styles on ANI. You wrote a few lines above at 16:54: "If not blocked, this user should be not allowed to edit [...]", which reads like a request to either block or topic ban him. As for "Since I was born, I never expected anything from anyone", I'll let someone else crack jokes about the logic of this statement because my humor tends to be interpreted the wrong way by admins around here. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Persistent removal of copyvio templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Aashna Khanna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to remove copyvio templates from several articles, despite having been repeatedly warned not to do so. 115.240.196.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was making the same edits a few minutes earlier, so is probably User:Aashna Khanna before she logged in. Please issue blocks to prevent further disruption. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

48 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV in future is a better venue for this kind of request. GiantSnowman 15:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that only for intentional disruption? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is what the removal of copyvio templates after warnings is considered to be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Nothing further to do now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Apathy Bride (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I've already blocked the user indefinitely and also disabled their ability to edit their own talk page, so there's probably no point in notifying them of this discussion, however I'm not sure if anything else needs to be done about their threats (not including those to ClueBot NG)? Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing to do, except to perhaps re-block with e-mail ability blocked too. All edits outside of his talk page have been undone. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• (EC) The main remaining thing that occurs to me is that you might report it to emergency@wikimedia.org. If you feel there's the slightest possibility of validity to the threats, then handing it off to the foundation is likely a good thing to do. At that point it's out of your hands, and in the hands of those who actually have authority to act, if needed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've reblocked with email access disabled -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I erred on the side of being overcautious and emailed the foundation. I didn't think to disable email. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Only other thing I'd do is keep an eye on the affected pages to see if any socks turn up. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rasmussen Reports (redux)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to challenge a (non-deletion, non-moving) closure of this Talk page discussion, which I believe was premature and capricious. Following the closure, I asked the closing administrator why he/she closed and my understanding is he/she believed that consensus was reached. In response I explained that I thought there was no consensus because one of the editors who disagreed with me was uncivil consensus from the start, another one never raised any arguments at all, and a third made valid arguments and I thought we were making progress. I also pointed out that the article is relatively quiet and the discussion had only been open for 8 days. The administrator's reaction was disappointing; rather than explaining why consensus was in fact reached he/she questioned my motives. This discussion can be found here. I very much appreciate the administrator's contributions to Wikipedia, but in this particular case I feel that my perspective to improve the article was silenced by an uncivil editor whose aim was to stifle discussion and a capricious administrative decision. I don't understand why an administrator would question my motives. I always thought that we all come to Wikipedia with our own motives and as long as we abided by the policies and guidelines our views were all welcome. In sum I believe his/her actions violated WP:CLOSE#Consensus, Wikipedia:Administrator_Code_of_Conduct#Consensus, and WP:AGF.

A important note as to why I am posting this issue here rather than in another forum. In a nutshell there just doesn't seem to be anywhere better. I first posted here based on a recommendation from the Help Desk. The entry was immediately closed and I was directed to WP:DRN. But at DRN, I was told that that was not the appropriate forum either. In a side discussion with the admin who had told me to go to DRN, he/she explained that if I was told I couldn't be helped at DRN then I should come back here. So here I am.

I want to be 100% clear, I am not seeking resolution on the underlying content dispute. All I want is for the discussion to be reopened since I feel that there was still ample opportunity for progress to be made without mediation. Put another way in my view the discussion was closed way too early and I just want it to be reopened so that it can be resolved the way most other Wikipedia discussions get resolved: civil debate, consensus building, etc. hopefully without a need for intervention by mediators, admins, etc. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This request is not persuasive. Nstrauss is here because of what he thinks is a failure of Beeblebrox to behave well. He is apparently *not* asking for a review of Beeblebrox's closure of Talk:Rasmussen Reports#lead: conservative leaning or independent. Having checked out that discussion, I find that Beeblebrox's summary of the consensus looks correct. I don't see that Beeblebrox's action was premature, since he closed the discussion on August 23, seventeen days after the first comment (which was August 6), and after six days had passed with no additional comments. Nstrauss made this argument to Beeblebrox when appealing the closure:

Please re-read that thread. There were only 4 participants, including me. From the very start Naapple flagrantly violated WP:AGF and was very uncivil. Orange Mike only came in at the very, very end and did not explain his view. The last participant was Safehaven86. Although he and I had our differences we were clearly moving toward a common understanding.The discussion lasted for only 8 days before you closed it, and the page has not been particularly active. Why not give others the opportunity to weigh in for, say, a couple more months before closing? --Nstrauss (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss is asking for a couple more *months* of discussion on something where he is the only supporter? Beeblebrox suggested on his own talk page that Nstrauss might be beating a dead horse. This seems to have disturbed Nstrauss. He may not be aware of how often the WP:STICK essay is cited in Wikipedia discussion forums. What Nstrauss should do from here, assuming that he persists in thinking that the political leanings (if any) of the Rasmussen Reports have to be mentioned in the article lead, is to try to persuade the other editors at Talk:Rasmussen Reports to change their minds. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How do I try to persuade the other editors to change their minds if the discussion has been closed? (P.S. You're right, it was 17 days, not 8 days, my mistake. I still think that 17 days was insufficient given the low activity on that talk page.) --Nstrauss (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't. You accept the WP:CONSENSUS and move on, instead of immediately trying to get your way. "Consensus" =/= "agrees with me" - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidently EdJohnston disagrees with you, or he wouldn't have said I should "try to persuade the other editors at Talk:Rasmussen Reports to change their minds." I would like to hear from him. As for your comment that "consensus =/= "agrees with me," I agree 100% -- but it certainly doesn't mean that there was consensus here. What I see here is anything but consensus - it was three editors who had widely divergent views. Two of those editors, Safehaven86 and I, had a productive discussion. Safehaven86 found some additional sources and I changed my proposal accordingly. I simply don't see how you can characterize that as trying to get my way or forcing my views on anyone. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Here's what puzzles me: I directed Nstrauss to WP:DRN. He did in fact post there, and when he discovered that what both I and DRN intended was to try and resolve the content dispute and not to yell at me some more about the close he said he was not interested in handling the content dispute. So what is the goal here exactly? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is essentially an epic case of WP:IDHT. Here is an exerpt from the last remark by the user he thpught he was making progress with: "Mentioning the one Time article in the lead would be an inaccurate and irresponsible portrayal of how Rasmussen Reports has been routinely treated by reliable, verifiable sources. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)" 'this shows rather clearly that Every other person who participated disagreed with Nstrauss right to the very end, there ws no progress towards what he wanted.

His obsession with this issue and his apparent inability to see that literally nobody agrees with him is exactly what led me to make the remarks I did about examining his own motives. I did not hypothesize as to what those motives might be, merely asked him to ask himself why he was so hell bent on inserting this material into the lead. Nobody was saying it did not belong in the article at all, but they all agreed it was giving it undue weight to put it in the lead. Last edit to the RFC itself was on the 17th. My close was done on the 23rd. There was nothing improper about it and I stand behind it 100%. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again you have demonstrated that you didn't read the whole discussion. Savehaven86 and are were making progress because our disagreement had shifted considerably from the beginning of the discussion. If you look at the beginning, I was proposing a different sentence in the lead, and in response to Savehaven86's comments and research (he found 3 additional reliable sources) I repeatedly softened the proposed language. At the end there was a period of 6 days with no comments, but I hardly think that 6 days was enough to "prove" consensus. At that time I was busy with other stuff and I didn't have the time to follow up. And you keep coming back to this notion that you can't figure out why I'm so "hell bent on inserting this material into the lead." Please read the discussion, as my explanation is in there:

To respond to both Naapple and Safehaven86 simultaneously, please let me explain why I'm pushing this. I have no political angle or personal beliefs about Rasmussen. I simply think that readers are entitled to know where Rasmussen stands on the political spectrum. Are they considered conservative? Are they considered independent? These are reasonable and oft-asked questions about any polling firm and are noteworthy enough to be included in the lead. Wikipedia regularly includes statements in lead sections about the political leanings of think tanks, political research organizations, etc. And based on the body of the article and a Google search, it's clear that much has been written on this subject.

Then later:

Rasmussen is known for producing results that lean in one direction compared to other firms; it's obvious from looking at the RealClearPolitics charts. That certainly doesn't mean that Rasmussen is biased but it raises the question, and if you google for the answer you'll find pages and pages of opinions and analysis on the subject. Evidently this is a subject that is of interest to many people!

And it is incorrect to say "Nobody was saying it did not belong in the article at all." Re-read what Naapple had to say, including his/her comment right out of the gate that my proposal was "slanderous." Then later he/she said it violated MOS:IDENTITY, WP:OR, and WP:WEIGHT. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One other thing. Beeblebrox, you said you are puzzled by what my goal is here. My goal is to reopen the discussion so that editors who stumble across the Rasmussen Reports talk page will not think (incorrectly, in my view) that this issue has been settled. That is my goal, nothing more and nothing less. I am not trying to force my views on anyone. You keep accusing me of trying to beat a dead horse, but my point all along has been that the horse was alive when you sent it off to the slaughterhouse. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue has been settled. You are the only one who believes it has not been. However as we all know consensus can change over time. Maybe at some later date it would be appropriate to open a new discussion but yes, you are definently beating a dead horse. You may have noticed that so far in this conversation nobody has agreed that the close was improper. I suggest you find a better way to spend your time here, and on that note don't expect any further comment from me here as the outcome is once again perfectly obvious to everybody but you. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No one, including Beeblebrox, has explained why they think there is consensus. All I've gotten are explanations of what consensus is not. Am I mistaken that "nobody agrees with you" is, on its own, insufficient to establish consensus? --Nstrauss (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If "nobody agrees with you", then consensus is against you. Q.E.D. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that a new policy? Because I can't find it anywhere. WP:CONSENSUS: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accept the proposal." WP:WHATISCONSENSUS: "Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority." "Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it." Please apply these principles instead of making up your own. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

All of the concerns that were raised showed that your opinion was held only by you and was not the view of the majority. The majority agreed that you were wrong. Consensus must be one option or the other in a binary choice, and so it was here. Against your position, I might add. --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, "nobody agrees with you" isn't the standard for consensus. Neither is "majority rules" as you suggest. If the decision to close was based on those false standards then it was in violation of policy. What am I missing here? Were my concerns proper? Were they taken into account? Were they heard, understood, and respected? Were they accounted for and addressed? (I am really losing faith in this site when so many experienced admins inexplicably refuse to apply their own policies and guidelines.) --Nstrauss (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll also add that this was not a binary choice as you say it was. The discussion was not just yes-no whether to include X language or not, it was also what language to include. I made multiple proposals. A middle ground might have been reached with more time. But with the closure we will never know. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a binary choice, since everybody but you said that it didn't belong in the lede in any form. Russian roulette is a binary choice; either there is a bullet or there isn't a bullet. The fact that there are five empties and only one full doesn't change the essential fact that there are only two outcomes. Horologium (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range question

{{checkuser needed}} Could I have a checkuser take a look at contributions for 86.25.212.0/22? An indefinitely blocked user is using the range to edit war on Geography of Afghanistan. Other IPs are also editing the article (in a positive way), so semi-protection is inconvenient, but I don't know how active the range is, so I'm not sure which choice (protection or range block) will cause less collateral damage. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've dropped a link to this question at WP:SPI, which has a specific section for CU requests, and is usually faster since it the IRC bots ping any CU in IRC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm seeing only three edits in ten days to to that article from two IPs in this range. Just block the IPs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've blocked the range, and I'll use WP:SPI for similar requests in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ref Desk advice that users can drink certain poisons.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The question was asked whether certain non-water liquids could be drunk by humans. It is against ref desk policy to give medical advice. The discussion devolved into advice that one could drink small portions of isopropyl alcohol and glycerol without dying. Both are lethal poisons. I closed the discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=510825084 Various editors User:Someguy1221 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=510824044 User:Stephan Schulz http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=510823389&oldid=510822568 reopened the discussion even though policy is that once a matter is referred to the talk page and closed it remains closed until there is consensus to reopen it. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not about medical advice, nor are non-water based liquids necessarily "poison" (except in the sense that everything has an LD50 if one consumes enough of it). Examples discussed include Everclear and Vegetable oil. This is a bad close/removal that has been universally condemned at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Drink_this.3F. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

• "Glycerol is sweet-tasting and of low toxicity"

• It's my understanding that Isopropyl alcohol isn't inherently any more dangerous than ethanol or any other form of alcohol, but that it's most common forms are highly concentrated enough that it is easier to drink yourself to death by chugging rubbing alcohol than vodka.

Of course, I do believe you were acting in good faith, but it was an unneeded removal, in my opinion. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The question seems harmless enough, but some of the answers were ill-advised. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Which answers do you think were "ill-advised"? Buddy431 (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yours, specifically, advising that drinking Isopropyl alcohol is somehow safe. No. It isn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I never said that isopropyl alcohol was safe to drink. I said that it is drunk (which it is, usually by people who can't afford ethyl alcohol), and that it isn't much more toxic than ethyl alcohol (which is isn't). Buddy431 (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone else on the talk page demonstrated otherwise. Regardless, it is irresponsible to suggest that there is ANY safe level of consumption of rubbing alcohol. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The scope of the Refdesk in general, and this question in specific, is a content dispute, and I dare say an overwrought one. AN/I should leave it to the RefDesk to sort out. Wnt (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wnt doesn't believe any question or answer should ever be deleted, so his opinion here is pretty much useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Half the time that sort of ad hominem argument is frowned upon here. True, I don't know which half this is. What I know is that if you convert a civil, sensible discussion about why people don't drink straight alcohol (plus a less useful semantic discussion about what percentage of ethanol is not 'water-based') into an AN/I war to the knife, it is not progress. Wnt (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was in process of deleting it, as it seemed to be too strong, and ironically your edit conflicted. So I'll line it out instead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care who works what out. But when we have otherwise uninvolved accounts restoring vague advice that you can drink poisons of low toxicity we have a bit more than just a turf dispute. If those editors (or that editor with his accounts) had been following ref desk procedure and taking the question up at the ref desk talk desk before restoring it would never have come here. An admin should still be watching this. μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am watching. As, apparently, are admin Rmhermen and admin Someguy1221. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This complaint is a hysterical overreaction. The liquids under discussion are not "lethal poisons". No one in the deleted thread was advising that isopropanol is "safe to drink". —Steve Summit (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And is this an AN/I issue anyway? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is the Reference Desk even necessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seeing as Bugs hasn't asked this yet, why do we persist in hosting a Yahoo Answers clone which is a haven for lazy students, bored kids and trolls anyway? It doesn't help build the encyclopedia or the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't ask because I already know the answer. And you certainly make a reasonable point. But since you asked... The history of the ref desk is that it started as an offshoot of the help desk. The help desk is about how to use wikipedia. They started getting questions about facts, so of course editors started directing them to articles. It was decided to create a separate entity, a reference desk. That was around 2005 or maybe earlier, and it evolved into what it is today. It's generally good, and theoretically encourages editors to use wikipedia. Most of the debates there have to do with (1) what constitutes medical or legal or other unethical advice (as with the above discussion); and less often, (2) how to deal with trolling questioners like LC. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I was a refdesk regular for a little while there. Then I realized it was wasting massive amounts of my time here. Lots of wrong answers, petty bickering, rule crazy censoring of questions, etc. In the end I am a bit emberassed by it and now believe it should be forked off to another site or just shut down altogether. At a real reference desk in a library, a librarian helps you find the actual answers to your question by locating the relevant literature on the subject. Here it is mostly self-appointed experts on everything giving their opinions, often grossly uninformed. Also it is constantly being trolled and most of the users there don't seem to realize it. We should probably just merge it Wikiversity and be done with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I wonder how a "real" reference desk would respond to a user like LC asking about having sex with his dog. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

By "merge with Wikiversity" I fondly hope that you mean, "delete both equally as failed projects". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter: Wikiversity is Someone Else's Problem, so it's an ideal solution to the situation where we have something hosted here that really shouldn't be but we'd rather preserve it somewhere so as not to hurt everyone's feelings (c.f. hiving fiction cruft off to Wikia). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So you abolish the ref desk, then someone starts asking factual questions at the help desk again, and the cycle starts over. Is that what you've got in mind? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You advise them that Wikipedia does not offer such a service. Alternatively, you seriously tighten the rules on the reference desk such that it acts more like the real thing, and limit responses to questions strictly to links to the appropriate articles. But this is all something which isn't going to get resolved at ANI. If anyone does eventually formally propose shutting down the reference desk please ping me about it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There are already rules against giving medical and legal advice, but that doesn't stop certain users, and there is no overlord to enforce the rules - hence the recurrent arguing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

We could still refer non article improvement refdesk questions to the proposed wikiversity, giving current contributors a place to work, having a place to send questioners, and it still not being our problem what advice is given. I expect someone is going to start an RFC on the matter soon, whether its as a result of this discussion or one of the next few. Monty₈₄₅ 15:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth a RfC on the matter? GiantSnowman 11:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A minor point: the ref desk was not an offshoot of the help desk. The ref desk was started in 2001 while the help desk was started in 2004. Graham87 12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite the full picture, but I don't have the time right now to re-investigate it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Nominally the Reference Desks serve the encyclopedia by assisting other editors in doing the research necessary to improve articles, and this can indeed be said to be its primary purpose. If it ends up helping random other people on the net who have questions, that's a secondary, collateral benefit.

(With that said, I can't deny that things like bantering, bickering, and outright trolling can be real problems, which the denizens of the desks don't always do the best job dealing with.) —Steve Summit (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That was written five years ago, and appears to be an examination of what the RD should be for rather than what it ends up actually being used for. In your opinion, what proportion of the RD's activity is spent on #1 (improving the encyclopedia) and what proportion on #2 and #3 (being a random help service and an ego-stroking tool respectively)? How can that be improved? (FWIW I'd have no problem shifting this sub-thread to the Village Pump if editors want to continue there.) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I can recall a time when questions on the ref desk did, in fact, lead to the creation or improvement of articles. That seems to be seldom the case any more, although that might be because there are already so many articles on almost any subject you could imagine. The most frequent bickering seems to be over questions and answers that violate the rule against giving professional advice. Sometimes it's as obvious as the nose on your face, but other times it's kind of borderline - like the issue raised here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that we could do like the Russian reference desk, which from what I've heard (I speak no Russian) is restricted to questions by people who want to use the answers to create or expand articles. FYI, that's frequently why I go to the RDs, and other times I've gone with a question of "I can't understand this article; can you explain it more simply?", which is related to Sluzzelin's first purpose for the RD. I'd oppose the Russian idea, because it's good to serve those who come genuinely asking for solid information, even when their questions aren't related to the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen users who do nothing for days on end but make up ridiculous questions just for the hell of it to see wha answers they get. They aren't really trolling, just bored and amused that someone would actually try and figure out how long it would take to walk from the earth to the sun or some other such nonsense. The merge to Wikiversity idea was only halfway a joke. That project is also notorious for being full of self appointed experts who at least half the time are dead wrong and/or making it up as they go along. Maybe we should open an RFC. If we were to keep all the various RD pages I think we would better serve our readers by requiring that all queries be answered only by pointing the user to the relevant WP article or other online resources, and not having these long, often contradictory discussions. So, if a kid were to ask the example question I gave above (that was an actual topic a while back by the way) they could be pointed to our article on the sun, which would tell them how far it is from the earth, and the article on walking which would tell him how fast the average human being walks. The relevant information is right in the leads of both articles so it should be easy enough for them to find it. If that's not enough we can add a pointer to Division (mathematics) and calculator. Seems a bit more efficient and educational than arguing for several days about how to build a ladder for the theoretical person to walk or climb on from the earth to the sun. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If an RfC decides to keep this, why not change the name? Many/most of the comments don't include a real Reference. Calling it a "Reference" desk gives a very misleading impression. "Ask a Wikipedia editor" might be better. First Light (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The Library reference desk has a cultural precedent associated with libraries and it needs to remain a part of Wikipedia as it has since the inception of the project. It is a primary means of outreach and the day will come when librarians at brick and mortar libraries will have their job descriptions state that they need to contribute to the Wikipedia reference desk as an international library resource that is superior to what any librarian at any one physical location can provide. There ought to be best practices developed to save Wikipedians who serve at the desk from effort around trolls. I think that one good recommendation might be that the person who answers any question spend less time answering it than they perceive the person who submitted the question spent in formulating it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As one of the last bastions of sanity left on Wikipedia (apart from periodic crusades to delete questions) the Refdesk is indeed out of place here. I've even suggested the move to Wikiversity,[73] as that site offers a parallel resource at its Help Desk, and its purpose is fundamentally to educate and compile a resource of useful questions rather than to generate encyclopedia articles. Its position here is an historical artifact from a time before Wikiversity existed. To be clear though, I favor putting it wherever people enjoy freely asking and answering questions and as far the fuck away from people with "ethics" regarding why we shouldn't do so as can be found in the cosmos. Wnt (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluerasberry: "The Library reference desk has a cultural precedent associated with libraries and it needs to remain a part of Wikipedia" I know, that's why I suggested a new name. A "Library Reference Desk" is staffed by "professional librarians." It's pretty obvious the Wikipedia "Reference Desk" (I'll refrain from using bigger scare quotes) is anything but professional. It seems that many people like it, since it's a good place to hang out and discuss interesting questions. But "reference" and "professional" it ain't. First Light (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of Wikipedia is that amateur editors can match professionals at building an encyclopedia; the same should be true of the Refdesk. I think that often the answers given are good; though true, often questions go unanswered. That some are wrongly or unprofessionally answered is better than one, worse than the other, rarer than either. To be a little harsh, how do you suppose AN/I compares to a professional administrative procedure? I think we do better than that, at least. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any comparison between the WP RefDesk and a professional library reference desk. The WP one is often a free-for-all, with all kinds of competing or helpful suggestions. A professional library usually has a one-to-one discussion, usually held in the silence/privacy of a library. That eliminates trolling, arguing, competing advice, etc., that is such a feature at the WP RefDesk. Oh, wait, that sounds a lot like AN/I also. :-o. First Light (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Library reference desks are at least staffed - by and large - by paid professionals. The RefDesk is not. As far as the so-called "cultural precedent," that may be very well and good, but Wikipedia is not a library, its connection with "outreach" is unproven and nonsensical on its face (excuse me, but to find the Refdesk, you already need to be somewhat familiar with Wikipedia.), and it does no help for the encyclopedia's reputation as a haven for garrulous dilettantes. This is not a business in which we ought to be, and I'd certainly support its removal. Ravenswing 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The RefDesks have helped improve or create many articles over the years. They also provide a haven for those weird editors who actually like helping others. Remove them and you'll say goodbye to a lot of useful contributors. Still, usefulness and helpfulness are increasingly unwelcome on Wikipedia, alas. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Quite aside from the snarky incivility of your comment - it is quite possible, your opinion notwithstanding, to see no role for the Refdesk on Wikipedia, and nonetheless wish to help others - would you like to cite a few examples of those articles created in the last few years solely because of the Refdesk? Beyond that, I find it hard to believe that there are a "lot" - if, indeed, any at all - of current article contributors who would wash their hands of Wikipedia without the Refdesk ... could you provide some evidence of them as well? Thanks. Ravenswing 20:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Raabbustamante copyright violations on orchid articles

Hello, all. I'd appreciate a little assistance. I have tried to explain copyright violations to User:Raabbustamante (diff, templated), who has been warned earlier in 2012 when he was a newbie editor by User:Choess (see diff), but Raabbustamante continues to undo edits of mine that removed the copyrighted language, e.g. I edited most of the copyvio material out of Grammatophyllum martae (diff and may have missed a bit) but then Raab has reverted to reinstate the copyrighted material (diff), which mostly comes from this Cootes, J. (2001). Orchids of the Philippines. This editor has written dozens of new stub articles on orchids and nearly all of them contain some level of copyright violation from this or another source. In my discussion with him it is so far unclear if he understands copyright. The issue also extends to Commons, where he appears to be uploading images taken by others without providing OTRS permission information (e.g. File:Cylindrolobus cootesii ( by Jim Cootes ).JPG).

Since I'm involved in working on the content of these articles, I'll let others decide if any admin action is needed. But I think a few more eyes and perhaps a few more stern but encouraging voices might be helpful to let this editor know that this behavior is unacceptable. It's certainly a topic area that needs to be expanded and WP:PLANTS is always looking for new contributors, so if there's a way to cut the copyright violation habit without biting the newbie, I'm all for it. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 16:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a comment to the editor's talk page. I hope it struck the right balance between sternness and yet your desire to retain him if he can learn to edit properly. Frankly, his attitude is pretty poor. (I know nothing about plant articles, so my understanding of the substance of your discussions - although he doesn't communicate much - is pretty much nil, except for the issues associated with WP per se.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It was the perfect kind of message, and much more clearly articulated than what I had been spitting out hastily. I'd still consider this user a newbie because even though it's been several months of editing activity, it can take years depending on how frequent the contributions are to finally learn the ropes and internalize the policies, guidelines, and remember all those acronyms that get thrown about. I try to remember my first year as an editor every time I encounter someone at this stage. It can take patience and mentorship and some helpful editors who don't mind a few messages like "what's the NPOV thing I keep hearing about?" He may yet be a productive editor on orchid articles if we could introduce him to the citation templates and perhaps encourage workshopping his new articles in user space, which I briefly suggested. I'd like to see how he responds and if there are any other thoughts, but of course no need to pile on. Thanks again for taking the time to review this. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

user:StillStanding-247 Disruptive editing of other editors comments and deletion of comments.

Enough.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Still Standing is editing the comments of other users here and here and then removing completely here and then again here after my warning which he removed without a response. Arzel (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Notified Arzel (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I would like an admin with oversight to look at the content that was removed and act appropriately. I have already sent an email but there hasn't been a response. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I concur with Still's request and would hope that editors would stop reinserting that content. 72Dino (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Why don't you just explain your actions. Collect was not WP:OUTING anyone if that is what you are implying. Arzel (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC) And now he is deleting my comments here. Still needs to explain himself. Arzel (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC) (ec)Still24 has repeatedly engaged in "refactoring" other's comments, hatting stuff on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT etc. [74]. And his response to a third party warning was "get a clue" in his edit summary. I consider the refactoring of noticeboard posts abd hatting anything he dislikes to be a severe problem of behaviour. [75] is an extraordinarily egregious exampe wghere he places words into may post which I did not place there. [76] shows him calling editors who do not like POV pushing on his part "fellow travelers" which shows his BATTLEGROUND attitude pretty well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) This is not appropriate, especially after a warning! Pretty justified block, I think. Singularity42 (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I also believe that justifies a block, pretty darn serious... — raekyt 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I'll spell it out for you: Collect is trying to WP:OUT me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC) What the hell, dude? YOU YOURSELF posted your traceable IP-address on your userpage. Everyone can see it. If you don't want people to know it, have it oversighted first instead of warring and vandalizing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Bullshit! And you darn well know it! I noted that a government employee using a DHS computer was posting on political articles in what I consider to be a partisan manner. That is all you can come away with -- even if you "refactored" my post to have me refer to "StillStanding" when I made no such post or reference at all -- which is a gross abuse of Wikipedia, Still. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Was this unexplained revert an attempt to prevent you from being outed? Was this unexplained revert? Both times you reverted an editor's comments on a thread about you reverting other editors' comments, after being warned to stop doing so! The reason you reverted is because you didn't like the comments and/or you didn't agree with the comments. Enough is enough. Singularity42 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (ec)Just to let you know, your IP address is clearly noted in the history of your edits because you used your IP address as your WP name. If anyone cared what state you lived in they would already know. Collect isn't telling anyone anything that they could not find out in two seconds from looking at your history. Furthermore a good number of editors have accidentally used their IP address (me included) from time to time (I live in MN if you want to know). I don't see anything that collect did to explicity name you. Arzel (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Since he changed that username (possibly exactly for that reason), it's still probably best that you don't link it back which you even did in the header of this section. Yes, it's not exactly difficult to dig out of the history, but why do it? Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (ec)Call it ironic karma. Back when Still was first beginning his battleground mentality I had a report ready to submit. At the time his name was still his IP address, and when I started typing in "Still" to the edit summary to find out how to post to his user name it came up in my history. I did not know at the time what Still's big problem was, so it did not even occur to me that this was the issue. Arzel (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (ec) It's not there now, and he himself did not disclose this information. Whether the information is or is not correct, it should not be on a noticeboard. 72Dino (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC) It's not there now because I removed it. And you are corrct; whether or not it is "common knowledge", if an editor doesn't want it plastered over a noticeboard they have a right to expect that wish to be respected. StillStanding went about this the wrong way, but equally Collect should not have phrased his original edit in that way. And I think we're done here. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC) To be clear - WP:OUTING - " If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia". It had been redacted (and the username changed). Black Kite (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Well, turns out Collect didn't even mean that, so with his reaction and paranoia the user has now outed himself... again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I'm still reading Collect's original statement as saying "the IP is not StillStanding because it's not in (state that StillStanding's IP geolocates to)", so I'm not surprised if anyone else is. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC) What 72Dino said. I reverted the WP:OUTed information and then any attempt to point at it, to avoid the Streisand effect. I amazed that some of you people didn't realize what was going on, or didn't care. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC) If you are that worried about your IP identity, then perhaps WP is not the place for you. Arzel (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Comment He has also made at least two personal attacks. First, telling someone to "Buy A Clue" when removing a warning. Then asking if someone is "incompetent", in response to another warning. I've seen people blocked for less. Two weeks should do it. Please note that Still Standing removed my comment to this thread and this is the second time I have had to add this.--JOJ Hutton 00:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Comment This seems to have blown over now. I think everybody was editing in good faith, and I don't think any further action needs to be taken. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Good faith! I don't think insulting editors that are trying to figure out what Still's big issue is to be good faith. He could have resolved this right away but chose not too, yet he has caused a huge waste of time for everyone involved. Arzel (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC) @Still: :Can you comment on the two reverts I point to above? Because frankly, I cannot see how the comments you were reverting were pointing to out-ing attempts. It really does suggest you reverted because you didn't like them. Singularity42 (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Actually, it does. Both of the diffs were of me removing Arzel's mention of WP:OUTING, as that amounted to "hey, everyone look!" Look at them again. Oh, and whatever Collect is saying now, look again at what he wrote and tell me he wasn't intentionally sharing what he believed to be my location. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Given what I've seen of you and Collect, Collect has the higher credibility and trustworthiness here. You've been pulling these stunts almost every other day. We'll see you again on some damn noticeboard next week. This needs to stop. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, he has to stop trying to out me. End of story. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC) You outed yourself the day you started editing here. Such paranoia makes people really wonder what the big issue is. Arzel (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC) And how do you answer to your unjustified removal of talk page comments on this thread, and at least two personal attacks.--JOJ Hutton 00:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Read what I wrote. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC) No. The problem is you. I've told you before that there's something wrong with your approach; and I'm not the only one who's told that. More than once. Get it into your brain. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC) This needs to stop from both sides. This ridiculous spillover from partisan editing of US politics articles is getting to the point where a very large amount of editors are going to get thrown at ArbCom at some point, and I pity the person that tries to write the case file for that. Still - don't redact other people's comments if they are not directly related to a possible outing problem. And those that are throwing petrol on the flames - you're not helping either. Black Kite (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I'm not even part of the dispute. I'm an uninvolved editor who saw three comments deleted from this thread, and at least two personal attacks. All by Still Standing. He won't answer as to why he did all that.--JOJ Hutton 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC) If you're not part of the dispute, stop telling us to "block him for two weeks" then. I'm pretty sure most admins are perfectly capable of assessing the situation and making decisions without that. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I said it once, so don't make it look like I'm continuing to push it or something. I don't need you to tell me what to say, I'm perfectly capable of commenting on my own, and the last time I checked, this page notice board was open to all comments, not just to admins.--JOJ Hutton 00:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Black Kite, I'm not reverting anything anymore. I've completely given up on having any hope of privacy. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Rayrayzone abusing my talk page and blanking comments at AFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User

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

Issue

I was initially being really patient with Rayrayzone. As you can see I've given him/her several warnings over adding questionabley sourced content, as have other users. I've also tried engaging in discussion with him but he always blanks his talk page. Then when I nominated Restoration (album) for deletion (completely unrelated) he removed my comments on the discussion here and subsequently called me a jerk and punk ass bitch. Then even though he'd already voted once before he removed the strike from his second vote here, to which I left a warning on his talk page. He's then removed the strike from his vote again as well as removing to other users who've voted on the consensus here and proceeded to call me a sorry ass faggot, and told me to "shut the fuck up bitch".

I've had enough of trying to reason with him. Its purely WP:UNCIVIL. Don't think we should have people like this on wikipedia. I'm asking for him to be blocked/banned. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 2 weeks. Considered an indef, but let's see if the block makes a difference. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somerled

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am concerned about racial propaganda and censorship being directed at my people the Pictic race and my ancestor Somerled in particular. The argument that his patrilineal lineage is Viking and that he is R1a1a is based on unscientific studies and false premises. This is contentious material which is offensive to his descendants including a study by Sykes which is has not been peer reviewed. " I have provided numerous cited arguments for his Irish lineage which have been censored. I would like this to stop and for both sides of the argument to be heard. It is not the argument I object to it is the censorship of referenced material on the pretense that it has not been cited. Just because it does not support the argument that Somerled was a Viking does not give anyone the right to remove it. I would like an unbiased biography of my ancestor please and an end to censorship. Wiki should not support racial propaganda.

The lineage of Somerled is well documented. He is a descendant of Conn of the Hundred Battles.. The claim made by Sykes that the predominance of Viking DNA in Clan Donald is evidence of Somerled's haplotype does not take into account the fact that this percentage is way less than the average for a random sample of the British population or that the Pictic subgroup found in the West of Scotland is not to be found anywhere else in Britain. The assertion that Somerled had an R1a1a haplotype is contentious and impacts on his descendants.

I don't mind both sides of the argument being discussed but the fact that people are systematically censoring all counter arguments is offensive to me especially when this assertion contradicts the majority of published work on this subject and hundreds of years of lineage documented by the Seannachies. . I do not consider the Lord Lyon to be a reliable source of independent scientific evidence as does Sykes and neither Sykes or Moffat have explained how a sub group of Picts came to be in the Western Isles.

What we do know for sure is about the systematic widespread rape by the English reported by the Scottish at the battle of Culloden. This cannot be discounted as a paternal event which would explain the R1a1a haplotypes appearing among Clan Donald. We are still dealing with the aftermath of this violent and brutal rape of our people and do not appreciate our story being censored for political reasons in support of the current power structure. This censorship is not editing and doesn't support a neutral point of view. I suggest that editors respect the arguments of descendants of Somerled in regards to his ethnicity and refrain from making contentious claims. I know my genealogy and the DNA haplotype of my paternal lineage and this is definitely not 'opinion' or 'imaginary' as has been posted on my talk page. I am not an imaginary creature who lives at the bottom of the garden and I feel that as an indigenous Pict my race is being victimized by these so called editors.

Moidart (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, since you provide no evidence of any editors behaving badly. Actually, the only evidence you've provided shows that you have a very strong point of view, which can frequently cause difficulties when editing here, as we require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view.

If there are specific problems in specific articles, you should discuss those on the articles' talk pages with the other editors involved, and try to work out a consensus. If you believe other editors are behaving badly, or are breaking Wikipedia's policies, then you can come here and report it, after you try to resolve the problem directly with those editors on their user talk pages. If you've just come here to recruit help in "fixing" articles you feel are biased, you've come to the wrong place. Admins aren't here to take sides in content disputes, they're here to administer Wikipedia's policies and mop up any behaviorial problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's a content dispute. I'm involved in this. See Moidart's various posts on Talk:Somerled and User_talk:Moidart for his ravings about a "1984 type", "Nordic cause", "Viking conspiracy". The real problem is that he has a major conflict of interest which is totally affecting his ability edit; he can't distance himself from the topic. This conflict of interest is fuelling him to use personal opinion and synthesized sources, and the result is a totally skewed article of genetic gibberish.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked at the article now, and the only misbehavior I can see is Moidart's. His version of the article, besides being generally God-awful, is full of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:FRINGE thinking, violations of WP:NPOV and probably other stuff I didn't catch.

Moidart, please go start a blog to disseminate your views, you're not going to be able to do so here, unless you can support each and every fact, individually, with a citation from a reliable source, as well as all the conclusions drawn from those facts. You cannot draw your own conclusions from clusters of facts and factoids, someone else, publishing in a reliable source, must do so, only then can you report it here. On your own blog, you can say what you want, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He's resorted to a POV fork here: Somerled the Viking Slayer.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's in relation to a fringe theory it should have been posted to WP:FTN. I've put the POV fork up for deletion as being an unambiguous duplicate of the other article. I also notice you were edit warring to keep a POV fork, this is disruptive: [77][78]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Moidart has also copied text from Somerled into his fork article without attribution. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I was notified about this discussion (thanks Shirt58). I don't have a horse in this race. I simply ran into a problem when I made a simple revert of a sentence or two as unsourced (I identified Moidart's edit as "good faith" when I reverted), then I was accused by Moidart of racism and censoring his article about his people. Otherwise I don't have much of an opinion about the articles Moidart has edited. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I've speedied Somerled the Viking Slayer as an A10. It's plainly about the same Lord of the Isles as Somerled. There seems plenty of space in the article to discuss sourced theories about his ancestry - from the evidence of my own Viking ancestry there's nothing to stop him being a Viking AND slaying 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• • And after that speedying he did this. I think Moidart needs to start looking for incoming WP:BOOMERANGs... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that at the AfD discussion, since the link was still blue. Not content with an unsourced POV fork, Moidart is now claiming that these are two different people. Please could somebody speedily delete the recreated POV-fork and salt it. As for Moidart, well ... Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have readded the AfD notice. If Moidart continues editing in this disruptive way, he almost certainly should be blocked. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that this editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE for an entire laundry list of Wikialphabetsoup, I've blocked indef. No problem with anyone unblocking if he demonstrates an understanding of why he was blocked and a good-faith effort to avoid further conduct of this sort. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, he was here to write articles of some sort, he just had the entirely wrong qualifications. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2012 phenomenon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wasn't sure where to post this, and since I'm not sure (yet) if it qualifies as a dispute, I have decided not to alert the supposed offending party until I am sure he has actually done something wrong.

For context see this archived talk page. User:150.216.78.78 began posting predictions of this page's view count, which then turned out to be correct. The page's views skyrocketed past 1 million, but, rather oddly, would often return to the norm before skyrocketing again. This led some to conclude that said user was artificially inflating the view count. If that is the case, is it possible to stop? Serendi^podous 07:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You've decided to ignore the giant red bold text which tells you clearly and unambiguously that notifying someone is absolutely compulsory? Seriously? 176.250.119.189 (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty strange alright. It could have been mentioned on a high profile website somewhere? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@IP in this case, I'd say this classifies as a good application of WP:IAR. Rather than inflating it into a dispute, Serendipodous has sought advice on whether this is worthy of being called a dispute. Blackmane (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've notified them anyway, I think there is something odd here. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of details in the page view count, so it could be possible that there's a script (or two) running to artificially inflate the page view count. Ravensfire (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think there is anything to do here. Even if we were sure there was manipulation going on, there is no way to stop anyone from viewing a page outside of deleting it. This is the kind of issue that is probably best dealt with by ignoring it. I'm also not sure I see any harm in it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I am interested in monitoring the view count for that page, because it is a useful method of tracking spikes in 2012-related hysteria. When the view count goes up, I know something notable has happened, and attempt to track it down. If the view count is being manipulated, I can't rely on that anymore. Serendi^podous 20:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Handy tip for anyone wanting to know if mentions on high profile sites is artificially inflating page traffic; putting anything into Topsy will generate a report of when (and in what context) it's been mentioned on Twitter, Reddit, high-profile blogs etc. It can be surprisingly interesting to see what's being talked about. 78.149.155.81 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What we can do here is provide moral support and leave the door open for admin support if it becomes necessary to keep the on-wiki activity in check and avoid rehashing the same reasons and time-wasting over it: none of that page-view chatter is appears aimed at improving the article content and page-view stats aren't themselves encyclopediac for article content (and so discussions of them are similarly not in-scope for talk-page). DMacks (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, we could keep that off the talk page as you are correct that it has nothing to do with improving the article. I was thinking more of what we could do in practical terms about someone (possibly, maybe, or maybe not) deliberately manipulating page views. I don't see how we could even determine that in the first place without finding spme sort of post on a different website, and I certainly don't see how it could be prevented. I thought that sort of thing didn't really matter here anyway, that we were immune from SEO trickery somehow, but the technical end of things is not my forte so maybe I'm not quite getting that aspect of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We should not be disclosing those viewcounts anyway, and I seem to remember they started appearing without any real discussion a few years ago. I shrugged it off at that time but have grown more opposed to them since then. I think VPT would not be likely (or able) to do anything about it. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. Over the past week or so, the editor Jsigned has become disruptive on the article Taare Zameen Par. A few weeks before, he had continuously tried to change the title throughout the article to the English translation against the consensus of the editors for the article, but he eventually gave up. He later returned, making illogical edits to the article such as this and this without offering any discussion. He then began trying to put an incorrect translation for the title despite his inability to find any supporting sources here. He has now become obsessed with changing the placement of the international DVD title, such as here and here. He refuses to offer discussion, instead leaving edit summaries like "do not revert" and "ENOUGH". I myself, and two other editors, have reverted his edits. I am open to the possibility of the placement changing, but currently feel the other way is better. Citing BRD, I reverted and opened a discussion on the talk page (here) and even left him a message alerting him to this on his talk page (here). However, his immediate response was to delete my message and again revert the change. His version is the one currently up, and I don't want to keep reverting it to avoid an edit war. Thanks. Ωphois 23:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Then leave it at what I change it to, Ophois. Like Stars on Earth is the international English title. It is the title by which the film is known in English-speaking countries. The article should be titled Like Stars on Earth. This is not Indian Wikipedia. The original Indian title should go in brackets in the first sentence, and you're trying to tell me the title given to the film in the US, UK, etc. cannot even be included in the first sentence. That is bullshit.

Here is the naming guideline for foreign language films:

"Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world. Normally, this will be an English language title that is recognized across the English-speaking world; however, sometimes different English-speaking countries use different titles, in which case use the most common title, and give the native and alternate English title(s) afterward.

Note: in the following paragraphs, the phrase 'the English-speaking world' refers to countries in which the majority of the population speaks English as their first language; it thus includes the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as several smaller countries. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE COUNTRIES SUCH AS INDIA in which English is a common second language, but in which films are rarely produced in English." Film Fan (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Now maybe we can add sockpuppetry to the list of sins? A discussion was held about this very topic, and consensus was to leave the titles as they are. Here are some links to discussions: from film project, from naming conventions. Also, keep in mind that it passed FA as is. BollyJeff | talk 00:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• • • Firstly, those talk pages are TALK PAGES (not in the guidelines/policies) for a reason. Secondly, both those discussions mentions that when the Indian title is used, the ENGLISH TITLE SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN THE FIRST LINE. BUT, as the guidelines CLEARLY STATE, the title used in "the English-speaking world" should be used as the article title anyway. To try and deny BOTH of these obvious amendments is fucking ridiculous! Film Fan (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages and discussions are used to interpret ambiguities in policies and guidelines. And actually, the consensus on those discussions probably should be added to the guideline page. Anyways, per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, the name used should be the one cited in English-language sources. 99% of the sources used in the article list the foreign title. Ωphois 00:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is an absolute bullshit statistic plucked from the fantasy of your mind. Film Fan (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this issue, can any administrator who becomes involved in this issue (or one just reading through) please make a conclusion on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(films)#Titles_of_Indian_film_articles? The editors requested a conclusion back in April so that the decision could be added to the policy, but no admin ever did. Thanks. Ωphois 01:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A Google search gives 2.5 million hits for Hindi title and and 0.5 million of English. Personally I am okay with having the English title in the first line, so long as the Hindi title comes first, and all editors remain civil. BollyJeff | talk 01:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Google searches are not controlling when the title is not in English, WP:COMMONNAME is, and it calls for the article to be at the name commonly used in English. Unless it is one of the very few foreign films which become well known by their original name, the common English-language name is almost always going to be a name that uses English words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As I noted earlier, 99% of the sources used (all in English) use the foreign title. The international title is only referred to online when discussing the DVD release. Ωphois 02:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That is an absolute bullshit statistic plucked from the fantasy of your mind. Film Fan (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this was brought to ANI not because of the issue itself, but because of Jsigned's edit warring, refusal to discuss the matter, and previous disruptive behavior on the article. Personally, I can live with the current version, but a third editor had reverted Jsigned's edits citing BRD, but Jsign completely ignored this and just went back to reverting. With Jsign's abrasive conduct lately, I mainly brought this to the attention of admins due to concern of future disruptions at the article. Ωphois 03:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No no. You are the disruptive one, Ophois. And I have no idea who Ani is, but I don't like the sound of her. Film Fan (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You're currently on "Ani". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Film Fan (Jsigned), you need to tone it back a notch. And Ophois [79], this is Wikipedia, you don't have to discuss edits before you make them, however both of you need to discuss now that it was reverted, instead of warring. This isn't dispute resolution nor the warring noticeboard. Take this back to the article talk page (per WP:BRD), and if you can't work it out there, go to WP:DRN. This isn't an ANI issue (yet) and admins should not be needed for all involved editors to develop a consensus. Stop the blind reverts and discuss, or full protection and/or blocks are likely to follow for all the edit warriors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel that Jsigned's edits are more destructive than constructive. Given that he has engaged in countless edit-wars in the Taare Zameen Par article, with edit summaries falling on the edge of WP:UNCIVIL, failure to follow WP:BRD and learn from his mistakes, a topic ban or a block is long due. Secret of success (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

My edits were correct, and your personal feelings are not. Film Fan (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, thank you for you input. My edit that you cited is taken out of context however. That was in response to similar previous edits that Jsigned had made on the article, when he was previously reverting against editor consensus. I did not bring this to ANI as dispute resolution, but to deal with Jsigned's disruptive behavior. His immature/explicit responses in this discussion alone should demonstrate what we have been having to deal with. Ωphois 16:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Are Film Fan and this Jsigned character the same user? Having a mis-leading signature in itself is disruptive. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Lugnuts. Film Fan (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that so? your sig: [[User:Jsigned|Film Fan]] ([[User talk:Jsigned|talk]]) BollyJeff | talk 23:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Ophois, you still have to try to go to the appropriate venues, to demonstrate you have made good faith efforts to resolve the situation. If he refused to go to DRN, that would be a stronger case for disruption. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, Dennis Brown, I think Jsigned's behaviour has escalated beyond a content dispute on one isolated article, and requires some admin attention. Specificially, I point out the following:

1. The issues already identified by Ophois in this thread.
2. The edit-warring and uncivl behaviour identified by Secret of success in this thread.
3. Being caught in a signature forgery above. Specifically, Jsigned is signing off as pre-existing user, Film Fan (talk · contribs), and than claiming they are not Jsigned.
4. Being incivil in this thread, and refusing to acknowledge any problems when confronted about said incivility.
5. His continuance to edit-war while this thread is being being discussed! (See the history at Love (2012 French film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views))

Seems to me it is time for admin intervention. Singularity42 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours, under WP:DE. Trying to be nice didn't work, so he forced my hand. I've left a full explanation on his talk page, including how he needs to change his signature to one that isn't misleading. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been following Jsigned's career here for several months now, and what I've seen here is pretty typical behaviour. "I am right, you should shut up" and quite dogged edit-warring to achieve what seems most often to be ramming home whatever definition of "english" film title is in Jsigned's mind. In the Troll Hunter debate, they showed great ingenuity in pressing their view, like substituting (and edit-warring for) incorrect film poster images. If Jsigned is not dealt with now, I predict future appearances at this noticeboard. This is one of those often-right but incredibly abrasive editor situations that become quite messy. However, I must reject the suggestion of signature forgery, I was the admin on hand when Jsigned changed their sig, and I felt at the time it was policy-compliant (linked to proper upages) - so pls bring to me if you feel that was incorrect. In retrospect, maybe they should be invited to usurp the Film Fan account, but there's no forgery IMO. Franamax (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If Jsigned simply wanted to be called "Bobby" or "Karen" and arranged their sig to display that name, that would be one thing - iffy, perhaps, but acceptable if consistent and not meant disruptively; but signing with the name of a previous user is deceptive, and should not be allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section of WP:SIG:

Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in [[User:Example|User:Nickname]]) are strongly discouraged, as it can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make it appear to be a different person.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, my nerve fibres are screaming too loud, I can't type that TLA, I hate having to point out simple things like good faith. Perhaps we should look for reasons other than outright deception on the part of the other editor? The "previous user" never made an edit, n'est-ce pas? What is the immense sin here? Hovering over the sig (we do all have popups enabled, right?) shows the correct target - and I'm fairly sure I can quickly come up with quite a few editors with flamboyant sigs. Franamax (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

@Franamax: Of course, AGF. If a user inadvertantly breaks that policy (or any policy, for that matter), one goes to him or her and points out the problem. If they change it, no problem, if they don't, they get blocked, whether the original mistake as done innocently or not. Really, though, in this specific case, he should never have been told it was OK to do so, because it manifestly is not OK to do so. Still, that's easily fixed, and Dennis says (below) it wasn't the reason for the block, so... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

So kinda like how I pointed out the specific problem and potential solution for the editor on their talk page, which no-one else bothered to do? And since I'm putting my name out here, I never told Jsigned "it was OK to do so", but I acquiesced when I noticed they changed their sig while I was actively monitoring their contributions. If you find a concern that an existing account with zero edits ever shares the same name, you should probably count that up as my deficient adminship, it's true that I should have been ever-vigilant and found that zero-edit account. No-one up 'til now (and at the original Troll Hunter move where Jsigned changed sigs) has been seriously confused by the sigs. The substance and manner of their contribs were and are of far greater concern than the signature. But we should extend courtesy even to those seemingly headed out the door. Franamax (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As we should extend courtesy to those who signed up here but never edited, at least until their user names are official usurped. I'm sorry that I interpreted "I was the admin on hand when Jsigned changed their sig, and I felt at the time it was policy-compliant" to mean that you told him it was OK, rather than that you merely acquiesced to his actions without comment. And please, do not infer from my comments anything specific about my views on your "adminship." I am quite capable of telling an admin when I think they're doing a bad job (although I do so infrequently, consider that admins are armed and I am not), and I have not said that about you, nor do I think it. I do believe you made a mistake in this case, but I've made a boatload of mistakes as an editor here, and I don't consider myself to be in any (serious) way "deficient". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The sig wasn't the reason for the block, but using the same name as a different registered user isn't allowed. As I told him, it doesn't have to be his exact registered name, but it does need to be a name that isn't a registered user. This does cause confusion as if you go to the search bar and just type User:Film Fan, you don't get the info that the user doesn't exist, you get a completely different user. If you think that one finer point needs a discussion at WP:AN, no offense would be taken, but I am forced to stand by my original assessment unless someone can persuade me that I'm reading the spirit of the policy incorrectly, as it seems very specifically to be addressing this exact scenario. That the user he is impersonating hasn't made edits is meaningless if you accidentally go there to give me a user warning template, for example, as you wouldn't get a warning, and this seems exactly what the policy is trying to avoid, explicitly. If he can capture the named account via usurp after his block, then more power to him, I have no beef with that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I maintain and reiterate that your statement "the user he is impersonating" is categorically false. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that Jsigned is seeking to impersonate anyone. And further, unless you can show where you have been watching longer than I have, I'll state that Jsigned is not pretending to be anyone other than their own rude and abrasive self. Please frame your concerns in other than accusatory terms and accept that this overeager editor may have not actually read whichever obscure page you or I can conjure with ease. Again, no problem with other aspects of the block, but you shouldn't be suggesting deception where none exists. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jsigned may have just been being sarcastic, but when asked in the discussion above by Lugnuts if he and Film Fan were the same person, Jsigned said they weren't. Ωphois 02:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't sweat it Ophois. It is fine to disagree, like Franamax and I do. We agree on the main points of the block, we disagree on the handling of the signature. Like any other editors, we can (and should) disagree without being disagreeable. Everyone has their own opinions, no use laboring them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that he has been blocked, why don't we wait for sometime (after his block expires) and see if this continues? If it does, we can always re-report and if not, nothing to worry about, right? Secret of success (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

India (featured article)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

India is presently a long-standing featured article. But that's for another day. The thing is, many other FAs about countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, Australia et al.) have a city population template in the demographics section and with good reason. India doesn't have one. So I made a template (actually I made two because of the high varieties of subsequent complaints about its "ugly looks"). I went to discuss. Got feedback along the lines of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.

• "This was discussed in the past and the template was removed because it doesn't add any value to the article. I for one think that these city templates are nothing but an eyesore." - apparently the editors of other FAs that have the template, are unmindful. That's what it seems to me.
• "No need for more clutter" - notice that the "demographics" section of other similar FAs (Germany, Japan, Australia) usually contain subsections like "religion", "language", "education", "health"; India, being an FA, has none of that, yet supposedly it is causing too much clutter as far as the inclusion of the template is concerned.
• "no to a city template" - Yup. that's it and nothing more.
• "you better show something other than WP:OSE and stop repeating yourself like a parrot." - however, I tried to explain how it will help give the readers some idea about the populations of the largest populated areas/settlements/cities in India. All in vain.
• "City templates are fine with me as long as they're in the right place."
• "I generally approve of city templates. They aren't that large, and they give me a rough idea on whether the population is distributed throughout various areas or concentrated on a few major cities...(big comment)" and other comments basically saying either we can have one or we must not have one, check here.

After undergoing this highly perplexing and hazy discussion, I boldly inserted one of the templates in the demographics section, to see what happens afterwards, naturally it was reverted with the summary "consensus first, inclusion later". I continued the discussion, again replies were "Looks awful", "Absolutely no to such ugliness", "India is preeminently (and in my view thankfully still) a rural country" (emphases are my own). I momentarily bursted out saying that the template's primary job is to give information about largest urban agglomerations in India rather than serving as an eye-candy. Then I was advised "never underestimate the importance of aesthetics and good taste" by the one who reverted me. I started discussion about the looks of the template. Nothing helpful came out of it with the exception of one comment by Ashley who made me rethink the order of those agglomerations.

Yes, we can quibble about the looks or the stats of the template all we want but that alone or WP:IDON'TLIKEIT cannot serve as grounds for removal of the template altogether, especially when other FAs have these in demographics section. As a side note, in the article, there is not a glimpse of the modernized part of India. Now, I am frankly sick of these asinine comments. Don't desire to see more of those here. Thank you for your time. Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?)} 09:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a content disagreement - I can't see anything requiring any admin actions. If simple discussion on the talk page can't achieve a consensus, I'd suggest looking into the steps of WP:DR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's not much that can be done here from an admin perspective. FAs have for a long time been plagued by ownership issues and some weird desire to allow their primary contributors to veto edits of which they disapprove; that's not going to change in the course of an ANI thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, wrong venue. And, fwiw, those things are eyesores; too long, too boxed-up. They could be simple, abbreviated, lists with most of the detail off in the city articles.

OP's got a {{plain link}} template in their sig, which is not on per WP:SIG. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I found the FAR discussions about country articles rather shallow in general but let's not get into that issue here. This is a content dispute, so go back to arguing among yourselves, or try other means to obtain a wider participation, WP:DRN, WP:RfCs, etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

 – That's more suitable Mrt3366 ^{(Talk page?)} 10:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"poArtExpressionism.com" external link

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

To the Admin, How can this happen on wiki within 24 hours on a valid link?

I am new at this; however in a 24 hour period it appears some editor block a valid poArt Expressionism link.

The following link has triggered a protection filter: poartexpressionism.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

I stated some info here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Expressionism#keeping_the_.22poArtExpressionism.com.22_external_link

WHERE do I appeal this apparently militant activity or is this just how wiki functions?

thanks Julius — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliusJeff (talk • contribs) 11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute. You've done the right thing by going to the article's talk page, but consensus seems to be the link shouldn't stay, so assume it's not the end of the world and have a look at something else. That said, Modernist shouldn't be flinging policies at you as he's violated the three revert rule himself by reverting your good-faith edits here here and here. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I asked him to comment on the talk page, he persisted in adding his link and then canvassed his friends to add the link and they did. I did my best to explain policy to him...Modernist (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

All that's well and good, but if it escalated up to WP:AN3, somebody might notice your three reverts within 24 hours and block you as well. I can't hand on heart say you were reverting obvious and bad faith vandalism. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

He's adding a personal website with only questionable and tangential value to the article at best; classic spamlink, Ewulp reverted him as well; it becomes vandalism after he'd been warned, went to the talk page, and then emailed his friends to add the link - and 2 of them did. It was my responsibility to try to explain the policy to him and I did. He then began to personally attack me, as I said I did my best...Modernist (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" ;-) Anyhow, nobody's blocked, Julius has been firmly told his link's not staying. Now, let's all look at some nice pictures of some small, furry and cute animals. Aaaah.... --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have explained enough with User:Obi2canibe about the violation of pushing POV and introducing WP:OR to User:Himesh84 on the talk page of above article and failed. We need Administrators' action.Sudar123 (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What other dispute resolution methods have you tried besides telling them your feelings? There are additional steps between "I told them to stop" and "I need an administrator to intervene". See WP:DR for a list of ideas. --Jayron32 13:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Jayron32, we didn't try at other dispute resolution methods since it is an obvious POV of the editor without any reliable citation to support his/her point.Sudar123 (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If so, it should be trivial for you to get other editors to agree with your side in the dispute then. When it is one-on-one, you'll find that administrators aren't likely to act to break the deadlock. If it is the entire community-on-one (see WP:CONSENSUS), then it is much easier. For the first, having many other editors comment on a topic makes it easier to convince the other person to get in line, making an administrator unecessary. Secondly, admins are more likely to take action if it is clear you have been the reasonable person, and have exhausted all options before coming here. --Jayron32 17:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But it's a requirement in a community such as Wikipedia. WP:DR lists the processes - often it's a misunderstanding of an encyclopedia, or a lack of knowledge of the policies. If there are specific infractions, such as edit-warring, those are typically taken care of at individual boards like WP:AN/3RR dangerouspanda 16:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

76.1.125.223

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

IP has done blatant vandalism on the psychoanalysis article (diff). He/she also has a history of blocks and vandalism. CartoonDiablo (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 3 months (last block was one). In the future, please report to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whitewashing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It looks like the editor JournalScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) is whitewashing articles related to global warming, particularly those about global warming deniers. Amidst a flurry of changes on articles, he removes sourced criticism for rather dubious reasons. Can some admins/experienced editors have a look through the editors contributions and see what they think? Sourced criticism or sections critical of denialism or fringe science disappear: [80][81][82][83][84] (This list isn't exhaustive, there are many more). IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not so easily convinced. What's wrong with this one? And why is this version preferred over this one? I don't see (at least in those two articles) any whitewashing. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This was removed as OR: [85]. This was removed as OR: [86]. This was removed claiming it violates RS: [87]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Whatever one makes of individual examples, it's right on target to say that JournalScholar's editing is entirely dedicated to propagating a fringe POV re global warming. JS has been warned re ARBCC -- but it's not clear that the warning has reined him/her in at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, BTW, JS is currently blocked and won't be able to reply here for another few hours. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Also for Andrew Dessler, mention of his book was removed, The section saying about " policymakers and the general public often lack an understanding of how science works" was removed and replaced with a quote from an interview that makes him sound like an alarmist instead. If this was a once off then I wouldn't be alerted, but it's a pattern of editing that is clear across multiple articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearer examples would be things like [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Some extra [93], removes mention that Watts gave data to Muller [94] [95]. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Whiteashing" is a substantial overstatement - I suggest that cups of tea are called for. When oersonal opinions are placed in BLPs, there is the concern that they should be more clearly stated to be opinion, and not presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. It is not our task to show how evil the "climate change deniers" are. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are commenting without actually looking at the diffs. Some of the diffs aren't even about deniers. Source content is being removed for invalid reasons on a large scale according to a POV; there is no other way to paint that. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I read the diffs. And I also read the OP's statement whitewashing articles related to global warming, particularly those about global warming deniers. which I find to be a substantial overstatement of the case at hand. And I iterate that cups of tea would help. Perhaps the problem is not just his POV - I think one well should follow Robbie Burns' advice about how one views others. Collect (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Justify these [96][97][98][99][100], [101][102][103], [104]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of those are problematic, some are not. It is certainly clear, however, that this is a single-purpose account. And the plagiarism issue below is troubling. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition to removing information JournalScholar considers critical of various subjects, there is also a plagiarism problem that needs attention. — ThePowerofX 17:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at JournalScholar's editing, it appears that some of his edits are at least arguable, while others are pretty much straight-up removals of well-sourced material without adequate justification. Given his track record and rapid-fire editing, this imposes a substantial burden on other editors to sort through a high volume of his edits and try to separate those that are arguably reasonable from those that are abusive.On top of that, given the evidence of plagiarism compiled above, there's now the additional burden of needing to carefully review his large volume of contributions for plagiarism and copyright violations.

  Putting all of this together, I'm going to indefinitely block JournalScholar. This isn't intended to be a "forever" block, necessarily, but at the very least it will give other editors breathing room to review his edits, determine the scope of the plagiarism/copyright issues he's introduced, and try to identify which of his many removals of well-sourced information are appropriate. I'm not comfortable with him continuing to run around making large volumes of potentially plagiarized edits.

  I'm not opposed to an unblock at some point in the future, but I would strongly urge that it be supervised and tightly coupled to some evidence that JournalScholar understands a) content and sourcing policies, and b) the basics of plagiarism. If other admins disagree with this block, I'm happy to reconsider it, but based on available evidence I see it as clearly warranted on a preventive basis. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Good block. Indefinite is not permanent. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:JournalScholar by MastCell) That is absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. I am unable to even defend myself! Why are you not allowing me to defend myself? I cannot hope to have someone copy and paste this to the ANI board. All of my edits are good faith edits that have been fully sourced and each edit fully documented. I have never removed sourced criticisms for dubious reasons - every single reason for the edit was clearly given. If you are not going to review my edits independently but attempt to claim by looking at a simple before and after diff then that I am "whitewashing" something then you are not attempting to be intellectually honest. I cannot defend myself on this talk page. All those editors complaining about me do not want me editing because I was attempting to give those BLPs a NPOV and not the negatively biased view that they are presented in. Any issue of plagiarism I will gladly correct and they were all in good faith. Other editors clearly read those and made no attempt to correct them or point this out as a problem of which I would have immediately corrected. I had assumed since those sentences were fully source it would meet criteria for adequate credit. --JournalScholar (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Unblock request copied from User talk:JournalScholar by EdJohnston . I have not even been given the chance to defend any of the accusations against me. The editors attacking me strongly disagree with my editing various BLPs to a NPOV because they hold these people in a negative light. No attempt was made to contact me about any of these issues as I would have worked to resolve all of them. I would like the opportunity to defend each charge made against me. An indefinite block is absolutely uncalled for. I would like the possible to post to the ANI board to defend myself. "Looking at JournalScholar's editing, it appears that some of his edits are at least arguable, while others are pretty much straight-up removals of well-sourced material without adequate justification" - That is an absolute lie. I have never removed well-sourced material without adequate justification and will defend every edit I made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JournalScholar (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone want to bring this to CCI now? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I asked JournalScholar to explicate some of his editorial decisions on his talk page. He has posted a response. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The responses on his talk page about two specific edits do not indicate that JournalScholar is aware of the problems with his editing: the blatant copyvios in adding content; and the spurious reasons for removing sourced content with which he disagrees. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually think most of his responses were well-considered and understandable. I also see why IRWolfie would be suspicious. I supported blocking as a way to clear things up, but he actually has a fairly strong unblock case. Blocks are used to prevent disruption, and that shouldn't be the case on the issue of plagiarism now that he is aware of our concerns. I would not oppose an admin unblocking if they were comfortable with his explanations. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

He needs to also demonstrate he actually understands WP:RS and WP:V, WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN. He still defends his removal of the content above. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, any admin considering unblock should take a look at the deleted version of the user's user page, which was an attack page against a particular wikipedia editor and evidence of a WP:Battleground mentality. It's not clear that the user understands why that page was unacceptable. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Any unblock should come with a clearer instruction about conforming to ARBCC. I'm also concerned at the claim that the plagiarism was done "in good faith". I don't really see evidence of greater/sufficient understanding on that element. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jprg1966. I am comfortable with his explanations. If further comments from JournalScholar indicate he understands the plagiarism issue, I have no objection to unblocking or reducing the block to time served for edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but his explanations make no sense. He is removing quotes of people claiming that self-published sources can't be used for their own opinions. That is clearly nonsensical, and it is evident his spree of removing mainstream content will continue. He still maintains that press-releases by groups with editorial oversight are self-published and thus unreliable, once again for attributes quotes. It has been explained to him numerous times that they are reliable. It is evident that his disruption will continue if he is unblocked. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a better understanding of WP:FRINGE and WP:ARBPS before unblocking. We really don't need someone attempting to "balance" the scientific mainstream with pseudoskeptical fringe. Sædon^talk 19:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, but be careful that we're not blocking someone because of their viewpoint. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No of course not, freedom of thought and all that. He can hold any view he pleases, he just can't push it here. Sædon^talk 19:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have declined the latest unblock request. See here for a summary of my reasons. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A good block. Is there a procedure or place to discuss undoing the damage?   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

IP sockpuppets

I am asking for a semi-protection of the article Tarkhan. A few days ago, User:Greczia was banned for sockpuppetry and for POV edits (including in the article mentioned above). It is obvious that he is now using IPs to revert to his POV. --Lysozym (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protected, however, next time you need to make a request at WP:RFPP, which is specifically setup for page protection requests. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I am observing this article since 1 week and actually we need a protection for the article because of Lysozym. It is clearly visible that he is trying to downplay a possible Altaic (turkic/mongolian) Etymology. He is infiltrating his own POV by deleting highly relevant and importan segments (no matter if Grezcia or who else is banned). Those IP's he is accusing with sockpuppetry have nothing to do with his false claims. --80.132.183.212 (talk) 12:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're not someone who is currently blocked, you can head on over the article talkpage to try and gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits - but accusing of POV is not the way to go about that dangerouspanda 09:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Accusing of POV is not the right way to go.--Calm As Midnight 23:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Anne Block/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne K. Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I looked at Anne Block as part of new page patrol, realized that it had been AfD'd about a week ago, and tagged it as a repost. The AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne K. Block and indicates that there was some kind of edit war between someone who was apparently attacking Ms. Block and someone who was on her side. The talk page of Anne Block contained a statement by someone who claimed to be Ms. Block that seemed to me to push the WP:LAWSUIT button, metaphorically speaking, by indicating that she wanted to file a civil suit, although she then immediately blanked the page. The diff about the civil suit is at [[105]]. I hope this can get some quick attention from an admin before it escalates. Ubelowme _U ^Me 03:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As legal threats are not tolerated, I quote from William Shakespeare himself: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Basically speaking, I think a block should be necessary in this case. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

His army is a ragged multitude

Of hinds and peasants, rude and merciless:

...

All scholars, lawyers, courtiers, gentlemen,

They call false caterpillars, and intend their death. (Hen VI, V, iv) --Shirt58 (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

But WP:DOLT applies as well. Deception passer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and L8incoub3rt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have been making some pretty clear BLP violations. Also note that numerous versions of the attack page exist in talk page histories and AfC as well at the article itself. VQuakr (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Panyd has very sensibly speedied the article under WP:G4. It's my opinion that blanking the page effectively constitutes a withdrawal of the legal threat, and so I don't feel that User:AnneBlock45 should be sanctioned for this - since she's already withdrawn the threat, a block for NLT would serve no purpose. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if I have your logic correctly: She threatens legal action, making her subject to WP:NLT, we delete the article on entirely internal grounds, not related to her complaint, and you believe that this negates any exposure for WP:NLT on her part? I'd say that part 1 has nothing whatsoever to do with part 2 and that the user should be subject to blocking regardless of what's happened to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Yunshui appears to be saying that Ms Block's blanking of her own legal threat removed the NLT violation, not the article deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have imposed a legal threat block, as I don't feel that merely blanking a talk page constitutes a withdrawal of the threat of legal action. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Because consensus is for losers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee has my argument correct; AnnBlock45 blanked the page (and thus removed the threat) before the page was deleted. That said, I'm not going to quibble with Mike's decision. I am casually curious as to what he'd accept as a valid unblock request, though, given that the user now has no way of re-withdrawing her threat... Yunshui 雲‍水 14:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What a stupid bad block. She made the legal threat, then blanked it just 1 minute later, before the page was deleted or any further action taken. It takes serious bad faith to not see that as a withdrawal of the threat -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (redact unnecessary insult, sorry) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Boing! said Zebedee above, the quick blanking of the threat after it was made could easily be viewed as a withdrawal of the threat. There was no reason to block the account. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments as I was the nominator in the original procedural AfD. First, Block's withdrawal of the legal threat could be viewed not as a retraction but the realization that she didn't need "a copy of submission" as the article had not yet been deleted. In addition, it doesn't make sense that she would contest the speedy deletion of an anti-Block article. Second, to the extent she did in fact mean to retract her threat, she can still contest the block by explaining that and promising not to make legal threats in the future. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the block of Block (had to get that in), but even for those who disagree (and I fully understand why), it's not the end of the world if the block remains in place. I also think that if Block requests an unblock, someone should point to this discussion on her Talk page to help the reviewing admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I left that link on her talk page as part of alerting her that I'd initiated this conversation. It's immediately above the block notification. Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree this isn't the very best of blocks at all. Blanking = withdrawl. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked AnneBlock45, and left a note that if the comment had not been blanked, the block would not have been unreasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• I would suggest that deletion of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Anne Block needs to be considered. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  I've deleted that page as well. That deletion might be on the edge of being out-of-process; anyone who thinks it improper can let me know, or admins can undelete it themselves if they want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  Looks perfectly sound to me, Flo. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not that it matters at this point, but unless she had been warned prior to this, I don't feel the block should have been imposed given that she blanked the page immediately. GregJackP Boomer! 21:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While I obviously disagree with Floquenbeam that a consensus has been reached, I don't feel strongly enough about it to dump on him/her about reversing my block. (And I appreciate Boing!'s strikeout of an insult.) We're all working towards the same goal. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Matthew Anthony Smith

I'm reluctant to report what is essentially a content dispute, but this has been going on for what seems like forever, multiple editors have been involved, and yet much the same behaviour continues.

The essential problems are most succinctly summed up by reference to the user talk page: it is worth checking the history as well as the current revision since he has a habit of deleting particular threads. In summary he created a succession of variations of {Template:Infobox CPU} which were nominated for deletion and they were deleted as a result following reasonably well developed debates. The editor in question is now seeking to modify the generic template with much the same net effect as the changes that were rejected at XfD. User continues to engage in the same non-communicative and owning behaviour as was used in the past despite opposition having been expressed to those changes. Crispmuncher (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC).

are you kidding me!, the changes that were were rejected in the modified template was the UI, not the content, the conclusion came to be a merge and so that is what i am doing. they did not fully merge all those labels so that is what I was doing, the template did NOT lose any compatibility from the generic, and if there were any problems that I would fix them. and I have fixed them so whats the problem? all of the problems that were related to ARM cant be fixed because appearantly it doesnt use this template it uses this one Infobox CPU architecture Matthew Smith (talk) 11:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• User:Ruud Koot filed this report at WP:ANEW. It has some possibly useful links at the bottom of the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reinstating the School of Science and Technology, Singapore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm a current employee and staff of SST and I'm given the permission by the Principal of the school, Mr Chua Chor Huat, to use the writeup and pictures from the SST website into the SST Wiki page (pls refer to the sst website -> about SST -> Organisation Structure -> Admin Office -> Carol Lum). I'm the Corporate Communications Executive and I do both the photography and writeup for the school.

Apparently it was stated in the deletion log that the page had been deleted because of the use of the logo in the page. This page is the school's main Wiki page and it is not possible not to use the logo at all. I'm not sure I understand why it was deleted based on this reason as it does not seem justifiable.

If reusing the photos that were from the SST website is not allowed, I will change the gallery entirely. As I've taken new photos of the students' achievement in the recent month, I've already made periodical edits since early this week.

Please reinstate the page as soon as possible to allow me to make the edits to the pictures in the gallery.

Thanks.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue was that you copied content without explicit permission. You need to provide proof that content from the school's website is available under Wikipedia-acceptable terms, and that's not simply "Content from here may be used by Wikipedia". Except for images used under the standards of fair use, everything (including text from the school's website) must be available for purposes including corporate use by anyone, unlimited copying by anyone, and unlimited modifications by anyone. You can do this by any of several ways:

• Arrange for the webmaster to put a notice on the website saying "The contents of this website [or "of this page"] are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0". This is Wikipedia's main permissions license, and it means that anyone would be able to use your website's content (or content from pages with the license statement) for the purposes I mentioned above.
• Pick a page or pages to use, and then arrange for the webmaster to send an email through the OTRS process, explicitly permitting the use of that page's or those pages' contents under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0.
• Arrange for the webmaster to send an email through the OTRS process verifying that you, Lumcarol, are authorised to copy content from the website and release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0.

We have to impose all of those procedures because anyone can claim to have the right to use content; without OTRS, there's non way to prove who you are. In short, this is meant to protect your copyright. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also the fact that Wikipedia is not for promotion, which it appears from your comments the intent of the page is. And, regardless of that, this is not a matter for AN/I. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I just sent the article to AfD. It should really be moved to AfC - completely promotional at this time. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sasakubo1717 repeatedly re-inserting PROD tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Sasakubo1717, who is from the Thai Wikipedia, placed a proposed deletion tag on Tongkah Harbour Public Company Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It was removed by an IP editor (not me), but he subsequently restored the tag three times, despite being told that this is against the English Wikipedia's proposed deletion policy, and ignoring suggestions that he take the article to AfD instead. I really don't see the point in continuing an edit war over a stupid tag on a very short stub, but the involved editor does not seem interested in constructive discussion with IP editors. He may be more receptive to admins' opinions, so I am requesting assistance here. (Note that I am the same editor as 125.25.0.198 and 115.67.98.73.) --115.67.66.207 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made the required notification to Sasakubo1717 (for any user brought up here). It would've been better if you had first discussed on his talk page about this, but now it's here we might as well discuss. He does not seem to be proficient in English, so I don't know if he understands what he's doing. However, what's clear is that we don't need any admin action right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Assistance given. By an admin. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When you approached him the first time to discuss this with him, before bringing it here, what was his response to you? --Jayron32 04:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

See the article talk page, Jayron. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. --Jayron32 04:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Drmies was not acting in his capacity as an admin, but as an ordinary editor in removing the re-added tag, for formality's sake.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

IIRC any uninvolved editor in good standing could've removed the tag, and given the warning, since you didn't threaten anything like blocking. It didn't take an admin to make it clear that the article is here to stay.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think this can be closed w/o admin action, now that Sasakuboi1717 is aware of what he/she did wrong and now knows to refrain from re-adding deleted PROD tags.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Done Sorry, That the only way I know how to make delete request(Re-added delete tag), and have done clear by admin to be notable in Wikipedia & you have to understand my English --Sasakubo1717 (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor has acknowledged and apologised. I'm closing this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reinstating the School of Science and Technology, Singapore

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I'm a current employee and staff of SST and I'm given the permission by the Principal of the school, Mr Chua Chor Huat, to use the writeup and pictures from the SST website into the SST Wiki page (pls refer to the sst website -> about SST -> Organisation Structure -> Admin Office -> Carol Lum). I'm the Corporate Communications Executive and I do both the photography and writeup for the school.

Apparently it was stated in the deletion log that the page had been deleted because of the use of the logo in the page. This page is the school's main Wiki page and it is not possible not to use the logo at all. I'm not sure I understand why it was deleted based on this reason as it does not seem justifiable.

If reusing the photos that were from the SST website is not allowed, I will change the gallery entirely. As I've taken new photos of the students' achievement in the recent month, I've already made periodical edits since early this week.

Please reinstate the page as soon as possible to allow me to make the edits to the pictures in the gallery.

Thanks.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumcarol (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue was that you copied content without explicit permission. You need to provide proof that content from the school's website is available under Wikipedia-acceptable terms, and that's not simply "Content from here may be used by Wikipedia". Except for images used under the standards of fair use, everything (including text from the school's website) must be available for purposes including corporate use by anyone, unlimited copying by anyone, and unlimited modifications by anyone. You can do this by any of several ways:

• Arrange for the webmaster to put a notice on the website saying "The contents of this website [or "of this page"] are released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0". This is Wikipedia's main permissions license, and it means that anyone would be able to use your website's content (or content from pages with the license statement) for the purposes I mentioned above.
• Pick a page or pages to use, and then arrange for the webmaster to send an email through the OTRS process, explicitly permitting the use of that page's or those pages' contents under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0.
• Arrange for the webmaster to send an email through the OTRS process verifying that you, Lumcarol, are authorised to copy content from the website and release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike License 3.0.

We have to impose all of those procedures because anyone can claim to have the right to use content; without OTRS, there's non way to prove who you are. In short, this is meant to protect your copyright. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There's also the fact that Wikipedia is not for promotion, which it appears from your comments the intent of the page is. And, regardless of that, this is not a matter for AN/I. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I just sent the article to AfD. It should really be moved to AfC - completely promotional at this time. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sasakubo1717 repeatedly re-inserting PROD tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Sasakubo1717, who is from the Thai Wikipedia, placed a proposed deletion tag on Tongkah Harbour Public Company Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It was removed by an IP editor (not me), but he subsequently restored the tag three times, despite being told that this is against the English Wikipedia's proposed deletion policy, and ignoring suggestions that he take the article to AfD instead. I really don't see the point in continuing an edit war over a stupid tag on a very short stub, but the involved editor does not seem interested in constructive discussion with IP editors. He may be more receptive to admins' opinions, so I am requesting assistance here. (Note that I am the same editor as 125.25.0.198 and 115.67.98.73.) --115.67.66.207 (talk) 04:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made the required notification to Sasakubo1717 (for any user brought up here). It would've been better if you had first discussed on his talk page about this, but now it's here we might as well discuss. He does not seem to be proficient in English, so I don't know if he understands what he's doing. However, what's clear is that we don't need any admin action right now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Assistance given. By an admin. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) When you approached him the first time to discuss this with him, before bringing it here, what was his response to you? --Jayron32 04:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

See the article talk page, Jayron. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. --Jayron32 04:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that Drmies was not acting in his capacity as an admin, but as an ordinary editor in removing the re-added tag, for formality's sake.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I was? Drmies (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

IIRC any uninvolved editor in good standing could've removed the tag, and given the warning, since you didn't threaten anything like blocking. It didn't take an admin to make it clear that the article is here to stay.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think this can be closed w/o admin action, now that Sasakuboi1717 is aware of what he/she did wrong and now knows to refrain from re-adding deleted PROD tags.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Done Sorry, That the only way I know how to make delete request(Re-added delete tag), and have done clear by admin to be notable in Wikipedia & you have to understand my English --Sasakubo1717 (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor has acknowledged and apologised. I'm closing this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slow brewing edit war at 16:10, has been going on for months

I'm somewhat involved in this because I've already given an opinion at RS/N [106], but I've also noticed that the article 16:10 has been the subject of recurring bouts of edit-warring. Some admin intervention may be necessary, at least in the form of warnings. There has been discussion on the talk page among disputants in the last week of August, however it looks like they've (again) resorted to reverts at the beginning of September. Mind you, there has been edit-warring around the exact same paragraph at the beginning of August and in the middle of July as well when the page was protected, so this is inching towards WP:LAME. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the response at Talk:16:10#3O in July and now at RS/N, I'm inclined to say that the wp:consensus seems to favor inclusion of that paragraph as having appropriate wp:weight based on the opinion of multiple technology journalists appearing in reliable sources. So, the editor User:Urklistre who (with help of the SPA User:Yokononos) keeps removing it appears to be engaging in disruptive editing at this point. (There was also a WP:DRN discussion in July, which was closed due to Urklistre's non-participation.) Tijfo098 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify (I'm one of the editors involved), the paragraph has been disputed since 9 July, which is when I first added the content in question [107]. There has since been one attempt at WP:DRN and two attempts at WP:3O, a few other editors have become involved, and in fact the dispute seemed to have been more or less resolved, until the most recent bout of edits and reverts, by the editors mentioned above. While this has been accompanied by attempts of discussion on the talk page (see Talk:16:10#Questioned part about opinions), I have to agree that User:Urklistre's behaviour points to a disruptive editor (I filed an ANI report about it about a month ago, but it didn't receive any response). Indrek (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tijfo's assessment. This is a good example of how an editor who went through almost every dispute resolution available was unable to solve the dispute because another editor (and I'd say two possible socks) has no problem just being aggressive. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is too lame for words. I have protected this article for two weeks, which is enough time for anyone with a bit of common sense to propose an RfC on the talk page--one which proposes something simple like a choice between two different paragraphs, or which asks in addition to that whether a given source is to be used or not. You all hurry up and get that show on the road, because if you don't I will ban all of you from editing that particular article, and I will burn the talk page (I can't believe I read it) and merge the whole damn thing into 16:9. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Checkuser note. Urklistre (talk · contribs) and Yokononos (talk · contribs) are a  Confirmed match. I have indeffed the latter, but, considering the article just got protected, was leaning towards just warning the former. If a fellow admin is feeling less lenient than I, do feel free to block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • You are a more generous person than I am with socks. I'm very patient with disagreements between editors or content disputes, but not deception (lying) which is the goal of socking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Haha, I was waiting for a CU to come by: it looked all too easy. I'm going to unprotect the article and block the Urk for two weeks for socking and editwarring and being a complete disruptor. If they come back and do it again Dennis B. can do this thing. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I had filed the SPI right after I saw this, it just took a while for a CU to get freed up. I almost duck blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
        • It looks like WP:GIANTDICK applied here. Thanks guys. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the swift response, everyone. I assume this wraps up the issue and the article is OK to edit again? Indrek (talk) 12:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
          • The article has been unprotected, so whoever isn't blocked can edit it. Hopefully this was a learning experience for Urklistre and he'll be more collaborative in the future. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Yummy Dunn

Formerly Vtr1781249, this user was brought to ANI for a policy issue regarding WP:UKNATIONALS recently, and though he said he read the policy, this, this, and this indicate that there is a unilateral application/removal of the word "British" being applied. The latter removal in fact contradicts a UK government site's terminology. MSJapan (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nationality and ethnicity are not the same thing, Nationality refers to a persons heritage whereas, ethnicity refers to ethnic status. For example, to say I was a Greenlandic Asian would be incorrect, I'm either Greenlandic or I'm an Asian but clearly not both, however, I can be a White Greenlandic or Black Greenlandic &c. The British Government data collection statistics were not contradicted, they refer to both nationality AND ethnicity and are, in any case consolidated statistics Yummy Dunn (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to quote British Government statistics, you must quote the exact terms they use. They ask people if they are Black British, Asian British etc deliberately, and the terms should not be deprecated. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not personally rely on Government statistics, but use independently compiled statistics, however, to answer your point the British Government stats are Consolidated for both nationality & ethnicity, in the article which was corrected, the topic was "Nationality", so the quoted statistics were wrongly applied Yummy Dunn (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Its a clear pattern of disruption. If you check Yummy Dunn's contribution record you will see similar edits on other articles. In each case s/he was reverted and asked to use the talk page but simply reinstated the edits. We now have another spate on another set of articles, with the same arguments about nationality and ethnicity with no reference to sources. We have a single Issue, disruptive editor who seems willing to ignore the community. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yummy Dunn's assertions are not true. The quoted statistics are for the Census findings for ethnicity and say nothing about nationality. The Census asks separately about ethnicity and nationality; the ethnicity classification is set as "Black and Black British" subdivided into 'Caribbean', 'African' and 'Any other black background'. Incidentally it is wrong to describe these as 'Government statistics' as they are produced by the Office of National Statistics, which is an independent agency collecting its own data and deciding its own policy; the ONS is capable of reproving Governments if they mishandle the information it provides. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

They are still a Government Agency paid for out of tax payers funds Yummy Dunn (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That particular comment was specifically referring to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk in the Cambridge article, which should be a government entity given the web address. MSJapan (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That is to misunderstand what is meant by 'Government'. Neighbourhood Statistics is part of the UK Statistics Authority, which is an independent agency of the public sector providing statistics to the Government and to the public. It is in a fundamentally different situation to (e.g.) the Department of Health; Government departments also publish statistics but there can be a political input in deciding what they publish and when. UK Statistics Authority is studiously politically neutral and so should not really be referred to as a 'government entity' in that sense. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It receives it's income mainly out of the Consolidation Fund, it is therefore a 'Government' Agency. The Police service are non-political, but no one would argue that thay are not inter-related to the Home Office? Yummy Dunn (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I get it (although "public sector" and ".gov.uk" still seem an odd combination), but I also think we're detracting a bit from the issue, so let me put it back on track. Assuming that there is no question about the reliability of the statistics, what the source may or may not be is semantics - the article was changed such that it did not reflect the terminology as used in the source, and in such a way as to conform to a prior pattern of editing. MSJapan (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please Fix and correct wiki page: Alex Gilbert

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please fix page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Gilbert as he is an award winning film maker: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4338251/

The page was deleted in late 2007 which was over 5 years ago. This needs to be corrected. Please just unprotect so I can work on a small article for the page. Your help would be much appreciated. He has worked with Film Director - Peter Webber. Worked on Children TV in NZ. Won the film award in the USA as he is a NZ Film maker. Is the youngest TV On Air Director in NZ. https://twitter.com/alexgilbertnz He also worked with 'Stuart Dryburgh' on the Emperor film as he was the Camera Intern for the Film. Please fix and correct.

Thank You --Filmsandtv2012report (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you start a draft article in your userspace, such as User:Filmsandtv2012report/Alex Gilbert. Then when you have a draft that you think shows he meets our notability guidelines you can submit it to articles for creation for review. GB fan 04:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Filmsandtv2012report (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)---

Thank You!

Note, even if we take everything claimed at imdb as true, which we can't as it is not a reliable source, the award your talking about was given to a film where his role was "Audio Recordist and Additional Camera", and the award was from the 2012 Utah Arts Festival, not an award of particular note. Everyone who works on a film isn't automatically notable if the film wins a major award, and not every awards is that notable. To get it approved at Articles for Creation, you are going to need to provide much more evidence of notability then you provided here. Monty₈₄₅ 04:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting to please fix Wikipedia page

Ok I have tried to contact a Wikipedia Administrator about the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Gilbert It has a deletion log all throughout the page. Please correct this. I have created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Filmsandtv2012report/Alex_Gilbert and I really want to put that page onto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Gilbert . Please help me out if you can. I am asking nicely for this to be corrected. I am still new to all of this on Wikipedia so I am asking any Admin to please help me out on Wikipedia even if they can please put the page onto here. Thanks again! --Filmsandtv2012report (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. The page in question has been deleted numerous times and therefore shouldn't be recreated without a clear assertion of notability, which seems to be the main issue. If you want to create the article, you can submit it to the articles for creation page and an editor will review it. And lastly, don't worry about not fully understanding Wikipedia's policies. If you want to see a good example of that, look at my early contributions. You learn over time. Happy editing! Go Phightins! (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And as an aside, the right place for this discussion is probably at WP:N/N. This page is more for discussing problems regarding editors, threats, or other issues such as those. But again, no problem, you never stop learning. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting the administrative action of removing the protection or moving the new article over it is within the scope of WP:AN and isn't unreasonable at WP:AN/I. But as I tried to explain to the editor in the previous discussions, the underlying notability issue has still not adequately been resolved in the draft version. Monty₈₄₅ 20:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

75.70.221.14

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

75.70.221.14 (talk) continuously adds advertising material to the Is Anyone Up? article talk page and based on his contribution is starting to harass other editors. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 48 hours by User:KillerChihuahua for vandalism and personal attacks. I would have blocked as well, just for this.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extra eyes requested: libel accusations and edit-warring on Robert O. Young

I'd like to ask for some outside administrative attention to our article on Robert O. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is a BLP where a new editor, Adecoratingmom (talk · contribs), has arrived and repeatedly removed material, much of which appears to be well-sourced but negative. The editor has gone well over 3RR. A number of her edit summaries allege libel ([108], [109]); she states that "the newspapers references are false"; and she claims that the reliable sources used in the article (e.g. San Diego Union-Tribune, Deseret News, etc) have been served with "cease-and-desist orders" and retraction requests ([110], [111]).

This editor is also altering reference titles to advance their contentions. Some of her contributions (e.g. edit summary here, commentary here and here) suggest significant familiarity with the article subject and a possible conflict of interest, although I'm reluctant to pursue that avenue any further given some of the precedents established by ArbCom.

In any case, I've edited this article in the past and so would like some fresh eyes to review this situation. I am not convinced that all of the sourcing is up to par (for example, in the "Kim Tinkham" section). At the same time, other (negative) elements of the BLP appear appropriately sourced, to newspaper articles which do not appear to have been corrected or retracted. Any input would be appreciated, particularly as I see active edit-warring and legal threats apparent at this BLP. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I find the positive material (his claims) to be more troubling than the negative. So much of the article is cited to sources written by him (I've tagged the article), and so much of it is self-serving. I've removed some of that material, but more probably needs to be done. As for the Tinkham section, I've trimmed it to one sentence. There was only one source I thought was reliable, so I removed the other two. At this point, it probably doesn't deserve a separate section.

As an aside, this topic would probably be better dealt with at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that may be for the best. As a note, we've also been trying to deal with this at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions. The user doesn't appear to understand all of the subtle nuance of Wikipedia's verification policies, so I think handling with kid gloves at this point is a good idea. This person sounds like they need help more than anything, so lets keep that in mind. --Jayron32 19:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick overview of your links and the user's talk page and my initial analysis is this: she appears to be a good faith editor with little to no understanding of either the five pillars or the verifiability policy. Therefore, I think some sort of adoption program (or continued mentorship at the Teahouse) could rectify the situation. I agree that she made a legal threat by calling material libel, but I think at the end of the day she is acting in good faith. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I brought it here (rather than WP:BLP/N because the active issues with edit-warring and potential legal threats were concerning, but I'm comfortable with more BLP-aware eyes on the article. I agree that we shouldn't come down too hard on the editor; some of their concerns stem from a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's practices (for example, the concern that we were disrespecting the article subject by not referring to him as "Dr.", when this is simply part of our standard house style for all such titles). I appreciate the input, and would welcome continued input at the article/talkpage by you or any other interested editors. MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, MastCell, the issues are broader than just BLP policy, so I've struck my comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist. Thanks for bringing up the issue...new editors not acting in accordance with policies, but in good faith is always somewhat dicey. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It may or may not be relevant here, but it should probably be noted that the article has a history of COI editing by its subject, according to a template on the talkpage. Formerip (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

user:Alwaysunpctruth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wants to use Stormfront, the Racialist Papers, and other such sources on Amy Biehl and related articles. Refuses to engage in discussion/talkpage. More eyes needed. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef. No hope of productive edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's my opinion that we should block all usernames containing "truth" on sight. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, support. Also all usernames containing words like "justice", "fair", "balanced" etc. (Oh, look, here's a double whammy; can anybody find a username which has all three?) Improve Wikipedia, block 'em all. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC).

Strongly endorse indefinite block. Completely unacceptable. If there is any more of this sort of thing I'd appreciate being notified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Username suggests blatant bad faith POV vandalism, to be honest. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• No, not over yet. I'm going through links to flawlesslogic.com. Can someone smart build in a filter and block that Nazi propaganda site? Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  Wouldn't blacklisting it be more acceptable? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe, sure--anyway you like it, as long as those sites don't keep showing up here. See, that's why I was asking for someone smart. ;) Drmies (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

quack quack quack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

compare first edit of User:Alwaysunpctruth to first edit [112] of Politicallyincorrectfacts (talk · contribs) -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intentionally disruptive editing by USER:StillStanding-247

Not something to be solved on AN/I. Use other forms of Dispute Resolution. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Still has been here long enough to know that [113] and [114] are way out of bounds with respect to POV. I haven't bothered to check his other recent edits, but in light of these and his refactoring/deleting other users comments on ANI last night during his faux outing, I can't shake the feeling that he is doing this to annoy other editors or to make some grand point. This has got to stop. User will be notified.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  04:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Content dispute. Please assume good faith, take it to the talk page, and discuss the problem as you see it calmly like rational Wikipedians, with the goal of resolving the dispute, not escalating it. Move to close this thread. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This is a content dispute, suggest it be closed. TFD (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Please note that I have already closed the above discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC) And I have reopened this. This is not a content dispute, but about a recent pattern of disruption.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  05:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC) As an uninvolved user, I think Still's edits seem to be puzzling. If these edits have a pattern of disruption, then I suspect that this might be a serious problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Looking at the first of the two edits presented, I hardly see how that one makes a huge difference. The second edit is somewhat of a problem because it presents an opinion as if it is fact. This could be reworded to fix the problems. Like others have said, this seems to be a content issue, and would probably best be solved by educating StillStanding on how things like this should be presented in Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Looking at those two diffs, while I disagree with both of them, I don't think they are so far outside the norms of reasonable editing that administrative action is warranted. In the first case, while the Republican Party is largely the party OF christian conservatives in the US, that does not make IT a christian conservative party, there are many other constituencies represented in the party, and it isn't primarily defined as such; but all that is the content dispute and nuance. Pushing a POV isn't actionable in and of itself, and I don't see conduct that rises to the point deserving any sanction at this point. Monty845 05:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC) It ain't the POV in our articles, it's the disruption in our pedia. I can promise you I would never bring anyone to ANI over simple POV issues. Still has been advised to stand down by many editors and stop being confrontational. A random sampling of his talk page diffs will demonstrate this attitude.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Have you attempted to resolve this problem on the talk page? As far as I can tell, it looks like you are trying to use ANI to get the upper hand in a content dispute. That's actually more disruptive than an editor adding content you disagree with. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This is a content issue that's being discussed on the articles' talk pages. I'm not sure why you're trying to make drama here, but it's counterproductive. If you disagree with the edits, come talk with me and the other editors. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'd like to point out that Still closed this and Viriditas did an improper rollback and removed another editors comment in the process.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  06:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Although I clearly opined against the OP, I strongly object to the summary closure of recent, active, unresolved threads in general, and even more so when done by non-admins before even a single administrator can offer their input. It seems bitey and unhelpful. Even if admin action isn't warranted, ANI threads can still be productive, whether it's helping users work out an issue or educating newer users on what is and isn't appropriate for ANI without biting their heads off. Our primary goal as administrators should be to help people, and if you're a non-admin who wants to assist on this page, that should be your goal as well, rather than policing whether threads should be closed. Swarm X 07:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Quick side note: As I am involved, I never made any attempt to close this report. Two other editors did. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Correction, three separate, uninvolved editors attempted to close this thread. I'm not sure I understand Swarm's objection. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Swarm's objection appears to be based on the misconception that admins are better equipped, smarter or more knowledgeable than other users. In many cases this may be true, but I know of no overall magic transformation that occurs when you get the bit; what you get is the ability to block and delete and etc., not better judgment or deeper knowledge about Wikipedia. It is said here many, many times that this is not a place for generalized discussion, nor is it part of dispute resolution. It is a place for complaints which require admin action. If there's nothing for admins to do, then there's nothing for admins to do. Too many threads hang on well past their sell-by date and become magnets for incivility and antagonism, so threads should be closed as soon as it's clear that they're not about the need for admin action. They can alays be re-opened if others disagree. Whether the thread is closed by an admin or non-admin is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This is most definitely not a content dispute - this is about Still's apparent continuous disruption. My recommendation: WP:RFC/U because this is a pattern of unwelcome behaviour dangerouspanda 10:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The specific complaint above shows no evidence of a pattern of "continuous disruption", since only two diffs were presented. What appears in the complaint itself is a content dispute, which was brought here in order to see if an admin would step in and favor the OP's side, but since (as you apparently agree, since filing an RFC/U is not an admin action) there is nothing in the complaint to warrant that action, closing was appopriate. AN/I is not advice to the lovelorn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC) As you aren't Kreskin I can see how you made that assumption. And as I have made a grand total of 1 edits to the articles in question, and that in a completely different section I think its safe to say that I am not involved in any content dispute on either of those articles. Yes my complaint here was not crafted sufficiently to give the uninvilved a better prospective. I apologize for posting this to the wrong venue. Perhaps Panda is right about an RFC/U, but that is going to be a major waste of time for all involved. Or maybe an uninvolved admin could sift through Still's (and anyone else's for that matter) edits and they can see for themselves this disruption. There are plenty of POV editors from all sides, but none even rise close to the level of disruption caused by Still. Just look at his recent talk page where other editors advise him to step away from the politics. I've had my say, and I apologize for putting this poorly crafted,(bit not without merit) incident forward.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  13:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC) As noone here is Kreskin, it is encumbent on you to present sufficient evidence. You did not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This appears to be yet another skirmish in the ongoing political warfare between two editing factions (StillStanding belonging to one, LGR belonging to the other). The war has been spilling out all over Wikipedia in recent weeks, including here, DRN, NPOVN, and user talk pages, and it's becoming highly disruptive. I would encourage someone to open an RfC on something (whatever it is everyone's actually fighting about, preferably? Whatever that is, at its root...) to lance this boil. I suspect I'm not the only uninvolved editor here who's getting rather sick of seeing the same names having the same fight over the same issues daily. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I don't belong to any faction. A careful look at my edits to the articles in question which intersect with Still show that im not solely in one camp, and I have changed my positions based upon evidence and logic from other editors. And furthermore this isn't a left vs right POV, but one editor making this a personal battleground. While Still has some "allies" that appear to share his POV, they are not an issue because their behavior is not disruptive.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The crux of the matter seems to be whether to sanction StillStanding for politically partisan editing. I see two possible solutions: 1) we decide that partisan battleground editing is a major problem and come down hard on it, which would probably involve sanctioning StillStanding and a list of about a dozen other editors who are equally devoted to using this site as an ideological battleground. Or 2) we dismiss this as a content dispute. Either option is reasonable. I have a personal preference for option #1; the volume of ideological battleground behavior has been out of control for at least the last few months and will only increase further as the U.S. Presidential election approaches. But #2 is the safer option, since any decision about where to draw the line with sanctions will be highly controversial and, on some level, inherently arbitrary. MastCell Talk 17:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC) As sympathetic as I am to MastCell's suggestion that we engage in a more proactive way with limiting the ability of partisan editors to disrupt the 'pedia, and as much as I agree with him that it will only get worse between now and the election, there is no actual difference between politics and any other highly charged subject, except that politics is more seasonal. It would probably help if uninvolved admins keep a closer eye on political articles, but regarding this specific incident, it is clearly a content dispute, and as such was correctly closed by however many admins it is now. Suggest we also close this post-mortem. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I strongly disagree this is a content dispute, but have no problems closing this PM.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  18:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC) It is preposterous to claim that this is only a content dispute. But we do have to give the admins credit for honestly stating up-front that they will endorse bad behavior when there are certain political questions in-play. Belchfire-TALK 23:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

user:Alwaysunpctruth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wants to use Stormfront, the Racialist Papers, and other such sources on Amy Biehl and related articles. Refuses to engage in discussion/talkpage. More eyes needed. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef. No hope of productive edits. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's my opinion that we should block all usernames containing "truth" on sight. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, support. Also all usernames containing words like "justice", "fair", "balanced" etc. (Oh, look, here's a double whammy; can anybody find a username which has all three?) Improve Wikipedia, block 'em all. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC).

Strongly endorse indefinite block. Completely unacceptable. If there is any more of this sort of thing I'd appreciate being notified. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Username suggests blatant bad faith POV vandalism, to be honest. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• No, not over yet. I'm going through links to flawlesslogic.com. Can someone smart build in a filter and block that Nazi propaganda site? Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  Wouldn't blacklisting it be more acceptable? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe, sure--anyway you like it, as long as those sites don't keep showing up here. See, that's why I was asking for someone smart. ;) Drmies (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

quack quack quack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

compare first edit of User:Alwaysunpctruth to first edit [115] of Politicallyincorrectfacts (talk · contribs) -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intentionally disruptive editing by USER:StillStanding-247

Not something to be solved on AN/I. Use other forms of Dispute Resolution. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Still has been here long enough to know that [116] and [117] are way out of bounds with respect to POV. I haven't bothered to check his other recent edits, but in light of these and his refactoring/deleting other users comments on ANI last night during his faux outing, I can't shake the feeling that he is doing this to annoy other editors or to make some grand point. This has got to stop. User will be notified.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  04:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Content dispute. Please assume good faith, take it to the talk page, and discuss the problem as you see it calmly like rational Wikipedians, with the goal of resolving the dispute, not escalating it. Move to close this thread. Viriditas (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This is a content dispute, suggest it be closed. TFD (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Please note that I have already closed the above discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC) And I have reopened this. This is not a content dispute, but about a recent pattern of disruption.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  05:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC) As an uninvolved user, I think Still's edits seem to be puzzling. If these edits have a pattern of disruption, then I suspect that this might be a serious problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Looking at the first of the two edits presented, I hardly see how that one makes a huge difference. The second edit is somewhat of a problem because it presents an opinion as if it is fact. This could be reworded to fix the problems. Like others have said, this seems to be a content issue, and would probably best be solved by educating StillStanding on how things like this should be presented in Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Looking at those two diffs, while I disagree with both of them, I don't think they are so far outside the norms of reasonable editing that administrative action is warranted. In the first case, while the Republican Party is largely the party OF christian conservatives in the US, that does not make IT a christian conservative party, there are many other constituencies represented in the party, and it isn't primarily defined as such; but all that is the content dispute and nuance. Pushing a POV isn't actionable in and of itself, and I don't see conduct that rises to the point deserving any sanction at this point. Monty845 05:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC) It ain't the POV in our articles, it's the disruption in our pedia. I can promise you I would never bring anyone to ANI over simple POV issues. Still has been advised to stand down by many editors and stop being confrontational. A random sampling of his talk page diffs will demonstrate this attitude.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  06:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Have you attempted to resolve this problem on the talk page? As far as I can tell, it looks like you are trying to use ANI to get the upper hand in a content dispute. That's actually more disruptive than an editor adding content you disagree with. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This is a content issue that's being discussed on the articles' talk pages. I'm not sure why you're trying to make drama here, but it's counterproductive. If you disagree with the edits, come talk with me and the other editors. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'd like to point out that Still closed this and Viriditas did an improper rollback and removed another editors comment in the process.   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  06:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Although I clearly opined against the OP, I strongly object to the summary closure of recent, active, unresolved threads in general, and even more so when done by non-admins before even a single administrator can offer their input. It seems bitey and unhelpful. Even if admin action isn't warranted, ANI threads can still be productive, whether it's helping users work out an issue or educating newer users on what is and isn't appropriate for ANI without biting their heads off. Our primary goal as administrators should be to help people, and if you're a non-admin who wants to assist on this page, that should be your goal as well, rather than policing whether threads should be closed. Swarm X 07:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Quick side note: As I am involved, I never made any attempt to close this report. Two other editors did. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Correction, three separate, uninvolved editors attempted to close this thread. I'm not sure I understand Swarm's objection. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Swarm's objection appears to be based on the misconception that admins are better equipped, smarter or more knowledgeable than other users. In many cases this may be true, but I know of no overall magic transformation that occurs when you get the bit; what you get is the ability to block and delete and etc., not better judgment or deeper knowledge about Wikipedia. It is said here many, many times that this is not a place for generalized discussion, nor is it part of dispute resolution. It is a place for complaints which require admin action. If there's nothing for admins to do, then there's nothing for admins to do. Too many threads hang on well past their sell-by date and become magnets for incivility and antagonism, so threads should be closed as soon as it's clear that they're not about the need for admin action. They can alays be re-opened if others disagree. Whether the thread is closed by an admin or non-admin is irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This is most definitely not a content dispute - this is about Still's apparent continuous disruption. My recommendation: WP:RFC/U because this is a pattern of unwelcome behaviour dangerouspanda 10:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The specific complaint above shows no evidence of a pattern of "continuous disruption", since only two diffs were presented. What appears in the complaint itself is a content dispute, which was brought here in order to see if an admin would step in and favor the OP's side, but since (as you apparently agree, since filing an RFC/U is not an admin action) there is nothing in the complaint to warrant that action, closing was appopriate. AN/I is not advice to the lovelorn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC) As you aren't Kreskin I can see how you made that assumption. And as I have made a grand total of 1 edits to the articles in question, and that in a completely different section I think its safe to say that I am not involved in any content dispute on either of those articles. Yes my complaint here was not crafted sufficiently to give the uninvilved a better prospective. I apologize for posting this to the wrong venue. Perhaps Panda is right about an RFC/U, but that is going to be a major waste of time for all involved. Or maybe an uninvolved admin could sift through Still's (and anyone else's for that matter) edits and they can see for themselves this disruption. There are plenty of POV editors from all sides, but none even rise close to the level of disruption caused by Still. Just look at his recent talk page where other editors advise him to step away from the politics. I've had my say, and I apologize for putting this poorly crafted,(bit not without merit) incident forward.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  13:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC) As noone here is Kreskin, it is encumbent on you to present sufficient evidence. You did not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC) This appears to be yet another skirmish in the ongoing political warfare between two editing factions (StillStanding belonging to one, LGR belonging to the other). The war has been spilling out all over Wikipedia in recent weeks, including here, DRN, NPOVN, and user talk pages, and it's becoming highly disruptive. I would encourage someone to open an RfC on something (whatever it is everyone's actually fighting about, preferably? Whatever that is, at its root...) to lance this boil. I suspect I'm not the only uninvolved editor here who's getting rather sick of seeing the same names having the same fight over the same issues daily. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I don't belong to any faction. A careful look at my edits to the articles in question which intersect with Still show that im not solely in one camp, and I have changed my positions based upon evidence and logic from other editors. And furthermore this isn't a left vs right POV, but one editor making this a personal battleground. While Still has some "allies" that appear to share his POV, they are not an issue because their behavior is not disruptive.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  17:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC) The crux of the matter seems to be whether to sanction StillStanding for politically partisan editing. I see two possible solutions: 1) we decide that partisan battleground editing is a major problem and come down hard on it, which would probably involve sanctioning StillStanding and a list of about a dozen other editors who are equally devoted to using this site as an ideological battleground. Or 2) we dismiss this as a content dispute. Either option is reasonable. I have a personal preference for option #1; the volume of ideological battleground behavior has been out of control for at least the last few months and will only increase further as the U.S. Presidential election approaches. But #2 is the safer option, since any decision about where to draw the line with sanctions will be highly controversial and, on some level, inherently arbitrary. MastCell Talk 17:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC) As sympathetic as I am to MastCell's suggestion that we engage in a more proactive way with limiting the ability of partisan editors to disrupt the 'pedia, and as much as I agree with him that it will only get worse between now and the election, there is no actual difference between politics and any other highly charged subject, except that politics is more seasonal. It would probably help if uninvolved admins keep a closer eye on political articles, but regarding this specific incident, it is clearly a content dispute, and as such was correctly closed by however many admins it is now. Suggest we also close this post-mortem. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC) I strongly disagree this is a content dispute, but have no problems closing this PM.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  18:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC) It is preposterous to claim that this is only a content dispute. But we do have to give the admins credit for honestly stating up-front that they will endorse bad behavior when there are certain political questions in-play. Belchfire-TALK 23:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Ofthehighest

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was hoping it wouldn't come to it, and I tried warning him civilly, but User:Ofthehighest isn't stopping making personal attacks on everyone who has disagreed with him on a content dispute at Eternity clause - the edit summaries of the article history show quite a few examples. Also, he has been continuing the accusations at Talk:Eternity clause#Reversion and other matters - and there's more on that talk page. I can understand that he's upset that all his work has been reverted - you can see the reasons at the talk page if you're interested - but he can't just go on with these attacks, and doesn't seem to get the old collegiality/consensus thing. I warned him once myself here, and would try to explain/warn further on his talk page with a view to blocking if he doesn't stop, but I have become involved in reviewing the content dispute and cannot do so now - and I've become an object of his attacks myself. It appears he's been blocked from German Wikipedia for something similar. Can anyone else review what's been happening, and act if you think anything is warranted? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OTH does seem to be getting worked up. I've attempted some calming comments both on his user talk page and the article's talk page. Let's see if they work. JanetteDoe (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If we can get him to stop digging himself in deeper and stop lashing out at everyone, we might be able to discuss the article content itself - but while everyone who disagrees with anything he says is a VANDAL (sic), it's not really possible -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Not an administrator but I am also trying to talk with him hoping a 'neutral' editor can get him to listen and stop editing for awhile. Not sure I should be trying to intervene. Usually giving unsolicited advice is poor judgment. We'll see. Jobberone (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• He's still at it, and we're all liars, vandals and bullies - see these talk page comments. There's no chance of this one becoming a collegial contributor - if I wasn't already involved, I'd indef block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  And yet more accusations of vandalism, here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked one week with a final warning issued. De728631 (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

spam-only account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Eliza von Waldbröl (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account that is dedicated solely to spamming (more like an SEO operation actually) in favor of websites owned by a German attorney by the name of Frank Feser. I have given full details on the German wiki where the problem is much worse but my explanations are in English: de:Wikipedia:SBL#Spam_zu_mehreren_Websites_eines_Inhabers_einer_Anwaltskanzlei. In a way this is a little stale since the account has not been active recently but because the account has created multiple sockpuppets on de.wiki, there's a real possibility that the account will resume its spamming activities. Pichpich (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've seen your comments at de.Wiki. He hasn't edited here since 22 August and probably believes he has finished his work here. If you have those pages on your wl and he starts again, issue more incremental warnings - I have the pages and his tp on my wl and will block without hesitation if necessary. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to collect this as m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Frank_Feser_cross-wiki_spam (where it may need to be considered for blacklisting). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Settdigger

Previous ANI discussion

Settdigger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - editor with new account, does not seem to have the hang of sourcing, POV, consensus, AGF, etc., blocked twice shortly after creating account[124] for edit warring an attempt to describe US killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi by drone as an "assassination", returns from block to continue edit warring the subject.[125][126] Discusses proposals in odd, verbose language with references to the Rubicon, Magna Carta, OED, etc., while edit warring talk page management.[127] Created strange dispute reports on multiple forums[128][129][130] accusing various editors of bad faith for trying to deal with it, and appears to reject all attempts by others to counsel on appropriate Wikipedia editing / conduct.[131] Edit history suggests prolific burst of bold editing inserting unsourced or poorly sourced personal opinion / analysis on other topic areas as well.[132][133] They seem to be very keen to edit the encyclopedia but not to work with others or learn how. Engaging this editor through standard Wikipedia process does not seem to be working, and I strongly urge against arming them for WP:BATTLE by teaching them how to create viable dispute reports. Could we get some help dealing with them? Perhaps a firm hand can help set them on a better path before they run completely out of WP:ROPE. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's clear this new user has a point they are trying to make, and it might even be valid, but Wikipedia is not a place for making points. It was fine when it was a simply content dispute, but now this has spread to multiple articles with assumptions of bad faith and a tendentious, defensive position that brings Samuel T. Cogley to mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have just spent the last good while undoing damage that Settdigger has wrought in multiple articles (not all of it has been undone). Wikidemon's phrase "prolific burst" is most apt. Wikidemon has also done a commendable job of compiling some of the many things Settdigger as done immediately upon expiration of his last block, not only in articles, but as Wikidemon points out, in various forums. I believe three WP:DRN reports have been closed (filed by Settdigger. In addition, he left a screed at WP:EAR ([134]). To prevent further damage and because the two previous blocks had little effect on Settdigger's agenda and non-collaborative style (first by MastCell, second by me), I have indeffed him. I am, of course, open to other admins' views on the propriety and duration of the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those rare times I actually miss having the mop. I was watching this whole thing unfold early this morning, and I would have indefed him too. This user was treating the project with a battlefield mentality with a healthy dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to go along with it. I have looked over his contributions and I can't see anything that he does which makes me believe that the project isn't better off with him gone from it. The level of disruption he caused this morning from forum shopping his dispute with several other editors around every venue he could think of proves this. I think Bbb23 made the correct decision. Trusilver 16:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines

Ever thus to trolls.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Could an admin look at User:Darkness Shines conduct towards me. He has accused me of being a sock puppet with no evidence. A review of my edit history will show this. Thanks 86.169.208.209 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) This is a definite Nangparbat sock who has a history of harassing Darkness Shines. Thread should be closed and IP blocked. Ankh.Morpork 20:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines reported this IP to WP:AIV as a possible sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nangparbat). I declined to block this IP and I am transferring this complaint to WP:ANI as a more appropriate venue than WP:AIV. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC) This IP is banned User:Nangparbat I have had extensive dealings with this particular sock. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• If this IP range is used by only Nangparbat, then I request admins to range block it and end one of the dramas in India-Pakistan topic area, once for all. --SMS ^Talk 20:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's the biggest and busiest IP range in the whole of the UK, and thus far too big to rangeblock. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could some kind admin step in and knock a few heads together at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens. The two leading participants in the debate (User:Welshboyau11 and User:Timeshift9) seem to be having a competition over who can demonstrate the least understanding of Wikipedia policy. I've tried to explain the need for proper sourcing (which shouldn't be hard to find), but one participant seems to think that Google-mining is the answer to everything, while the other seems to be on some sort of postmodernist "there's no such thing as facts" trip. Given the subject (which surely interests contributors with a little more clue than these two), I don't think it would be any great loss to topic-ban the pair of them until they both demonstrated at least a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies regarding NPOV, sourcing, civility (yeah, I know, I should talk...) and what the heck Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the sources issue to Reliable sources/Noticeboard Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The 'sources issue' isn't the reason I raised this here. It is a basic failure to comply with (or even apparently understand) basic Wikipedia policies. Anyway, I've had enough of this nonsense - hopefully someone else can make them see sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I take offence to 'seem to be having a competition over who can demonstrate the least understanding of Wikipedia policy' and 'some sort of postmodernist "there's no such thing as facts" trip' especially when other Australian editors and an Australian administrator appear to agree with me. I'll let the pages speak for themselves. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That you seem to think that the nationality of contributors is somehow significant is one reason I raised this here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you shouldnt be offended, as Andy is 100% correct.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the other editor seems to think editors are agreeing with him when they aren't. Australians don't own the article but they do hold the most sway out of it based on editors involved because that's where most of the interest comes from - this goes for any article of any nationality. It almost comes across sounding like it's being said that we don't count. Little green rosetta, so does that apply to others who are of the same view as me? And if not, why not? Timeshift (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROPE is cheap tonight.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you respond with relevance rather than glibness? Timeshift (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BDuke worded it perfectly here. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because it's now consuming too much time and energy, and realise that left-wing won't be allowed to be added any time in the near future, the status quo and majority of the article's editors are on my side. Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering you think Austrailains hold more sway over this topic area than others, leads me to belive you have not a clue as to how this place is supposed to operate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If more non-Australians have views on this than Australians, then guess what, Australians would no longer hold sway. I'm over this debate. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The views of editors are not what determines anything. The views of Australian, or any other nationality's editors, indeed do not count. The views of reliable sources do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS comes to mind. While I actually disagree with Timeshift's stricter construction of it, it is true that the majority of people forming that consensus are likely to be local. If I went to an article on the Canadian NDP or the German Die Linke, I would be entirely unsurprised if the article's main contributors and the main decisions being made reflected, to a greater extent than otherwise, the views of Canadian or German editors respectively with a political disposition, or their expatriates abroad. Orderinchaos 09:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not looked into Timeshift yet, but this misquoting of the Greens magazine by Welshboyau11 (also here and here) where the Greens argue that they do not fit in a left-right schema (Welshboyau11 uses it to say they're "clearly left-wing" quoting a part that indicates he had to read and ignore all the stuff saying they're not left-wing) screams "POV-pushing" to me (ignoring problems with WP:NOR and that that Greens magazine cites Wikipedia). His accusations of POV with anyone who doesn't support him (like this) goes against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue with the Greens article is silly. Yes, I took out a quote. I think that's reasonable. I used other sources which can be found on the discussion pages, including an Encylopedia. The article does say the party is left-wing. I sugested we take the other part into account too, in the article. Welshboyau11 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy's appraisal is spot-on and it would be good if this one could be dealt with quickly rather than being allowed to develop into a full scale drama. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that one of our major protagonists here, Welshboyau11, has only been with us a week, and has already managed to upset quite a few other editors with his thoughts on them. This discussion is at least partly about policies. One that I would strongly recommend to Welshboyau11 is WP:Assume good faith. HiLo48 (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I actually did subject myself to reading the entire discussion on that page, and the impression I came away with is that the number 1 issue, over and above any content being raised, is Welshboyau11's "attack dog" behaviour. For the time-poor, I recommend skipping to the bits that follow Bilby's and Bduke's contributions - Bilby posted a rational, nuanced consideration of the issues with no attacks, implied or otherwise, and Welshboy went for the throat. His acquiescence to an editor who's somewhat made a name for themselves at the Julia Gillard article, Skyring/Pete, stands in stark contrast. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL do not have clauses "these only apply when you agree with me". Orderinchaos 08:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking over others' assessments (and seeing Welshboyau11 continue to defend his overemphasizing half a sentence out of a whole magazine article on how the Greens are are not left-wing to push his "Greens are left-wing" agenda), I'm starting to think that Welshboyau11 should be topic banned from articles on Australian politics until he learns the five pillars. I wouldn't cry over more action being taken, but it's pretty clear that Welshboyau11's agenda on the Greens article is inhibiting his desire to be a good editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Half a sentence? The relevent section is "According to Wikipedia, the left of politics generally ‘supports social change to create a more egalitarian society. [This] usually involves a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities (which right-wing politics views as natural or traditional) that should be reduced or abolished.’ Under this definition, the Greens are clearly left-wing, and all the “four pillars” (participatory democracy, peace and non-violence, social justice and ecological sustainability) work towards these aims." That seems more like two paragraphs than half a sentence to me and seeing as it refers directly to the Wikipedia definition is seems quite relevant to me. The article is not arguing that the WA Greens are not left-wing, but that the left vs right argument is simplistic and that there is more to the reality of politics. I agree that Welshboyau11 needs to learn to slow down a bit, Wikipedia is not benefitted by undo battles or personal disputes on discussion pages, but he has only been part of the community for a couple of weeks so I think we should give him a chance to learn how things work. Welshboyau11 I have had disagreements with Timeshift9 (which does have an F)in the past but we have been able to talk them out and find common ground. Politics is inherrantly an emotive subject and leads to passionate discussion, but if we work together (not topic block someone in their first weeks) we can all learn to cooporate for the good of all. Djapa Owen 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

Arbitrary break - how to resolve this matter?

Having had a read through the thread on the noticeboard, Welshboyau11 has a major issue with anyone not agreeing to his desire to universally classify the Australian Greens and align them with Green parties around the world regardless of their history and roots. Anyone disagreeing with him is instantly accused of having some sort of political bias that skews their POV. I probably wouldn't be off the mark in saying that over half the posts in that thread are from Welshboyau11. Topic ban him for disruption, persistent WP:ABF, civil POV pushing etc etc. Blackmane (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

He's also now taken to labelling Timeshift9 "dumb and arrogant", "fascist" and "racist" on his talk page as well as in some of the debates, and referring to him as "Timeshit". Other admins might want to keep a watch on this newer development (firstly, I'm semi-involved, and secondly, I'm not around much.) Orderinchaos 09:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He says it was an 'error'...pretty convienent one if you ask me. And his further comments are perplexing - maybe it's just the late hour, but I can't find any comments by or about Timeshift regarding his nationaility, or criticism thereof, in the above discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An error is something you might do once, but twice the same error, with no similar pattern of a missing "f" on the keyboard? Trouble is, a large number of editors while showing AGF, being smooth, sensible and giving detailed and repeated advice, are consistently ignored. The net damage is significant editorial time being channelled to damage containment instead of positive editing. I agree with AndyTheGrump, Ian.thomson and Blackmane that admin action is required to help Welshboyau11 reconsider how he might constructively contribute. Timeshift's disputed comments are discussed above and are at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens. --ELEKHH^T 10:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I could probably overlook the "f" misspelling, which is a bit unfortunate in this case. I've got a keyboard that occasionally doesn't register "e", "r", "f" and "t" at work. Given how often these letters are used, you have no idea how much that drives me up the wall. Apart from that, the degeneration into name calling is entirely unnecessary. Godwin's law may kick in soon. At this point, we've managed to see the usual collection of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations, WP:IDHT, general disruption, WP:ABF, POV pushing, persistent WP:ABF and probably throw in WP:TE. For a week (ish) old account, that's pretty impressive. Blackmane (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would overlook the F misspelling if it was not in combination with other problems. At this point, I'm thinking that a block would probably be in order, since he's contributed nothing positive to the site but plenty negative. If he agrees to a topic ban on modern politics and agrees to never talk with Timeshift, I could see him having just one more chance.

Will someone just block Welshboyau11 already? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would if I wasn't semi-involved. Orderinchaos 15:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After only a week on wikipedia, and my only uncivl offence to call someone a racist and fascist, a block is not in order. I did misspell Timehift and it was an error. Who cares? Hardly a hanging offence anyway? I do not agree to a topic ban on modern politics - I don't think that is warranted yet. Welshboyau11 (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

People being topic-banned rarely do. And calling someone a racist and a fascist is not just a personal attack, but it could easily be construed as a BLP violation as well. If you don't want to be blocked, you need to accept when you're wrong - starting now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I haven't seen any other of his words missing an f, and therefore seems pretty unlikely it happened on Timeshift, twice. Just sayin'. Timeshift (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Most people would have read [{WP:5P|the pillars]] and avoided attacks in the first place. You don't have to agree to a topic ban, if there is sufficient community consensus for there to be one, it will be placed and enforced upon you. Normally, I'd be sure there would be shreds of good faith still lingering here and that a one time warning for the attacks would usually be considered sufficient. However, your attacks stacked on top of the other issues is unlikely to garner you any good faith. I had been holding off on actually suggesting this, but there seems to be 2 options. (1) a 6 month topic ban on modern Australian politics broadly construed or (2) indef block for all the afore stated issues plus the increasingly battleground mentality. Blackmane (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - topic bans usually reflect the community doesn't trust the user's judgement when it comes to editing in a particular topic or area, and so it's imposed rather than negotiated. I would actually suggest a much shorter topic ban (say 1 month), which can then be extended out to 6 months if after the month we see the same level of disruption and drama as we've seen this week; plus a possibly indefinite interaction ban with Timeshift9. If either is breached, site-blocks starting at 48 hours are imposed. I don't believe this user is beyond learning how to properly interact with the site, but they're a long way from that stage now. I have seen editors, though, who've got into all manner of trouble after coming in from the blogging or student politics world and they've eventually become highly useful and productive editors with otherwise unremarkable histories. Orderinchaos 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to do something! Now they're making a mess of the CLP article. Though the editor reminds me of a blocked/banned editor whom kept on returning under a few socks. Bidgee (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of the connection, but now you mention it, it seems somewhat obvious given their use of language and so on (although it's far more strident than I ever remember Watchover/Stravin using). One thing which stood out today is the attention to detail of MPs in various houses. Unfortunately any sock investigation would be unbelievably stale as those accounts were about 3 years ago. Orderinchaos 10:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Careful - Welshboy11 and references to socks don't go down well at all with him. Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

How am I making a mess of the article? It is constructive editing. Since you disagreed, I've taken the issue to talk.

They're also doing things like this, and is engaging in much the same behaviour. Timeshift (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift has continued to follow and harass me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Country_Liberal_Party#Proposed_change_to_infobox Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you expect to move on without having to face what's been said to you, think again - this isn't harassment. Look at other editors comments above. You're blatantly ignoring everyone. Timeshift (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to disengage from the debate about the Australian Greens and my proposed changes. I will edit in other areas now. I am not going to get involved with or speak too Timeshift. I note he is following me and having a shot at me - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Country_Liberal_Party#Proposed_change_to_infobox. Please give me another chance and let me edit constructivley. I will learn from this experience. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at your rationale for changing it, and quite frankly, you've made a misrepresentation to justify your changes at the article, claiming that other articles use your preferred form of wording when they actually don't, and that's very plain to see for anyone who wishes to come by and check for themselves. After your misrepresentations of sources at the Greens dispute picked up by other editors (including saying that a source said pretty much the opposite of what it actually did), I'm not sure that there is a strong basis for the community to trust you to continue editing in an area in which you seemingly have major problems in aligning your own editing goals with those of the project. Wikipedia relies essentially on honour and trust to get stuff done, and if we can't function at that basic level, then it's only fair to impose restrictions and see how you handle them in areas other than those under dispute. Orderinchaos 10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I made a small mistake. I have update my post to: That's not true. I did make a mistake in saying that it said Scottish seats in the House of Commons' and 'Welsh seats in the House of Commons'. But you made a mistake too. Did you notice that Welsh Labour has 26/40 - meaning Labour holds 26 of the 40 Welsh seats. With Scottish Conservatives, it says 1 out of 59 - indicating the Scottish Conservatives hold 1 out of 59 Scottish seats. Overall, their are 650 seats in the House of Commons in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But rather than saying 26/650, since Welsh Labour only contest seats in Wales, it says 26/40 (40 being number of Welsh seats). Or take a look at Welsh Conservative Party - that was an example I was going to use. It specifically says 'House of Commons (Welsh Seats), 8/40. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed actions

Based on the above, it appears that Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) is editing tendentiously and engaging in battleground behaviour on Australian political topics after just a week on Wikipedia. Other concerning behaviour includes misrepresentation of sources, personal attacks on other editors and forum shopping.

I therefore propose that Welshboyau11 is topic-banned from editing on Australian political topics for a one-month period, enforceable by blocks starting at 48 hours. He has noted on his user page that this is not his only editing interest, so it does not seem onerous. Orderinchaos 10:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support That seems sensible to me. The only alternative is to block him right now for tendentious editing. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been a misunderstanding! Please read my post above. I didn't misrepresent the Welsh/Scottish parties issue. Please see above. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. I am a new editor. I've only been here for a week. I am sorry for all this. I did try to make a simple proposal in good faith. Unfortunately, it became sidetracked and turned into a slanging match. I am sorry for my part. I note this referal was about Timeshift too. But he is being ignored. I would like to ask editors and administrators to give me one more chance. I have leart from this. I didn't know many wikipedia rules and regulations (There are a lot!!) but I have certainly learnt a great deal now. I have a passion for this, and enthusiasm. I feel I can contribute to the project. I apologise for my mistakes. I would ask editors to consider giving me one and one only chance to contribute positivley. The best editors can get off to a rocky start. No one is perfect. And I've learnt a lot - that can only be a good thing. I'm sorry for misinterpreting and misrepresenting some sources. In the heat of the moment, I tried to skim over things and take out key points. Clearly, that was a mistake. Over to you guys. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment, please don't attempt to drag me in to your aura of incivility. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mostly Support Welshboyau11, this isn't a full blown ban from the site. A topic ban is a community imposed limitation that is basically the community not wanting you to edit anything to do with Australian politics. This is entirely different to a community ban, which is a community sanction further enforced by an indefinite admin block to prevent you from editing at all. You are still free to edit articles, just not those to do with Australian politics. A topic ban is something you abide by but admins cannot use their tools to stop you from editing the articles you are topic banned from. However, if you do you'll be hauled back to ANI where stronger sanctions perhaps blocks will be imposed. At this point, I highly recommend you accept the topic ban and go work on other articles. In some cases, topic bans removing editors from articles has actually led them to finding other articles to edit in and making really great contributions. This topic ban lapses in a month and in that month it is our hope that you'll develop into a good contributor at which point if you go back to Australian politics and don't cause a ripple, the ban has done its work. Blackmane (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Total support - with assumed support for expanding the topic ban if necessary. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, alas this has been proven to be necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, and remind Welshboyau11 that he can always come back and appeal the topic ban after he has established himself as a productive editor on other articles; I suggest waiting 6 months before applying. Never mind; I misread the topic ban period. Support without reservation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support, is better for everyone, including Welshboyau11, who as a new editor can much better learn by working on less contentious topics first, and is obvious from his latest edits that he still has a lot to learn. I think much more prompt admin action would have been warranted already days ago and would have been highly beneficial. --ELEKHH^T 23:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, Welshboyau11 has said he is willing to learn from this already, and as far as I can see his combativeness has been contained for the last few days. I would suggest giving him another week or so of rope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Total support, duh. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Do you Totally Support yourself being banned too, as Andythegrump suggested? Or just me? Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How long ago, and with an admission that I wasn't looked in to? You're the problem here. Please don't attempt to drag me in to your aura of incivility. Timeshift (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Andythegrump refered you two. See above. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You already said that. Timeshift (talk) 12:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you feel a constant need to snipe at people? Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• cough* The pot calling the kettle black? Bidgee (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Such bans are really bandaids. I think welshboy can learn, but needs to slow down (Wikipedia is not an urgent task) and work a lot on paying more attention to what others say. A ban won't help him learn anything. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. People can learn without being punished. As AndyTheGrump, the user who started this admin action said: 'The opinion of 'Australian editors' regarding whether left-wing and right-wing serve a purpose is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia articles aren't based on the opinions of editors, they are based on what reliable sources say' - that is what I was trying to say. Just not so well. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Further to that, when proposing I be topic banned he said 'Frankly, given the clear failure of both the leading participants (Timeshift and me) in this discussion to understand basic Wikipedia policy, I'm beginning to wonder whether they should be topic-banned for lack of clue' So if I'm banned, so sould Timeshift. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Welshboyau11 is a new editor, seems to be learning fast, and IMO is being harassed by Timeshif, who has an abrasive manner towards everyone who disagrees with him, not just newbies. I'd like to encourage new editors, regardless of their political leanings, rather than push them away. There are enough eyes on Australian political articles that we aren't going to find ourselves too far skewed one way or another. --Pete (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Pete out of fairness you really should have noted this and posted in time sequence. Gnangarra 11:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    • See below, posted at the same time as above. I was going to comment anyway, as I'd been involved in the thing in a peripheral fashion. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• noting advised Welshboy about canvassing[135], cnavssing example[136] Gnangarra 08:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of poor form, but I'd been looking at the discussion anyway, after noting HiLo and Timeshift talking about an ANI case and wondering what it was about. Welshboyau, you should ask for comments from all participants, not just those you think might take your side. We work together here, and I find that the more eyes on a topic, the better. We generally work things out for the good of the community. --Pete (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't aware of that policy. I'm still learning! Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It's a minimal restriction for a minimal time and it's not as if this editor doesn't have other pages of interest to work on for a month. I note that Welshboyau11 has said he will stay away from the article in question now, but I'd much prefer to see a formal topic ban to underline this. Voluntary bans are no bans at all. I entirely see that Welshboyau11 will regard this sanction as unnecessary and draconian, but how many topic banned editors agree with their ban? If this short ban teaches him a lesson about what the community expects, he will learn to respect its norms. If he doesn't, then he knows to expect further action. He doesn't have to agree with our norms (though that would be good) as long as he agrees to adopt them while he's here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Clearly he hasn't learnt anything, time out (topic ban from Australian political articles) should given them time to learn to dos and don'ts. Bidgee (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I can learn from my mistakes without being banned. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If your one and a half week history is anything to go by - no, you can't. And it's not a ban proposal, it is a topic ban proposal. Timeshift (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors - this is a truly extraordinary thing. This user talking as if he was a Admin or even Jimmy Wales was actually refered here too as part of this!!!!! Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

please read WP:AGF Gnangarra 11:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by yourself. [137] Noone else I can find in the dispute has referred to Jimmy Wales (and it's worth noting that while he is founder of the site, he has no special rights.) Orderinchaos 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In relation to each specific claim: 1. The WP:TE linked, is an essay, not a policy or guideline. 2. WP:Battleground is the second claim. It takes two to be involved in a dispute - Timeshift was refered here along with me but no action or proposed action has been taken against him. 3. Misrepresentation of sources. I did not deliberately misrepresent sources. I did mispresent one out of many sources I qouted, by mistake. 4. Personal attacks. Again - it takes two to fight. I have apologised for my comments. 5. Forum Shopping. I don't believe that is against Wikipedia policy, and if it is I did not know. I'm not quite sure what it even is. Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply to only one point - the first. Tendentious editing is a phenomenon rather than a set of actions, hence why it is described in an essay. I shall quietly file away the irony of disputing TE and battleground in a fashion which displays exactly those two behaviours as just one of those things that happens sometimes. Orderinchaos 11:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How is disputing claims you have made disrputive or 'TE'? Welshboyau11 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Welshboyau11, I appreciate you're new and trying to learn the rules as you go, and for that, I'll definitely cut you some slack and try not to bite too much. But I still can't see evidence that you understand what this topic ban is. If you really are happy to edit something outside of Australian politics for a week or two, then the ban will have no effect on you whatsoever, and you shouldn't care who supports and opposes it here. I think we get that you're new and want to learn, so I'd advise you to give this thread a break and do some article editing. Furthermore, sometimes it's the way people reply to things that's a problem, rather than what they're replying about. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am so passionate about this is I consider it an injustice. If you are trying to housetrain a dog, do you cut off one of it's legs in the hope it will learn, or do you be patient and show the right way? Or, when you first learn how to ride a bike, if you fall off, should you be belted with a stick, so you can see the right way? What does punishment achieve? Nothing. It only makes people more angry than ever. Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't life or death, it's an encyclopaedia. And I'm afraid that life isn't fair, you can't always get your own way, bad things happen to people, and sometimes what you're "fighting" for really isn't worth bothering about. Arguing back against points on here isn't helping your cause, but ignoring them and editing articles will. Although it's bad form to quote my own essay at newbies, WP:EOTW may give you some advice. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The exact same principles apply. And while life isin't fair, we should all try to make it more fair. It's not fair to ban a new editor after only a week for non-major breaches. Welshboyau11 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-Admin / Involved.) I am putting this here because Welshboyau11 asked me [138] to oppose his topic ban here. Welshboyau, I continue to support your position in the content dispute that brought us here. What you are still failing to see is that support for your position is not the same as support for your behavior. The way you, Timeshift, Orderinchaos, and HiLo48 have handled this issue has been awful. We are under absolutely no deadline to get that infobox fixed. What I would recommend is for you, (and the other three editors for that matter,) to voluntarily take a month off of editing the Australian Greens article until everyone has had a chance to catch their breath and is prepared for a reasonable debate on the subject. I think it's a valid discussion to have, and I was ready to join in on your side of the issue. But the tone of the debate on both sides was so horrible that I didn't have the energy to even bother. I wasn't a part of the debate on the article itself, but from the tone of your initial notification to the NPOV noticeboard you had perfectly set the stage for the acrimony that followed. Sperril (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Here's a hint: If your debate leaves AndyTheGrump too exasperated to engage in a word war, you might need to step back a bit...Sperril (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed the description above of my behaviour as "awful" and "horrible". Love to know why. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Your point about Orderinchaos is so valid. He is now being all self-righteouess, calling for me to be banned and ignoring his own bad behaviour, and indeed Timeshifts - despite an equal referal of Timeshift and me here. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:BOOMERANG, stop criticising what other people have done (we get it) and start looking at your own behaviour. I don't see anyone revising their opinion to topic ban you based on anything you have said. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were aware, but I arrived on the scene after the Greens edit had basically failed, and I have at least attempted to engage in good faith with Welshboy (including making a reasoned disputation of the sources he put forward which he then deleted), although it's been made more difficult by his behaviour and justifications. Orderinchaos 18:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

But why would they? That would look stupid. No one is likely to change their mind. Secondly, I've admitted my mistakes and apologised. I don't think punishment would achieve much. It is counterproductive. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

For the third time, Welshboyau11, I'll put it in bold this time so you might actually pay attention to what people are trying to tell you a topic ban does not stop you from editing here, it is the community telling you we don't want you editing Australian modern politics. Go edit something else for a month. A community ban is a ban from the site. This is not a vote for a community ban. I explained it in my vote above, I even posted a more succinct version on your talk page and now I am even bolding it for you. Please read what people are telling you, because it is really exasperating explaining it repeatedly. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I heard you the first time. It's still a ban and it's still punishment. If you see my user page Australian Politics is one of my two wikipedia interests. And a month is a long time. Think of it. 30 days untill I can edit properly and talk again. It is punishment. After only one week and one fight, it's a harsh punishment, and I won't learn a thing by being 'topic banned'. I will learn by reading more policies and hearing from other editors. Welshboyau11 (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:HEAR would be an appropriate addition to your list of essays to read at this juncture, I feel. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A month isn't long. There's nothing stopping you from reading the articles, creating notations in your sandbox or userpage, reading up on various policies, reading talk page discussions, digging for sources, the list goes on. it's precisely your lack of familiarity with various policies and guidelines that has gotten you into hot water. You're topic banned from editing but not studying. You might even find that looking from the outside will give you a fresh perspective. Blackmane (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Look, this is a newcomer, be gentle. There's no doubt that a topic ban on the Green Party of Australia is called for. But let's not be overbroad. There's no reason that he can't contribute in a meaningful way to pages on historic Australian politics, as opposed to contemporary Australian politics. So let's refine that banned area a bit, please: ...topic banned from matters of 21st Century Australian politics. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Also - If it's felt WBAu needs a period of mentorship, I would be happy to volunteer. It is hard to learn the Ways of the Wiki without a tour guide. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:BITE and because there is not actually that much damage occurring to the article. This is actually a content dispute. It is understandable (though not acceptable) that Welshboy and Timeshift are edit warring over whether the Australian Greens are left wing, because that very topic is an internecine dispute within the Australian Greens itself![139][140]

WP:NPOV does not require us to make a decision, only to represent the major viewpoints, and I think the article would be improved if it had a (small) bit of coverage discussing the difference between the Bob Brown "Deep Green" faction (that sees itself as a new type of political party beyond left-right labels) and the Lee Rhiannon "Eastern Bloc" faction (that sees the party as left-wing). Agreement on this issue between Timeshift and Welshboy is not required for them to be able to collaborate on the article. If we include both their points of view, the article will be improved. --Surturz (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a possible pathway, but the main dispute here was about the simplistic representation of the party in an Infobox. Infoboxes, with their encouragement of far too simplistic descriptions of complex attributes, are one of Wikipedia's worst features, IMHO. HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes present a summary of information that is otherwise buried in the text. If I want a GDP or population or land area for a country, I look in the infobox. I think it's reasonable that a reader look at an infobox for a political party and get a very broad idea of the party's political stance. --Pete (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Tentative oppose. I haven't looked into Welshboyau's behavior in full, but [141] does support a "left" classification, even while making the more important point that the left-right classification seems largely irrelevant. I'm not familiar with Australian politics, but I bet that the average man on the street, asked whether the Greens are "left-wing", would agree. The editor's approach - providing a detailed description of the issue with a reference list at the NPOV noticeboard - appears correct, and I am not convinced he misrepresented the sources. Unless there's something else here, I see no reason to topic ban him. The incivility mentioned might become an issue, but is it now? And if it is, would a topic ban be the appropriate response, as opposed to a simple short block? Wnt (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor posted (several times) a list of random, trivial references which he got with a search term on Google Books - which shows a "form conclusion first then look for evidence to support that conclusion" rather than "consult sources and form a conclusion" kind of approach - then sticks his fingers in his ears when anyone questions their validity. Several are by non-experts in the field and the mentions are trivial, one is by an author who is an expert but freely admits they are advancing an argument with their text and thus it strays from being an "independent secondary source", another is by a particular Greens senator who is pushing a strong POV within the party that it *should* be left-wing, while others (including other senators) disagree; and at least one of the quoted sources says the opposite of what Welshboy claims it to mean, as an independent editor to this dispute clarified at one of the previous places where this discussion took place. I suggest looking at his talk page where I did so and got no reply and my comment (which was entirely in good faith, and made some suggestions for moving forward) deleted. It was that action in part which convinced me more was necessary - without engagement there is no discussion and no basis for building trust to move forward. (That and his calling another editor a "fascist" and a "racist" without justification, which might work at the student union in an argument but does not here.) Orderinchaos 18:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments is permitted. Using a search to find sources that agree with what you're trying to say can be misleading, but is not really wrong. Obviously there is more than one opinion here and both should have a place in the article, with some analysis of the basis for their disagreement (that article we've talked about just above does so pretty well). I would have a lot more reservations about this editor if I saw a sea of red ink in his contribution history where he'd taken out information about them not being on the traditional left-right spectrum, but I'm not. The main source of the "tendentiousness" here - as usual, I'm starting to think - is the use of an infobox, which pits editors against one another to war for the content of its narrow confines. The comments you mention sound like they run afoul of WP:NPA, but I don't see why a topic ban would be a solution for that. (To put it another way, Wikipedia editors are already topic banned from personal attacks...) A topic ban is a specialized tool to deal with editors who have shown a persistent failure to deal with one particular area over a long time - it's not something that makes sense to slap on someone after a week of editing when you have no idea how he'd perform in other areas, based on policies that really he just needs to learn to follow. Wnt (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't say it wasn't allowed btw - just that it was a rebuff to the only good faith attempt at dispute resolution. When you go to DR the first thing they ask is "Did you try to resolve it with the editor concerned first?" I in fact did. His handling of that - including reiterating the sources without noting they had in fact been questioned in detail - suggested he was more interested in enforcing his will against increasingly impossible odds than reaching a reasonable compromise (and at least one was possible - they are indisputably socially liberal for instance, although not consistently so). BTW, re the source you put forward - in general, we don't use parties' self-descriptions to place them on the spectrum due to observer bias. Orderinchaos 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair argument - I've formed no opinion on the content issue. But it's a pretty esoteric point of policy (guideline?). I'm only saying it's not time to topic ban based on one week and one dispute. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been two weeks now of confrontational rather than collaborative attitude, and clearly following political agenda (as noticeable from tendentious editing on multiple articles, self portrayal in userboxes, canvassing), rather than improving the Encyclopaedia. If you have time to follow the whole discussion, you'll see that disruptive editing was not limited to one page and entailed a broad range of "techniques". One month topic ban is if anything very mild, and already late given the amount of consumed good faith editor time. --ELEKHH^T 01:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What about my userboxes? I didn't know about canvassing. And it has been only this article. Feel free to point to others (don't bother with Country Liberals, that was resolved and was not about making a political point) But you are clearly losing this argument about my ban. More and more editors, even those who disagree with me, are opposing the 'topic ban'. Welshboyau11 (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a 2:1 predominance of support:oppose at this time. Of the opposers, one is yourself, another two are ideological allies, and another opposes this measure because he wants *harsher* action (an additional one can also be read that way). I think you need to read the discussion more carefully. Orderinchaos 01:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a LIE. HiLo48 opposed my view, but backed my here. And what do you mean 'ideological ally'? I am going to raise a complaint here against you soon for selective use of the truth and for accusing me of various things such as TE which is an essay and accusing me of being involved in more than one dispute - also wrong. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't be the first time someone in the depth of trouble you are in has complained about me. I have tried to engage with you in good faith and can easily defend myself, and I doubt I'll even need to as people can see that for themselves. You have been involved in three disputes that I'm aware of in your short time here - Greens infobox, Country Liberals infobox and Greens state/territory AfDs. Perhaps if you focused on something that doesn't involve pitting yourself against other users, you'd have an easier time of it. Orderinchaos 03:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid you lied. The facts speak for themselves. The Country Liberals infobox is not a 'ideological' change and is not a dispute. It has been civil. I proposed one article for deletion, because it is inconsistent with other articles. Welshboyau11 (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

...while nominating the 3 or so that it was consistent with for deletion? As one of my younger friends would say, "Cool story bro". Orderinchaos 09:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of lies, what was that about you claiming to be left-wing? I've been onto you for days but was waiting for the evidence to stack up to a point where it's manifestly obvious to anyone. It does not bother me that you are right-wing (which you've now clarified through userboxes as well as your latest attack on Timeshift9), it bothers me that you felt the need to lie about it to further your position in a dispute. Orderinchaos 09:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - A passing opinion - Welshboyau11, this was on the mark in terms of apology for any problems and explanation re learning the rules - if you'd left it there I reckon this debate would have come to a positive end a while ago. With all respect, trying to get the last word on everything since is not helping. Can I suggest a quick read of WP:BRD, and if it sounds good to you, a simple agreement to follow it? That statement and some evidence of putting it into practice in future edits might still blow this whole thing over. Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Final Plea. I would really like to be allowed to continue editing pages involving the current NSW Local Elections such as the Sydney City Council elections, 2012 page I created. Welshboyau11 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I am now also working on (and have created) the following pages: City of Botany Bay local elections, 2012, Lake Macquarie City Council elections, 2012, New South Wales local elections, 2012, Newcastle City Council elections, 2012, Warringah Council elections, 2012. I aim to create more. Please allow me to continue this constructive work. Welshboyau11 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note In recent hours, Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated his antagonist's user page for speedy deletion [142] (before reversing the edit) [143], and has since taken him to yet another forum. Orderinchaos 09:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I had every right to do that. And it was not another forum. It was this forum and so far everyone has backed me. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I've just blocked Welshboyau11 (talk · contribs) for an indefinite period as being the latest sockpuppet of another editor (please refer to my block rationale on their talk page). I think that this can be marked as resolved. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Smug mode :) Timeshift (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse Report: Claude Closky & Marcel Duchamp Prize (both French and English Wiki Page -- 5 pgs total)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Administrators,

I was wondering how I can go about reporting abuse and unwiki behavior. The pages in question are:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Closky
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp_Prize
3. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Closky
4. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prix_Marcel_Duchamp
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_Williams
6. It appears that a new wiki account has been made to initiate the abuse and vandalism. User: Weakart [[144]]

Do you have any suggestions on how I might file a report or get assistance in this matter? Thank you -- --Hellartgirl (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The account edits have clear comments. I am following that case since a paper used a picture I made... As well as I can tell, the artist called LG Williams seems to be an artistic hoax of somekind, and his work seems to exist only on photoshop, therefore it is a problem to use a weird article of the french Huffington post (why not on the english one ?) as an insulting rhetorical question. Jean-no (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content dispute over the reliability of some article from the French edition of the Huffington Post. (I should note that on the French Wikipedia an admin came to the same conclusion [145].) So try WP:RS/N or WP:DRN. (I've left a note about this at WP:WPVA. Some experienced editor with an interest in visual arts may be able to mediate this affair.) Also please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:NOTVANDALISM and use WP:user talk pages to post notifications, not the user pages themselves. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  I just said « Stop » on WP:fr ! S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – 23:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starus (talk • contribs)

  Well, you didn't block either party for WP:VANDALISM but warned them to stop edit-warring, so I assumed you concluded it falls within the realm of WP:AGF-able content disputes. Of course, an edit war is not how such disputes are supposed to be solved... Tijfo098 (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

  And it looks like my assumption was correct [146]. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, I don't see why they are not discussing in French on the French Wikipedia. Starus is an admin there and his warning roughly reads "We are on the French Wikipedia and to write in French. This conflict is of no interest of the article and (their) spillover from other wikis (no less). The blogpost in question appears to be disputed - whatever the blog audience support -, it is (therefore) necessary to add a different secondary source, neutral and reliable for the content in the article. Unless of course that doesn't achieve consensus among contributors. Violations will lead to blocks." As for the "vandalism" and "abuse" part, such terms are not relevant here. I see personal attacks on the frwiki talk page and those need to stop as well. --Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you Jasper. Your translation reflects exactly my idea. Just a thing, I wrote « Unless, of course, that does achieve consensus among contributors ». I left her a last warning for her personal attacks. S t a r u s – ¡Dímelo! – - Starus (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Esteemed and Concerned Wiki Colleagues: I am enjoying this conversation, thank you. Please forgive my intrusion but I am curious if any other wiki users share my concerns?

1. Should not the discussion here be oriented upon the repeated deletions from an self-confessed angry editor of a verifiable and reliable source?
2. Because the reason for the user/editor deletion has clearly been documented: "Myself, I'm just pissed off (...so I deleted the posting.). (->Jn) (d) 6 septembre 2012 à 00:25 (CEST)"
3. Clearly deleting another user's posting on this grounds is illegitimate.
4. Moreover, as far as the discussion of 'suspected' a hoax upon an international verifiable source, you are simply kidding yourselves. Where in the HuffingtonPost.fr is the article disputed? Nowhere. This claim is mere fantasy -- mere conspiracy theory.
5. As far as I can tell the HuffingtonPost.fr has 350,000 readers a day and an excellent editorial staff -- surely the editors are professionals and they would would have by now dealt quickly and effectively with any supposed 'hoax'.
6. Possible Remedy: why not simply post the article until which time some wiki editor can publish their contradiction in a similar verifiable source?

I look forward to reading your replies with great interest -- --Art4em (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It depends who posted it and in which part of the site. See The Huffington Post#Controversies and RS/N discussion, particularly the part "In the case of aggregated content, the original source is what should be evaluated." Tijfo098 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, are you talking about the angry wiki editor and his illegitimate deletion? Because this is the matter in question under this thread... --Art4em (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "off topic" in an AN/I thread. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! That is the wiki spirit: there is no such thing as "off topic". In which case, I would propose that we turn our attention something relevant like can 12,345,566,788,345 angels really sit comfortably today in Charlotte at the Democratic Convention? What do any other wiki editors think? --Hellartgirl (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

COI?

It would be helpful if the parties involved clarified their affiliations in this matter, as they both seem to have a WP:COI. Jean-no has stated above that a picture of his was used, although it's rather unclear what he means by that. Hellartgirl appears to have intimate knowledge of the employment place of LG Williams--the ASU Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts--, which also "happens" to be the employment place of Julia Friedman who wrote the French Huffington Post blog entry at the center of this dispute. (Also, Friedman doesn't seem to be a regular blogger on the HuffPo, because that was her only post there insofar. If her claims were to be included in Wikipedia articles, assuming they even qualify per wp:weight, they would clearly need to be attributed to her, because the employment connection between Friedman and Williams is simply too strong to allow us to attribute her opinions to the "French Huffington Post", as Hellartgirl has done [147]. Also, 68.98.238.40, who first added this info to the French Wikipedia [148], maps to Scottsdale, Arizona--which is nearby ASU.) Art4em has been focusing on LG Williams for quite some time, including some articles which turned out to be non-notable when examined by the wider Wikipedia community. Finally, let me say that WP:COI does not require a declaration, but one would go along way towards the rest of us extending good faith in this matter, in the face of accounts whose editing appears fairly focused on this affair. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. And indeed, a novice observer might discern that your diligence deserves merit were it not for the fact that:

1. It should be clear to all by now that too many editors write upon nothing they know very little about, i.e. The Cult of the Amateur
2. This might be the first person in the modern world to describe public records and resumes viewed upon the internet as 'intimate'
3. The above comments clearly display outright prejudice and total disregard in its "oversight" in mentioning that said comments posted above were in response by a user to contest another editor's editorial summary and illegitimate deletion, "((lg williams n'existe pas!))" (● 4 septembre 2012 à 00:09‎ Qiwi (discuter | contributions)‎ m . . (19 259 octets) (-229)‎
4. The reliability of IP's and a clear disdain for anonymity on the internet and wikipedia
5. Specious expertise on just how one becomes regular? [149] [150]

Overlooking this "bad faith" summary wrapped in good faith duplicity and rhetoric, let us simply get to the point of the discussion: "Do you think the 2005 Prix Marcel Duchamp should be reattributed to LG Williams or not? [151] --Hellartgirl (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps it would be better to say, what is preventing a wiki editor from mentioning in the wiki articles under view that there is an article in one of France's most viewed and peer-reviewed media sources wherein the merits by which an artist who has received France's preeminent art award has been discovered to be illegitimate -- either through plagiarism or ignorance. --Art4em (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. What I ment is that the picture used by the Huffington post is a photograph that I took and let on Commons, this one : [152]. Of course, it is perfectly legal from the Huffpo to use this image as it is under a creative commons licence. But still, I couldn't help feeling this a little disapointing to see my work used to (obviously) harm an artist I've been working with for fifteen years now (I write computer programs for him). So this answers to my personal status upon all that. Please note that even if I quite never contribute on en:wikipedia, I know Wikipedia's functionning, as I have been very involved between 2005 ans 2010 (less now : I miss time for it). So I'm usualy careful on personal matters, and, for instance, I quite never do anything on the pages of artists I work with, except very factual stuff, as correcting dates or titles. I came to this case when I've been noticed that my picture was on the Huffington Post. Since then, I did a little research, of course. At first, I thought LG Williams didn't even exist, as I never heard his name and guessed that the pictures of his work were pure photoshoping. But the man exists, he is a teacher, essayist, and since something like two years, he shows his work. He has (forged, I think) tracks on the Internet : numerous Kindle books, websites, etc. To my guess, all this is a self-created famous artist of the internet age in the style of Paul Devautour (french artist who invented his own critics) or the excellent "Yes Men"'s debut, RTMark. These kind of pranks are very common in contemporary art... Six month after a scandal related to them, suddenly the truth is known : it was a fake, wikipedia, Slate, the Huff and whoever have been fooled,... I cannot swear for sure it's the case here, I just have hints, the first ont is that I never heard of LG Williams, the second is that this artist appears in a show in France since the day before the Huffpo's paper, and the third one is that a domain name have been bought one week before, just to relay the HuffPo's paper : http://2005prixmarcelduchamp.com/. Claude Closky is a quite famous artist, I don't see how he could have fooled the art critics for 15 years by reproducing the work of an unknown wannabe artist. I wrote to Ms Friedman by e-mail, and she answered me this : "Please post your question as a comment, I will respond in detail. I appreciate a personal message but this discussion should stay in the public forum". But guess what : my last comments on the HuffPo's site are not displayed anymore !

Now you know my background and my point of view. The rest of the story is yours. Of course, feel free to ask me anything else. Sorry for my unpracticed english. Jean-no (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for bringing to our attention that this thread is attracting a swarm of irrelevant personal asides, unsubstantiated remarks about 'hoaxes' and 'conspiracies', cloaked biases from supposed saints, and here-say from editors whom "never do anything on the pages of art"?

Therefore, allow me to remind those learned editors that the point of this discussion is:

1. What is preventing a wiki editor from mentioning in the wiki articles under view that there is an article in one of France's most viewed and peer-reviewed media sources wherein the merits by which an artist who has received France's preeminent art award has been discovered to be illegitimate -- either through plagiarism or ignorance.[153] --Art4em (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

May we proceed with the matter at hand? --Art4em (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

come on, Art4em ! You perfectly know that this phrasing cannot be told as a truth ! I have not used the word "conspiracy", just "hoax" and "pranks". I didn't either said that I never do anything on the pages of art : I am an arts college teacher and I even gave courses where y students had to contribute to Wikipedia (first in the world ! had a little press for that...). I write a lot about art. But I also have a lot of artists among my friends and collegues, and for those ones, I try not to write on wikipedia, I feel it's not my place to do : any artist seems a great one if he is your beloved uncle, your admired neighbour or your soulmate (is that the problem, Julia ? Tell us !). So I usualy avoid editing about people I know on wikipedia, that's all.

So I told what my "personal asides" were, but did you ? Why are you using two different accounts to discuss all that ? Jean-no (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Another thing : you cannot speak about the Huffington Post's blogs as France's most viewed and peer-reviewed media sources. It is a minor website for France, that uses the formers blogs of an old website, "The Post", that was a very free website where anyone could write (and did), mostly known for conspiracy theories about illuminati or so. Now it's better I think, because there is a professional staff for the frontpage articles, leaded by Anne Sinclair (wife of the terrible former IMF president Dominique Strauss-Kahn). But if you ask in the street about the Huffington Post, most french people will have no idea about what it could be (Slate is more famous for instance). Now can you call it a peer-reviewed website ? I'm into academic research and what I know about peer reviewing is that peers have names ! I don't know who reviews the Huffpo's blogs... Do you ? Jean-no (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that is not the place for personal and irrelevant bias's, rants and diatribe's about one life or failings. But that is just my opinion. Please consult Wikipedia guidelines for verifiability and cited materials. Defaming the #86 website in the world with an estimated readership of 350,000 people a day -- and belittling the "Most Shared" article this month in HP.fr is, well, perverted.

Therefore, if I may be persistant I would like to remind those learned editors that the point of this discussion is:

1. What is preventing a wiki editor from mentioning in the wiki articles under view that there is an article in one of France's most viewed and peer-reviewed media sources wherein the merits by which an artist who has received France's preeminent art award has been discovered to be illegitimate -- either through plagiarism or ignorance.[154] --Art4em (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself - and using the bold. Bold = shouting on the Internet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

@Art4em : "defaming" ??? In French, defamation is precisely what you try to do about Claude Closky : claiming that a person did something legaly wrong. Just saying that the Huffpo is not the most famous french-speaking website (not as famous as it is in english for instance) is not defamation, it is my observation. HuffPo is quite recent here you know. And 300 000 views/day for a website with so much content doesn't seem a lot to me but that's just my opinion. Was it realy le "most shared" article of the month ? A few tweets, not even a hundred facebook "likes" don't seem a lot to me. But wether I'm wrong or right about that, the number of pagevews has never been an evidence of relevancy. If a lot of different authors told the same, if it had made a huge scandal, well, the paper would be noticeable.

I think it is wrong from you to act as if the good of Wikipedia was your only purpose : obviously you have your own interests or bias. The difference with me is that you are not very transparent about it (and never answer on it). This situation is being a little ridiculous. Jean-no (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I wish admins good luck enforcing WP:BLP in this matter. That's all I have left to say on this. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry ?

I think that User:Art4em and User:Hellartgirl might be one and only person pretending to be two with the purpose of legitimizing each other's claims. I suspected that because of their similar way to express themselves, but I have quite no doubt since I saw that User:Art4em answered to a question asked to User:Hellartgirl : [155]. I don't know how sockpuppetry is considered on the english-speaking wikipedia (on the french wikipedia it is not a felony, depends of the use), but it doesn't seem very healthy to me that a person uses several identites in a controversy. Jean-no (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I started to suspect the same but they deny it, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art4em. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, time will tell ! Jean-no (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That request appears suspended in bureaucratic limbo. On the other hand, admins had no qualms approving Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jean-no. The results were interesting. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This second inquiry went fast :-) Actualy I have nothing to hide so I'm very glad it has been done. Jean-no (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And for an artsy finale...

• We have two batches of socks - Qiwi, Weakart and Hellartwoman (account never edited) and Art4em and Hellartgirl. The sock groups are unrelated. CU has found no socks of Jean-no. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  Jean-no has no socks. Jean-no will wear flip-flops as long as summer lasts. Using socks and flip-flops would be awfully tasteless :-D Jean-no (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  Don't say that here. I've seen more dirty socks in sandals on US campuses than I care to remember. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  Luckily we had another another case of this. This report can be closed now because the filer and his long-term sidekick account have been both indef blocked. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Moved from Jean-no casename to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Qiwi...no comment on socks and flip-flops.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nasir Ghobar and his accusations of off-wiki activity, ethnicity, etc

I am filing a formal complaint against Nasir Ghobar (talk · contribs) the reasons follow.

• Accusation of ethnicity, his form of battleground mentality by labeling another editor as Persian[156].
• Accusation of off wiki activity, Nasir did not like an IP editor's remarks, his response was to accuse me of off wiki activity(email, IMing)[157].
• Here Nasir states his reason for being on wikipedia,"Everyone in Afghanistan are complaining that Iranians are on a crusade to steal Afghanistan's history.".[158]
• Personal attacks, "I feel like I'm explaining this to 10 year old kids."[159]
• States "I know Americans and they do not behave like this.", another insinuation of ethnicity. Labeling an editor(ie.battleground mentality.[160]
• Accusation of sockpuppetry, "In fact, you even behave like him with the same POV and reverting back to his version."[161]
  
• His statement that he's a "new" user, yet his 36th edit was to report me for 3RR. Even EdJohnston stated, "NG is surprisingly knowledgable for a brand-new editor.".
  

This editor needs to understand his continued attacks and accusations will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas Bear (talk • contribs)

No, the editor needs to be blocked. Accusations of racism and the like are a blockable offense in and of themselves. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of the above words are cherry-pickingly taken out of comments from June 2011. Plus, these issues were already discussed and resolved with other admins. [162] This IP began editing anonymously to support Kansas Bear [163] and is posting exact comments as Kansas Bear. The IP refuses to create an account, it stated that it doesn't plan to edit for long. What does racism has to do with this? Please see Saffarid dynasty where Kansas Bear where he is meatpuppeting and destroying that article by adding "Persian" in every sentence.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nasir, IPs are not required to create accounts. I'm gonna stay out of this argument, because I'm already dealing with you on my talk page about another disagreement that was dropped on my lap by yet another editor. All I can say is that at some point, you have to look in the mirror and say "Maybe I'm doing something that is pissing other people off" and reconsider your approach to editing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I just did that by not reverting him or his IP friend at Saffarid dynasty. I realized that they had set a trap for me. I'm only discussing at the talk page there. That IP in fact copy pasted someone elses work and if you need me to explain I will gladly explain this. The other guy Lysozym (talk · contribs) who complained about me on your talk is in fact another long-time friend of Kansas Bear and this isn't a secret. I know all the tricks in the books that editors do here.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh? How do you know all those tricks if you're a new editor? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been here since June. These tricks are very common these days and many people know about it, such as proxy, web hosts, or better yet to send text to another person in any IM or email and have that person add it for you to Wikipedia articles.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I must say for you to characterise my discussion with you as "resolved" is disingenous, as I simply gave up trying to get through to you as to why your behaviour is inappropriate. Interested investigators can check out the conversations on my talk page and at User talk:Nasir Ghobar. -- Dianna (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Now Dianna comes after I explained to her in great lenght on my talk [164] that she should avoid cherry-picking words from my comments. This is absolutely wrong, and you stopped responding so that is considered resolved.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Shouting someone down is not the same as reaching a resolution. Silence != assent. Kerfuffler (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I stopped trying, which is not the same thing as the issue being resolved to my satisfaction. I did not consider your behavioral issues to be resolved at all. -- Dianna (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am an old user but got disappointed with wikipedia and I had edit the article in the past long before Nasir GHobar [165].
• I would like to also state Nasir Ghobar has violated wikipedia privacy laws by stating from what location and state I edit on the Saffarid talkpage. [166].
• He also accused me of being another user (Kansas Bear), which I am not. This accusation along with revealing the province someone lives in are sufficient for complete block of the user. I did not ask him to do an ip search and then state what province of the US I live. This seems more like a threat, and I request a ban for violation of privacy and false accusation of being another user.
• Nasir Ghobar's comments about user's personal life, ethnicity and etc..is not pertinent to the article or discussion.
• Finally, if anyone reads the actual talk point, the user has been pushing WP:fringe theories. Basically one side has 100 sources and this user has a half a source which is not specialized to the topic at hand. Given that, I believe some serious admin action is needed here. Thanks--96.255.251.165 (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That isn't WP:OUTING, Wikipedia provides a link for it, you are an IP. Go look at your talk page, click on the link at the bottom of the page that says "Geolocation", it will show this [167]. If you want to be anonymous on Wikipedia, the only way is to register an account. Every IP can geolocated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • 1. To IP, whenever you edit using your IP, you are letting everyone know your location. That's why people create accounts but on your talk, you refused to create an account.
    • 2. You came out of the blue and began reverting to Kansas Bear's (KS) version, and posted messages that are identical to KS at Talk:Saffarid dynasty. In the messages you strongly supported KS's position, in fact your style of English and POV are very similar to KS's. That was the reason I suspected you of being involved in WP:MTPPT with KS.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERM topic ban proposal for User:Anderson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anderson has been evading editing restrictions using the IP address, 202.124.109.89. I'm sorry it's come to this, but the situation merits it. So i am proposing a WP:PERM Topic ban. Thoughts from the Wikipedia Community please?--Calm As Midnight 22:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Starting another ANI barely 24 hours since the last one closed is over-dramatising and not needed. Topic banning is not going to help this individual. He's had his his first block now in spite of warnings and has demonstrated that not only can he not keep any of his promises, but that he hasn't learned from the many warnings. I suggest that he either learns from the current block, or he will be simply blocked again longer each time for every future transgression, until he finds himself blocked for long enough to keep him away until he has grown up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

if that doesn't work, Then we might be looking at an editing ban.--Calm As Midnight 23:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::This ANI is totally superfluous and more drama is not needed. The situation requires no discussion and no further waste of admin time except just to press the block button - and no input from uninvolved non admins - there's nothing to vote on because a ban will almost certainly fail (please read my comment above). Anderson is obviously far to young to understand and and will simply need to find another hobby until he has grown up. See: User talk:Anderson#Your block and let's close this now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Am I paranoid or...

Kinda random, I noticed two IPs with no prior edits that geolocate to different countries 92.48.194.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 84.244.183.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (now blocked) have started going around reverting my edits and/or editing pages I created tonight. Just seems odd. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

And now add 64.38.198.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 64.38.197.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to the mix (both from Arizona) Hot Stop (Edits) 03:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it could be a coincidence, but I agree, that's somewhat weird. I don't quite know what to tell you. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Toronto too now. 38.117.79.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 38.117.79.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Hot Stop (Edits) 04:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• It could be an open proxy thing, WP:OP would be the place to ask for help. Or it could be a coordinated attack; something like a 4chan thread where someone asks random people to revert you, and a few dozen people hop on board to do so. Not sure which it is. --Jayron32 04:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

These IPs are all very weird. Look at the WHOIS data. Each one is a static IP registered to some obscure company in various parts of the world. If this was a coordinated attack you should be seeing dynamic IPs registered to major ISPs. Only explanation to me is that the attacker is using some type of proxy service. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Add 92.48.194.185 (talk · contribs) and 64.38.197.224 (talk · contribs) and 64.38.226.77 (talk · contribs) to the list as well.--Jayron32 04:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm heading to bed, but it is starting to look like we're developing into a limited number of obvious ranges. If this continues for much longer, perhaps a rangeblock is in order. Anyone want to try to put something like that together? --Jayron32 05:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that will all be possible. Perhaps Hot Stop should stop editing for a while and reassess what exactly he did wrong that pissed that person or people off. I hate to say it, but I don't think we can do much at all here. --MuZemike 05:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Really? Blame the victim? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• They're back. See IP hopping below. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Photographytalk.com spam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• photographytalk.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Carlang (talk · contribs) appears to be either a spam-only account, or else extremely misguided. Edits consist almost entirely of adding links to http://www.photographytalk.com/ which is a low-content, advertising heavy site. Essentially an aggregator site that is built to drive ad impressions.

I'm requesting a block of Carlang, unless he can convincingly argue that all spamming will stop, and assistance from other editors in removing the spam from about 50 articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• This seems a bit premature to be bringing to ANI. At first glance, it does seem to be a non-qualifying website to use as an external link for just about any purpose, but he has created articles and has sent a great number to AFC, after a two year break. There should have greater effort on his talk page before bringing here, with only one comment, no warnings, etc. Based on his edits since coming back, I can smell edit for cash, but that is not against policy. If he will agree to drop the spamming and focus on bringing articles to AfC and hammering them out there, we could close this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure ANI is the right place for this, but this does look like there is a theme running through all the contributions for 2012, and it is not by topic of article.

• Gailen David, a motivational speaker.
• UAssist.ME company providing remote administrative support.
• EmbroidMe company doing custom embroidery and screen printing.
• Articles for creation/Jordan Older an American Soccer player
• Babatunde Rotimi a Nigerian writer and playwright

And then all the recent edits these last four days inserting links to photographytalk.com. Suspicions of commercial 'focus' are hard to avoid, though the writer article is in the editor's country. Shenme (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm willing to bet he is being paid to add these articles, I would bet my lunch money. But that isn't against policy. I left a message on his talk page making it clear that adding the external links isn't appropriate and adding them to multiple articles isn't either. Feel free to ping me if he doesn't get the hint, but this ANI is not needed, talk on his talk page is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm, yes, this is in regard to a job advertised online. - Bilby (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm definitely not a spam-only account. But I think I win the award for the extremely misguided part.

Like I mentioned in the message left on my talk, Spamming wasn't my intention.

I stopped adding any Photograpytalk reference the instant, the second, I got his message.

I have a lot of respect and love for Wikipedia and I wouldn't want to do anything that would discredit or harm the site.

Regarding my other contributions, I'd just like to point out that every one of those articles (with the exception of Older--which I abandoned) was written with the assistance of other editors. Each article was submitted through the AFC and reviewed before being accepted or declined.

I didn't post them directly because i wanted to ensure that I wasn't contributing any thing wrong, illegal or below the standards of Wikipedia.

I appeared to have goofed in this case.

In the case of PhotographyTalk, I noticed earlier that most camera articles appeared to be predominantly sourced from the Digital Photography Review and so i wrongly concluded that it would be;

• 1. Okay to source from another photography site.
• 2. Add fresh information or references from the same site.

I wasn't just adding links though, I was also adding content to some of the articles.

Still, neither enthusiasm nor ignorance is a good excuse. Consider the PhotographyTalk issue stopped. Permanently. Completely.

I sincerely apologize. You learn everyday.

Sometimes from experience and sometimes from mistakes. Today, I've learned from a little of both.

Carlang (talk) 06:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jonathan Yip sock is back

Travel365 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone with knowledge of this sock puppet, please take a look and block accordingly.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 00:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Normally, WP:SPI is the proper venue. We like to keep track of them in the archive, even if they are obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

SPI takes too long. My grandma drives faster. This is a banned user, so it should be block on site.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But having the info at SPI, even if after the block, helps us in the event we need to run a CU later ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Jonathan Yip isn't known to continue using an account once its been indef blocked, and never has been known to ask for a block to be overturned. I tagged the user page of "Travel365" with a sock of JY, so it's easy to connect the two later, if need be, but you are 100% correct as well.--JOJ ^Hutton 02:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been dealing with this editor for a few years now, and I'm usually too lazy to file a SPI since it seems that every month (used to be every week) he comes up with sock after sock. I suppose one might be helpful, if we could block IPs... --Rschen7754 03:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You can also open it after you make the duck block via "Already duck blocked, adding to the list, obvious sock is obvious. Feel free to close and archive", to which we will just quickly review, then close. If one comes back in less than 90 days (the limit of CU) and the new sock is less obvious, we have a basis to compare in a CU. Same with IPs. If an IP shows up that looks likely, we can compare the IP to those in the archive to see if they geolocate to the same city. Or if they there proxys, to confirm similar behavior. It is mainly about documenting, to make future less obvious cases easier. It isn't required, but it is helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by an administrator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On September 3, John started removing flag icons from lists of sister cities in articles on German cities. A few days later he started to do the same thing on French cities. At least 28 articles were affected:

[168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195]

I noticed these edits on two articles that I watch (Marseille and Aix-en-Provence). I mentioned to him that there are no hard and fast rules about things like this and that in particular large US cities such as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia have had flag icons for years. It is not a burning matter: flags, no flags, bulleted lists or sentences are all options and decided case-by-case. I started a discussion at WikiProject Cities about the issue of flag icons and so far there seems to be no consensus for changing the informal way things have been done for years. I personally have simply followed what was there in the past on the 2 French cities. In my single edit to Penrith, Cumbria in 2008 I added material about twinning in a single sentence with a local government source and no flags in sight.[196]

John today started to raise new objections related to twinning, this time about the sourcing of the twinning arrangements for Aix and Marseille. These both use the official websites of the governing organizations of the two cities as well as other organizations officially involved in twinning activities (when they exist). On Talk:Aix-en-Provence and Talk:Marseille John has stated[197][198] that information about sister cities and international relations will probably be removed because he has decided that the sources used (the official website of the Mairies of Marseille and Aix-en-Provence and the www.aix-jumelages.om, the official organization that runs events) are unreliable primary sources. This type of sourcing is used for almost articles on cities and twinning arrangements, so his editing seems unreasonable and unjustified at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• In what way is this anything other than a content dispute? Has John misused admin tools in any of it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed, this is a content dispute, good faith disagreement of WP:MOSFLAG. It doesn't belong at ANI at all. Closing would be appropriate, with a pointer to WP:DRN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is his editing that has been disruptive. As an administrator, he should be conducting himself in an exemplary way, not making threats of this kind. He's presumably aware that local government sourcing is completely appropriate and the norm for information of this kind. I'm not sure that his threats to blank properly sourced material could be described as a content dispute. It is more like common-or-garden vandalism. Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Concurring with Boing, this an an editor-to-editor dispute and has nothing to do with John being an admin unless he has used his tools to press a point. Disruptuive is relative - it depends which of you turns out to be in the right. Your best best is to discuss it on the article talk page, or on the relevant MoS talk page (probably WP:MOSFLAG or something similar). In which case this is the wrong forum and this should be closed. I hope you remembered to inform John however that you have opened this case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No-one has said it was about him being an admin, so let's put that to one side. If what mathsci says is true, the removals etc seem disruptive. Mathsci has already highlighted that the issue has been discussed at talk pages and a wikiproject. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Then WP:DRN is the next step, not ANI. This isn't an incident, it is a dispute. It is arguable that the flags don't belong, depending on one's point of view reading MOSFLAG, so it isn't a case of abusive behavior, it is a difference of opinion. As I'm sure John would follow a consensus view, DRN is the solution. We don't form content consensus at ANI. I can't think of a worse place to try to do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably the title of the thread was not the best one to pick. John has said that he intends to blank properly sourced information. I am reporting this here, because he has not reponded properly on the article talk pages. He has just repeated his threat. On the basis of that, John could presumably go ahead and remove this kind of information from all articles on cities. There's something not quite right there. There is an element of bullying in his editing, or so it appears to me. Mathsci (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I will say this, city twinning should not require secondary sources if only primary exist, so thinking that twinning info should be removed is a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:V. Primary sources are fine as it isn't contentious or likely to be fudged. But still, this is content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• One form of disruptive editing is to perform a mass of controversial edits and then present them as fait accompli. Editors should be careful not to do this lest they find themselves topic banned. Jehochman ^Talk 12:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• if John is going to remove all the flags from Twin-town lists on settlement pages, then he's going to be very busy and he will meet more divisive opinion on the way than just Mathaci. I would suggest they both wait and see what the community decides elsewhere because it ultimately involves hundreds of articles. However, if I remember rightly, this is an old PEREN and no consensus was ever reached. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have to say, that after reading through this thread, I don't see any correlation between the edits and the admin tools. I came here thinking that an admin had abused the tools, but that doesn't seem to be the case this time, so I don't know why it was important to mention that the user was an admin. Users with admin tools are just as susceptible to the same editing drama as the rest of us. Unless they abuse the tools or are using the position of admin as weight in a dispute, I see no reason to make mention that the user is an admin. Admins are only held to higher standard as far as the tools are concerned. But they are held to the same editing standards as the rest of us and can get into the same disputes and are held just as accountable as everyone else for policies and guidelines. There are some admins out there who will, from time to time, abuse the position, but there is no reason to dilute the field with accusations that a user with admin tools is somehow held to a higher standard, simply because they are an admin.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci, what administrative actions are you asking for here? What would you like to happen from this thread?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of WP:NPA

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

[199]

I do believe for another time you have lied, suggesting you are perhaps a pathological liar
that you may have insecurity issues
are also emotionally unstable
your fundamental inability to grasp logic
You sir, are beyond ridiculous. For the last time, please stop wasting my time with your blather and stop slobbering all over this section and allow more serious people to comment

Yeah, NPA is just one of the rules this new-age Freud just violated. WP:CIV in general being another one. Oh and 24.238.93.30 and 68.81.112.197 are one and the same user, you can see it in a post how he personalizes post of another IP as his own (maybe dynamic adress, maybe simple wifi or something else, who knows). Edits of this IP has been nothing but disruptive, even though it was brought several times to his attention that his source is unureliable he still continued to accuse all other users from NPOV. Disruptive editing at its best. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon closer look it seems that both IPs are different users and so I crossed out 68.81.112.197 as having nothing to do with this particular violation. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any warnings given to the IP - that's the usual first step, with a report to ANI being more of a last resort. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Having a general civility is something to be expected from any editor, it is not rule to be learned. At least not to be learned on Wikipedia. This IP was never part of a discussion, he had no reason to feel personally as being on the opposite side of the conversation, he simply came, shot out out his insults and off he went. That is a different from not being aware of 3RR. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is standard practice to give people warnings first, rather than running straight to ANI on a first offence - so I suggest you go and do that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, always assume ignorance of the rules dangerouspanda 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jew Watch

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Talk:Jew Watch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Can an admin please review the recent edit war on the talk page and knock some sense into some people?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's mainly the new(?) editor, and I've warned him and will be keeping an eye out. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems more like some people there wants to remove comments that are indeed to the discussion about the article, but not liking when others do it about comments that are not about the discussion. hipocrisy in this case of Jim1138. do talk to himWitsBlomstein (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WitsBlomstein the issue is that we do not delete other people's contributions to the talk page. That is what talk is about, healthy discussion. We edit the article and discuss the edits on the talk page in order to try to reach consensus. I appreciate that the topic of the discussion is an emotive one. It is for both sides. Try abiding by the procedures the Wikipedia community have developed and seek moderation by an administrator if it is not working OK? The same of course goes for Seb az86556, Jpgordon and Mann jess, I do not believe deleting contributions from the talk page is appropriate do you? Djapa Owen 14:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs)

WitsBlomstein is a pretty obvious sock of the IP hopping anon editor 109.225.103.247, 77.53.83.107, and 77.53.83.205, who have been readding comments to a closed discussion. Given that, he's edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

And 77.53.83.46 (talk · contribs) who has also edited the same page (all the IPs are from last month). He's editing on articles to do with Jews, white supremacy, etc. Virtually every edit of his that isn't on a trivial subject has been reverted. Dougweller (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

True djapa, thats why he delted said article is not ok. he never did try to discuss it. Its pretty obvious that ian thomson, stephen j, jpgordon and Dougweller is Meatpuppeting. you have been adding comments to a Not forum discussion. you confused not forum with closed. given that, ian is indeed edit warring via Meatpuppetry, you dont need 3rr to edit war, you just need same editors teamtagging and meatpuppetrying it. it also seems from the list of Dougweller that he has been editing articles that has to do with jews, white supremacy(check history) and users who are jews. so its kinda ironic that every edit he made isn't on a trivial subject has been reverted. its also true that he lets the Talmud gets desecrated, but will allow other sections not to be desecrated? if that is not bias then what is?WitsBlomstein (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you get involved in a hostile way, though, then you risk the situation where people see both sides as equivalently misbehaving, and then don't act against either of them - whereas if all the fighting seems to be one way then it's much easier for neutral admins to deal with the party causing the offence. Admins are volunteers and often unaware of the wider context of what is going on, so try to understand based on what actions are taking place at that exact time. Orderinchaos 02:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've filed an SPI on WitsBlomstein, though it's honestly a formality. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

WitsBlomstein's comments above are to put it mildly silly but show, again, that this isn't a constructive editor. I think he is probably a sock, but of a named account. The IPs haven't edited this month or at the same time WitsBlomstein has edited, so I doubt there will be any blocks. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If we check history, then both Dougweller and jpgordon and stephen j seems to indeed be engaged in teamtagediting, so they arent vandalising but rather unconstructive political meatpuppeting. this behavior lasts for years if you check back to 2010 and underWitsBlomstein (talk) 10:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I think Wits is trying to refer to me in his accusations of meatpuppetry/tagteaming. To the extent that he is, his allegations are categorically false. There has been no collusion or co-ordination between me and any other editor in this or any other dispute. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, could an admin please have a look at Wits' edits, particularly his talk page edits? He edit wars to delete someone else's talk page comments; he asks random questions on talk pages that have nothing to do with article improvement; he wikilinks an ordinary English word (remnants) to create an inappropriate link to an article about a novel by that name; he posts long, shambling, incomprehensible gibberish on talk pages that has nothing to do with the subject of the article, let alone improving it; and he has a thing about Jews and something he calls "anti-non semetism" (sic). When several, independent editors revert his obvious nonsense, he calls that meatpuppetry. His signal-to-noise ratio so far is 100% noise, 0% signal. He's about the best candidate for a WP:COMPETENCE block I've ever seen, assuming he's not just trolling. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly trolling, see his latest comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WitsBlomstein where replying to me he says: "There seem to be meatpuppetry here, including by you. some hilarious comments by you. so unless you have discovered some shared library IP, then no. Unless we can check what other things Dougweller has engaged with other editors in, like what topics and articles that he has been tagteam editing with others, then we'll see if its a short intervall between edits showing he is indeed engaged with even more than suspected, or if its days/weeks between editing and he just wasted our time being neurotic". I agree with the SPI clerk that there's nothing to be done here without a puppetmaster to compare to, although I seem to remember an editor with an apparently Jewish name who was clearly anything but Jewish. But there's nothing constructive coming from this editor, and if I weren't involved I'd block. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• WitsBlomstein blocked in all his incarnations, at least for the moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiQuote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Cmmmm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cmmmm1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 84.177.243.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the past, User:Cmmmm/User:Cmmmm1 as well as other usernames (blocked some time ago for sockpuppetry) frequently made POV additions to articles about Jehovah's Witnesses. Today he has added a link to WikiQuotes[200] to the article Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (as an IP editor, but evidently the same individual). He has populated the WikiQuotes page (using the same username[201]) with selective quotations to push his continued agenda of proclaiming that Jehovah's Witnesses are racist.

It has not been established in any reliable sources that there is any particular issue of racism in the religion, or that their older views did not reflect inappropriate racist views that were prevalent at the time. At the very least, the selective quoting violates WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE.

What can be done about this, given that the primary misuse is occurring on the WikiQuote site?

See also:

• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Cmmmm
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cmmmm/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive55#User:Cmmmm reported by User:Dev920 (Result: 24 hours / unblocked )

--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If the real issue is on wikiquote not on wikipedia, I'd recommend asking on the correct board on wikiquote. One of [202] should help though I'm not sure which. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Remove link to WikiQuote iff it violates WP:UNDUE? Bulwersator (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Wikiquote has received notice of the situation on its Village Pump. We will sort it out there, though the wheels turn slowly. I have viewed the article with dismay for some time, and recent developments definitely call for the community to have a look and settle some issues about what is and is not appropriate there. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC) (Wikiquote administrator)

  P.S. – In the interest of promoting collegial relations among Wikimedia projects, please note that the project's name is Wikiquote, not "WikiQuote" or "WikiQuotes". Thanks. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The statements at the Wikiquote Village Pump incorrectly implied that the issue is about whether Wikiquote should have a page for Watch Tower Society quotes at all. I have clarified the situation there. The editor in question has a history on Wikipedia of pushing a personal agenda. Because he was blocked from Wikipedia, he has taken his soapboxing to Wikiquote instead. Surely there are similar rules there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is a discussion at village pump at Wikiquote then it's probably best to keep everything centralized over there. I think it should be treated in the same fashion as a wikipedia article: we don't just remove links because it has issues at the moment; we drive traffic towards it and so the quote page is more likely to be improved. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello!

This user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J.P.Rallizgard

is doing an edit war with me on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_Tour

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dangerous_World_Tour&action=history

He/She is trying to violate the pervious edits by deleting the information, but not adding the explanations and any new information. He/She also is not providing any new links for his/her edits to prove that the previous edits are not valid any more.

Can you help me with this case? I am really tired of undoing his/her unnecessary edits all the time and he/she is not responding to my letters.

Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So when you say "This user is doing an edit war with me", you mean you are both engaged in an edit war? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we both are engaged in an edit war. But my only mission is to keep this article clean of destructive and unnecessary edits. During the recent months I have cleaned the article and I have added numerous refferences (not in a correct external form, I must admit) and my edits have always been done in good faith. Lassoboy (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

After checking the history of the article, and the contributions of those involved in the dispute, I've initiated a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring specifically in relation to Lassoboy's infringement of WP:EW and WP:3RR. Mephistophelian (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC).

(edit conflict)I don't know that this is an "edit war", per se. I think Lassoboy may just be using the terminology that comes to mind. The other user has made some odd contributions to this article lately. Some of what he did here seems constructive, but note the new closing date he adds for the tour. His recent edits also seem strange. He's changing information without offering a source and actually removed a source. The insertion of <br> for some of the dates (but not others) is certainly odd. :/ His earliest edits seem constructive....even this one seems clearly good faith, although I see that you disagreed. Lassoboy, keeping an eye on the quality of articles is a great contribution and an important thing to do. I would have "undone" the later edits, too, but those earlier edits did not deserve a response like this. We have to be careful to remain welcoming and not to forget that Wikipedia's articles belong to everybody. See WP:BITE and WP:OWN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Moonriddengirl! Lassoboy (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Re "I am the guard of the Bad Tour, Dangerous Tour and History Tour articles, especially I stand guard over everything which is related to the tour dates and cancelled/rescheduled dates sections. If you want to change or add anything there, please write these ideas to the TALK section. Then we discuss them and then I will decide if your edits are necessary or not" - Lassoboy, you need to be disabused of that notion right away! You are not the person who decides what goes into an article - that is decided by consensus, not by a self-appointed "guard". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for being so tyrant, but it was at the time necessary, because this user violated this article in my eyes. There have been numeorus other edits from other users, but I have agreed with these, because these were constructive edits. So, in overall, I think I have been fair in editing this article. Lassoboy (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you have been acting in good faith, but you are absolutely wrong to insist that that action was necessary. It is simply not allowed, under any circumstances, for you to claim to be the "guard" of an article and the sole authority over what goes into it. You must not do that again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. I herein admit that I am not the author of this article and not the guard of this article. I am just an editor, who next time will try to be a little bit more polite in my actions. And I hope that J.P.Rallizgard will not do no more unnecessary, meaningless and pointless edits in the future. Lassoboy (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:OWN is not good, and it sets up battlegrounds dangerouspanda 13:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood! Lassoboy (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2A01:E35:2F0C:F510:95B0:5DBA:A649:40E3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I took this to WP:AIV and it was suggested I instead bring it here. This user has added [203] and again [204]. Then he came to my talk page and added [205]. I supported a block, obviously by taking to AIV, so please discuss here...Go Phightins! (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been two hours now, so it would be stale anyways.--intelati/talk 17:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I reported it to AIV 2 hours ago, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And his last edit was also two hours ago. He has probably moved on by now.--intelati/talk 17:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. Intercourse style of a political candidate is likely a BLP violation, or at the very least, original research. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COVIZAPIBETEFOKY: signature forgery and personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

COVIZAPIBETEFOKY (talk · contribs) COVIZAPIBETEFOKY is active on math-related articles and issues. Today, xe posted this silly message on Talk:0.999..., and signed it as a user xe tends not to agree with, User: Algr, with the edit summary "I'm a troll!" COVIZAPIBETEFOKY then reverted SineBot in order to continue the apparant signature forgery.

I reverted COVIZAPIBETEFOKY's comment, and asked the editor on their talk page to explain the behaviour. His response was to personally attack Alger. Given such a response, I believe this requires administrative intervention. Singularity42 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I should add that COVIZAPIBETEFOKY's recent comments on his talk page would suggest xe did the signature forgery and subsequent personal attack out of a frustration with the other editor (a frustration that would otherwise be understandable). But the editor refuses to acknowledge that their actions were wrong, in part because "no one was actually fooled by the edit". Singularity42 (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am tempted to block them based on the incivility and the signature forgery. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You weren't quite as tempted as I was. The editor shows no sign of accepting that that behaviour was unacceptable, so I've blocked for a week - anyone is free to unblock if they become convinced that kind of behavior will not be repeated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, I think a week was excessive - I've reduced it to 48 hours. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks pretty serious. If that happened to someone else, I doubt I'd notice. It's hard enough to keep the light above the heat in these discussions even when people are following the rules so this represents a serious threat to being able to discuss the article. Algr (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andy the Grump (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party user:AndytheGrump is continuing to return a comment of his that is not constructive or helpful in any manner the comment being ROFL as a !vote. This is vandalism and does not contribute to any part of the discussion. Andy as well called me a "Stalinist troll" in returning his comment after I removed it twice as vandalism.Camelbinky (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sequence of events, as far as I can find:

• Camelbinky posts in a deletion discussion.
• AndyTheGrump posts "ROFL" in a deletion discussion. Whether or not this was in response to Camelbinky (as Camelbinky seems to have assumed) or in response to the general discussion (as the post was formatted) is not established. AndyTheGrump had earlier expressed incredulity at the idea of a political party on Wikipedia, though.
• Camelbinky reverts AndyTheGrump's post, calling it vandalism (despite not meeting WP:Vandalism).
• AndyTheGrump restores his post with "Rvert my comments again and I will report you to ANI".
• Camelbinky reverts again, calling AndyTheGrump's post vandalism again.
• AndyTheGrump restores his comment with the edit summary "revert Stalinist troll," apparently in reference to Camelbinky's description of censorship of those who disagree with you as "Stalinist" in a discussion AndyTheGrump was also present in.

I'm seeing a failure by Camelbinky to assume good faith, and leading to some reactionary provocation of AndyTheGrump. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Camelbinky's removal of my comment [206] was entirely unjustified. As for 'Stalinist troll', if you support the setting up a 'political party' which seems to think that you win elections first, and then tell everyone what your policies are afterwards, don't be surprised if people draw their own analogies... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything there that needs admin action, other than, perhaps, Camelbinky's removing of other people's comments from an MfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to leave a much longer comment but was booted out by edit conflicts. I like Boing!'s comment better. Concise and correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Camelbinky twice reverted Andy's edit, calling it "vandalism".[207][208] WP:VANDALISM says, "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing...." Camelbinky should not violate policy and escalate a dispute, then come here to complain about the other party. My suggestion is that both editors not call each other vandals and trolls and we should close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• For heaven's sake, this is silly. Is it good style to "ROFL" in an MfD? Probably not. Is it an offense that needs to be reverted? No. If someone removed your "ROFL" from an MfD, do you really need to restore it? No. If the "ROFL" writer restores it after you remove it, do you really need to re-remove it? No. Are any of these actions vandalism? No. I prescribe large helpings of fish for everyone and a return to our regularly-scheduled Sunday programming. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep things in perspective here, the discussions are about the ArbCom Reform Party, and where better to have such discussions than in the ArbCom Reform Party Headquarters, so I invite everyone to join the ArbCom Reform Party! Count Iblis (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not canvas for your idiotic 'party' on AN/I. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think it'd be a good idea if an admin closed this now. It should be pretty clear to both editors that calling others vandals and trolls is not appropriate, there's really no where else for this to go. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

135.19.128.248 (looks like a sock of 184.161.10.194 to me)

[209][210] Click on these links and see what I mean. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

184.161.10.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

135.19.128.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Magic Kingdom Parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ACMEWikiNet doesn't mention the fact that 184.161.10.194 was recently blocked for a month for disruptive editing. A number of anon editors have been adding speculative unsourced or poorly sourced information to the article for some time. I have semi-protected the article for 8 days in the hope that this will offer some respite, and that if the new content is worthwhile, this can be hashed out on the article's talk page. I'm reluctant to make it longer because of the slow rate of disruption and the fact that there have been other anon contributions recently. I don't see much point in blocking a series of IP addresses, but maybe another administrator will feel differently. Please try to assume good faith, as this may be coming from external sources, albeit unreliable. Bovlb (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and you forgot to notify the user. I fixed that for you. Bovlb (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• They certainly do appear to be the same editor, just from a cursory review of their contribution histories. I agree with Bovlb's decision to semi-protect the article in this case, although I would have no problem with having it in place for an even longer period (such as two weeks). Kurtis (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Both IPs are registered to the cable company Vidéotron and are located in the Montreal area. I will block the new IP. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hirolovesswords and Hot Stop's behavior

Hirolovesswords[211] and ‎Hot Stop[212] are tag teaming me to add politically biased defamatory material to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012. This is material that was originally in Elizabeth Warren's article, but the consensus there was it was a political attack and it was removed from the article, so Hirolovesswords is trying to find a home for it somewhere else on Wikipedia. I believe their actions violate WP:COATRACK, WP:POVFORK and WP:BLP. I may be wrong, so I would like other people to look at this. FurrySings (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the info is in the Liz Warren article (in a different form). There's also a discussion on the article's talkpage. Hot Stop (Edits) 08:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The section on her native american heritage does not contain the defamatory material that you have put back into the campaign article. That material was deleted weeks ago. FurrySings (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like given the amount of sound and fury (signifying what, probably depends on which side of the aisle you're on) over this issue, removing it from the article looks to be the 'politically biased' action. Of course WP:BLP always applies, but all the information in the links you're mentioning above appears to be well- and reliably-sourced; Wikipedia is not censored based on 'I don't like this well-sourced information about this person'. Beware the WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• While it may not contain defamatory material, it seems to cover (at a glance) some material that is, at best, controversial. Further, it does not seem to contribute to the topic of the article. Let's leave it out for now. --Nouniquenames (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It might be a little overkill for this article, but the section in Warren's article seems too small on the subject now. But that's more a content dispute than AN/I material. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why talk pages (and, when necessary, WP:3O and RFCs) are available. My recommendation to leave the information out was to minimize the controversy as US elections come up, but whatever consensus determined in the appropriate forum would be fine. I agree with your sentiment that this is not AN/I material. --Nouniquenames (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter request

Would someone make or alter the edit filter to deal with the Dan Howell vandialism from multiple IPs and throwaway accounts? See nearly everything that Mark Arsten, Bongwarrior or I have done in the past half hour. Acroterion (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have cooled off. Most of the IPs and accounts are blocked. It looks like it was dedicated to one article at first but some began to branch off. The vast majority stayed on the original article. Looking at some of the twitter traffic, it seems as though it's resolved itself and wasn't coordinated (unless you're seeing new stuff pop up). Shadowjams (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to have died down (it is, after all, bedtime in the UK for school kids). I'll pursue this on the regular edit filter request page, since it seems like it can be fairly easily filtered. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Some turned up on UTRS and was closed. Secretlondon (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw at least one misformatted unblock request. None of those will go anywhere. All of them I saw were recently created throw-away accounts. The IP blocks are relatively short too, between 12-31 hours. There's no need to follow up and the nature of it I think doesn't suggest it will happen again soon (although if it does the edit filter should be straightforward enough). Shadowjams (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Akemi Loli Mokoto seems to be vandalizing his own user page

I didn't do a checkuser, but based on editing style it looks like User:Akemi Loli Mokoto has vandalized his own user page multiple times. This guy is actually the indef banned User:Saikano who was causing trouble in 2007, but I unblocked him in 2009 and have been keeping an eye on his edits since then, which have not been especially troublesome or controversial. Anyway since this is a "community ban" which I arbitrarily ignored I think it's about time for me to turn this over to the community, and maybe think about:

1. confirming who is doing the vandalism with checkuser, if anyone thinks that will be helpful
2. getting other people to watch his edits
3. or just banning him again if that really seems like the best solution.

Shii (tock) 06:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should do a usercheck because I have not vandalized anything. Since I have been allowed back to Wikipedia, I have done what I should have done before my ban(edit pages without bias, not insult other users, not use the "talk" page as a forum, etc). I was pretty child-ish back then so I regret my actions in the past. I hope, if it comes to it, the community understands that and lets me stay. Beside that, I am completely lost on what the hell just happened to my user page since I was asleep and I would like it if Wikipedia investigated it. I guess announcing the fact I was going to sleep to Twitter was not the best idea since I am often targeted due to my blunt tweets. I am going to fix the minor damage now. The edit done to my page are not "like me" by the way. I'd never be caught dead using idiotic words like "weeaboo". I do however get the feeling that despite my edits on other pages(most of which were minor), I am facing a ban for something I did NOT do. If I edited my own page, it was done using this user name and I did not edit to the point of violating Wikipedia's rules. That is all I have to say. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Checkuser note. It seems unlikely that the two accounts are operated by the same person. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I thought they were the same for sure but I'll assume good faith that they are not. Anyone can close this conversation if they check it over and see that nothing unusual has happened here. Shii (tock) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Why has Alatuata (talk · contribs) not been banned yet? – Richard BB 14:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They have now (well, blocked anyway) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Loli?

Akemi Loli Mokoto, on your website that you link to on your user page, you have the following disclaimer:

Lolicon(some of the pics you see on this site) is LEGAL in the US, Japan, and other countries. But this will only be about the US. In 2002 the US Supreme Courts ruled in a 7-2 ruling that virtual child porn is LEGAL![link] This was affirmed in 2003. It was upheld in 2008.[link 1] [link 2][Link 3]. In Ohio the high courts also ruled that Virtual Child Porn is LEGAL[link 1] [link 2]. My host does NOT prohibit sexual or pornographic content if it is legal. This blog is UNTOUCHABLE! So do not waste your time bitching.

I'm curious - what is the meaning of the "Loli" in your username? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you were User:Saikano, you used to sign as "Lolicon3043910" - is this related? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, Loli is(to me) short for Lolicon. Over the past 1(maybe 2) years, I have strayed away from using "Loli" and "Lolicon" in my usernames and about mes since I am moving towards a correspondences contract with CNN next year(hopefully). Since I am unable to change my username on Wikipedia to something more desirable(Akemi_Mokoto, Akemi-Mokoto, Akemi.Mokoto, or even AkemiCNN) I have been forced to keep the "Loli" in Akemi_loli_mokoto. As for the Saikano and Lolicon3043910 usernames. I am unsure. I know I was User: Saikano but I do not know where the Lolicon3043910 username came from or anything else about. I know I made it but that is all I know about it. Is it a problem? If I could redo what I did in the past, I would. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it a problem? No, not at all. After I saw your defense of "virtual child porn" on your site, I was curious if your username was promoting it. I think you have answered that. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing. All the best. --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Changing username is permitted, so I see no reason not to allow a change to Akemi Mokoto (note that spaces are allowed in usernames, if you want). Though as that policy says, you might want to think twice about using your real name on Wikipedia, especially if you're already being harassed. I don't think that a past agreement not to use sockpuppets (whether or not it is still active) should be interpreted to prohibit a name change - does anyone disagree? Wnt (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know. Would I be able to use the username of one of my Sockpupets without having one of the bureaucrats ban me? I'd like to take Akemi Mokoto(Akemi_Mokoto). --Akemi Loli Mokoto (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

According to the block notice on the talk page of User:Akemi Mokoto, that account was "blocked for pedophilia-related disruption including attempting to operate violative sock accounts". Perhaps that account wouldn't be a good choice. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think that block notice is VERY misleading. What they mean is I went on the "Lolicon" talk page and started bashing pedophiles and stuff. I basiclly used the talk page in a way it was not intended. The block notice makes it seem like I was talking about stuff a pedophile would talk about, I guess. But I understand. I'll use AkemiCNN or Akemi.Mokoto until either I ma officially pardoned by Wikipedia(and all account I used are unblocked and released) or until I think of a better username. Thanks for the help. --Akemi Mokoto (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's the same user - I see no trouble with him "usurping" his own blocked account (but it's best to move that account to some other name, and move his present account to Akemi Mokoto in order to preserve recent contribution history). I should add that I think that blocking an editor under his own name, leaving a notice worded like that, if indeed he is anything other than a confirmed pedophile (and he clearly must not be one, given that he's been allowed to continue editing for three years since, after thorough administrative scrutiny), seems like a Very Bad Thing which thoroughly violates the spirit of "BLP" as we know it, and seems like it could expose Wikipedia itself to libel actions. Even the actual pedophiles found on Wikipedia weren't treated this way - they just have some vaguely worded ArbCom ban notice on their pages. I think User talk:Akemi Mokoto should seriously be reworded NOW. Wnt (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure anyone can confirm this from reading Akemi's edit history, but that block was a long time ago when Wikipedia was below the lawsuit radar and he was just an anonymous user really upset about pedophiles. It's not something that should happen again. And yes, he ought to change his name, and we should formally say that he is no longer indef banned. Shii (tock) 02:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Having read through that accounts contributions, I think it would be over-simplifying to say that the issue was that they were "really upset about pedophiles". Take this question for example:

I have a VERY odd question for someone who is an Expert in Child Sex Abuse so dont take this wrong: I am a Lolicon Fan so I see underaged ANIME girls...haveing sex offten! and of corse they...they um...climax! I wanted to know...does real *gaging* little girls do the same or what?!

And then there is this statement in the discussion of the same subject on another userpage: "anyway interms of Me being a Risk to kids I...I Rarely say a person is cute but it happens! so I do belive I maybe but not likely!". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, it is very clear what you are implying with all your <cough>ing, and you know better than anyone that WP:Child protection prohibits discussing allegations of pedophilia here and leaves it up to ArbCom. I strongly disagree with that, but that's the policy and the policy is that this sort of accusation should be not merely stricken but revdeled. You are also implying that despite an AN/I process, revealing all his accounts and being put on a sort of Wiki-probation for six months, that admins have missed these issues for three years, which seems remarkable. Wikipedia should not be a place where kids are publicly branded as "pedophiles" in permanent memorial userban pages. Wnt (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, you know that I am a strong supporter of the policy regarding how cases relating to pedophilia advocacy are handled. In the event that I have concerns about a user in that regard, I will not hesitate to contact ArbCom directly with whatever on- or off-wiki evidence might be helpful to them. That policy, however, should not prevent me from expressing concerns about how this particular user's blocks and unblocks are being described. If you think I have inaccurately quoted the user or distorted their statements, please point out where I have done so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, in our WP:BLP articles, I am often told that it is important not just to consider whether something has been published, but also whether it sounds like an attack page, whether it's appropriate in various ways to include. Well, we're talking about a real kid with a real name here, and doesn't all that BLP stuff apply here? This is a private, non-notable person being discussed based on original resarch. Whether or not the word "pedophilia" in the Wikipedia sense applies to the interactions, using it to apply to someone who was a child at the time based on his comments about some artistic drawings that we haven't even seen sounds completely dodgy and irresponsible. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, although you have in the past expressed your disdain for it, our policy on biographies of living people does apply on all parts of Wikipedia. Can you be more specific about what part of the policy you feel is being broken here? Also, it was my impression that the user was at least 18 at the time of the statements I quoted above, but I may have misunderstood something if you know that they were a child at that time. Can you define what "'pedophilia' in the Wikipedia sense" means? I am not at all sure what you are trying to say. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If this were an article about someone, would any of the BLP believers for one moment let someone add a statement that "so-and-so engaged in pedophilia-related disruption", based on what you have here? Note that the statement that he's under 18 is the second link you cited above. And based on the general immaturity of some of the edits at the time I am inclined to take it as the truth. Lastly, the comment I made about definition is that pedophilia is a medical condition that we are not qualified nor permitted to diagnose (at least on the Refdesk...) so it is not precisely clear how Wikipedia is doing it. Wnt (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to write at least 17, not at least 18, but in either case he was hardly a child. His question was not about "artistic drawings", as you describe anime depicting sex with children, but its relation to real life. The user wrote: "I am a Lolicon Fan so I see underaged ANIME girls...haveing sex offten! and of corse they...they um...climax! I wanted to know...does real *gaging* little girls do the same or what?!". I do not know what "gaging" means (it may be a misspelling of gaijin). Taken in connection with the other edits from that account, "pedophilia-related disruption" is an accurate description and a good reason for blocking. I think the problem here is two-fold. Firstly, there may be a difference of opinion on whether "lolicon", a form of anime that frequently depicts sex with school-age children and rape by foreign objects such as tentacles, is "pedophilia-related". Secondly, Wnt seems to have the incorrect impression that users who are blocked by ArbCom for advocacy of pedophilia are somehow "diagnosed" as pedophiles as a result of that process. They are not. In any case, I do not wish for Wnt's distracting nonsense to lead people to believe that I am using this thread to accuse anyone of being a pedophile. If anyone has any such concerns about any user, they should email ArbCom privately with evidence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, what the hell? Where in the hell did you or anybody else get the idea that I was even a suspected people let alone a "confirmed" pedophile? Anyway, thank you Shii. You are correct. What I did in the past is not what I would do now(on Wikipedia anyway). So what are the steps I do I have go though to get an official ban-lift? I doubt Wikipedia would be as unforgiving as to kick me off Wikipedia(Again) for the crap I said and did years ago. I will stop replying on this page now. If anybody has anything else to say, I do ask you take it to my talk page so I at least know someone said something. Arigato! PS: the username you see is just a nicname change I did on my settings. it's not an official change. --Akemi Mokoto (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I was not saying that - sorry if I confused you, but I thought I was pretty clear. My point was that Wikipedia has treated confirmed pedophiles better than it treated you. But people reading those indefinite ban comments on User talk:Akemi Mokoto really might think that the comments were suggesting you were a pedophile - which is why I was criticizing them so harshly. Wnt (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we have links to the original 2007 ban, other blocks and unblock in this section somewhere? Might be easier to understand some of this....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Widescreen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Immediately after being banned for edit waring, Widescreen has used POV templates in bad faith against the consensus reached in dispute resolution and without cooperating.

• diff
• diff

• diff
• diff

• diff (his explanation for it)

CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

What can I say now. Yes, I reverted the NPOV-Warnig. Because it's necessary. CD broke up the discussion. [213] In fact nothing was answerd, because CD got no idea of what he's writing about. Sry to say that so. See my objections above. Futher is the picture (what a idea) of one table taken by one single study of course POV. At least in german Wikipedia. --WSC ^® 01:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo has been remarkably patient with you on this matter. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

CD is a expert in psychotherpy research? I wrote 3 featured articles in psychology in german Wikipedia. I think I got more patientce with him... --WSC ^® 01:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If the english admins doesn't allow me to remove POV and obviously wrong contents. You couldn't prohibit to add a POV-Warnig at least. --WSC ^® 01:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with Still Standing more, adding the simple template 4 times is much more patience and restraint than, in all honesty, I'd have shown. It doesn't really matter who's an expert on what, because we require independent reliable sources and don't allow original research. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! And CD is not able to transform the informations of a study into a enzyclopedical text. [214] --WSC ^® 02:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Admins! My plan is to revert the POV-Button into the Article. It would be lovley if you could judge beforehand if you plan to block me for the following editwar and if you be willing to support the POV and "high-quality-Duo" CD and stillstanding? Or if you remeber the aims of this little projekt, to issue a enzyclopedia with sourced informations? Thank you in anticipation! --WSC ^® 11:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert in psychology, but somewhat an expert at edit warring, I suggest using the talk page first and hammering out changes. While I'm a big fan of WP:BRD and boldness in general, it looks like we need to focus on the D portion, discussion. Since you just came off a block for edit warring, I strongly suggest proceeding with caution. This isn't an endorsement of anyone's ideas or edits, just a general note that anyone coming off a block is under higher scrutiny for the same behavior. Our goal is accuracy, not speed, so going a little slower for now is more likely to cause you troubles. At this stage, this isn't an ANI issue really, particularly since you haven't used the talk page at the article since the DRN closed. I suggest closing this thread and taking it back there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dennis Brown, I've used the talk page. But CD and Stillstanding ignore my arguments. Thats a naive but efficient tactic. I know this kind of proceed really good. I'm active in WP since 8,5 years. In fact, the decision was made by one admin, which has blocked me. CD and stillstand are not interrested in true contents. This WW-Proceed by add a piture of the table reveals this taktic figurative. I dont't know the proceed in en:wp, but what I saw at the Discussion on DRN shocked me. This was superficial and measly. I'm sorry to say that so. But the proceed in en:wp got nothing to do with careful consideration. This preferred users like CD and stillstanding, who got no idea of what they writing about. --WSC ^® 12:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing, you have nice bureaucratic rules here, like 3RR and so one. But you have no rule to decide which exposition is right and which is POV. But this bureaucratic proceed maks it easyer for users like CD and StSing to push there minor knowledge into articles. --WSC ^® 13:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't know enough to have an opinion on the content, and that is a matter for DRN anyway. As for bureaucracy, I'm not a fan of it, which is why I haunt the halls of ANI regularly and try to just inject a little common sense, and almost never block for a simple 4th revert. I have no control over other admins. I can't force the other editors to accept your edits or your ideas. Yes, we use the consensus model. Not saying this is the case, but if a bunch of Randys show up in an article and out !vote you in consensus, then the solution is DRN for starters, the MedCab, etc. What I'm saying is that you have to use the process instead of blind reverting. Yes, I know it is slow, but the goal is building an accurate encyclopedia, not a fast one. And I don't want to see you go down the "well, he was just blocked for edit warring and it looks like he is again, lets block him" admin road, whereby we lose you as a valuable contributor after a few blocks. The system isn't perfect, I know. By the very nature of what we are and how we do it, there isn't a choice but to use the (yes, bureaucratic) process. Again, I don't see any talk page since the DRN, which is where it should be instead of at ANI and I don't see any reason to take admin action for anyone here. We do NOT decide content issues at ANI, thank god, as that would be a nightmare of Randys if ever there was. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Dennis, I like your attitude. But there is always anyhow how block after a 4th revert.

And I try to use the DRN for discussion. But I hadn't enough time that day to give futher explanations. Nobody there was interested in futher expanations because it was closed by anyhow, bevor I could give another statemnet. This is no consens this is insolence and extreme superficial. So I can't take such instances seriously. Thats a waste of time. They don't want a consense, they want to close a case quickley and go to the next one. I'm against consensuses. I prefer sourced and high quality contents in articles. You can't find a consensus always. But, there is a posibility: You can always block one of the opponents, so there is no longer a need for a consens. I hope you see, where the problem is with such a proceed! To add a picutre of this damn table was a POV move at it's best. --WSC ^® 20:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

In general it's not helpful to edit war over the POV tag. To get a wider range of editors to opine on the subject in this case, try contacting WP:MED or WP:PSYCH. There is also a guideline on the subject of evaluating sources for things like effectiveness of treatment. Some of the editors who are active on its talk page would also be a good choice for a third opinion. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Editwars are never helpfull. But it's in your own interest, to have a POV-Button, at POV contents, at least. To revert the POV-button is so ignorant, I can't find words for that. I'wont accept that and I will not accept that. --WSC ^® 20:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been moved to edit waring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Syed Mustafa Siraj and User:Bhorbela

User:Bhorbela has uploaded Copyright text[215][216], Copyright images [217] (under a different handle), and engaged in edit waring behavior in trying to force the images into the article. This has gone on now for a few days. I've left talk page and edit comment warnings but I believe this person doesn't like me and is now engaged in a "fight" of sorts. Could someone else maybe leave him/her a warning not to do these things? It might help defuse the situation. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I left a note.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

thank you, you said it better. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Marcelo Samuel Berman

After adding comments to the autobiographical Marcelo Samuel Berman talk page, the first editor started personal accusations and made legal threats. If somebody could please take a look at it... Thank you Albertlberman (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note - I guess this is about user MarceloBerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have also noticed this outing/threat edit by user Msberman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — shouldn't that edit be made invisible? This author seems be using multiple usernames. - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

as the target of the lie i would very much like it to be made invisible. Albertlberman (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but I can't do it as I don't have the necessary privilege to do so. Can someone with wp:oversight take care of this? - Thx. DVdm (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Old user, new username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) has returned after an absence as Patrick Haseldine (talk · contribs) (both are his real name). I believe his old account should be disabled if he's abandoned it, given his past history of creating socks. Please note that I'm not recommending any sanctions be applied for violating naming policy - happy to AGF at this time. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked him. It has been two years, and we can be open minded as to a return, but there is a degree of procedure that must be followed. I will leave it up to the community to decide if he should or shouldn't be coming back, my block was purely procedural, based on the fact that is primary account IS blocked for socking. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PJHaseldine/Archive I think he needs to explain a bit how he wants to move foward before any consideration should be given to the idea. Again, I will leave to others, I'm out the door for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise (or forgot) that his primary account is indef blocked already - I assumed he'd forgotten the password, given that the new account is under his real name and hence not hiding anything. Anyay, I'm not opposed in principle to his return - the primary issue that led to his last community ban and block is no more since the release and passing of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. However I agree with the expectation of a statement of intention/behaviour, given his track record and early lapse to a previous pattern of personal attacks after I attempted to help address the points he raised about this biography. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The PJHaseldine account is still under the community sanction given at User:PJHaseldine/Community sanction:

A community sanction has been established at this discussion:

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: ...

The same information is logged in WP:RESTRICT. In his unblock request at User talk:Patrick Haseldine, the editor states he wants to return to update his Wikipedia biography. Haseldine advances a theory that South Africa is related to the Lockerbie bombing. Most of the content of his biography at Patrick Haseldine is about his friction with the British government over South African issues. In my opinion, there is not much point to his return. He will not be able to edit his own article without adding self-serving information that is going to reignite the past turmoil. Voluntary restrictions on Haseldine in the past have not worked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In fairness to him, his activity in updating his biography has consisted of him proposing changes on the talk page, which is right and proper for someone with a COI. I would not object to unblocking the latest account if he discloses all other accounts he has created and agrees to continue editing from that one account only. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a vote at WP:AN if you want him unindef'ed. My objection is unilateral unblocking, so if the community thinks it is ok, then it is ok with me. Either than or via ArbCom, but WP:AN is a faster, simpler option. I would recuse myself from voting since I did the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

From the person who in his eyes has probably caused him the most "trouble" at Wikipedia, I propose that he be unblocked for a probationary period of 6 months subject to his existing community restriction being updated as follows:

• The previous community topic ban relating to Pan Am 103 related articles remains in place
• He restricts his activities exclusively to talk pages (no direct article edits)
• He uses talk pages exclusively for discussing article content improvements
• He does not use Wikipedia as a platform for any form of promotion, campaigning or activism
• He does not link from external sites to any edit he makes anywhere on Wikipedia, specifically, but not exclusively limited to Facebook, Twitter, any blog or campaigning site.
• He assumes good faith and refrains from any ad hominum attacks against other editors, particularly those previously involved in uncovering his previous sock accounts and activities.
• He uses a single account, and does not engage in any further sock behaviour
• Any transgression of the above will result in an immediate and permanent ban without further warning.

At the end of the 6 month period, if he's not already banned, he can request that the community review his restrictions to determine if it's appropriate for them to remain in place as is or be amended. If anyone would like to suggest any wording changes, please go ahead, otherwise let's put it to the vote.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this isn't an incident, and should be discussed at WP:AN if you want him unblocked. It will require a community consensus there, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phantom block of User:Zorro redux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anybody work out why Zorro redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked? Zorro was banned in 2006 by Jimmy Wales and the last action in the block log of that account is an indefinite block, yet the following observations lead me to think the account is able to edit.

• When editing his talk page, no message is displayed that "This user is currently blocked"
• The system considers there to be no current blocks of that account
• The log at the bottom of Special:Block/Zorro redux is in the past tense, as it is for users with a non-empty block log but no active blocks: "This user has been blocked previously"
• The markblocked script I have installed does not consider the account to be blocked

I also suspect that the same problem applies to Zephram Stark (talk · contribs), and I see several accounts on WP:BANLIST that should be blocked but aren't. None of the accounts seem to have been renamed at any time. AGK [•] 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The block somehow failed. After I re-added the block, he shows up as blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marcelo Samuel Berman

After adding comments to the autobiographical Marcelo Samuel Berman talk page, the first editor started personal accusations and made legal threats. If somebody could please take a look at it... Thank you Albertlberman (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note - I guess this is about user MarceloBerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have also noticed this outing/threat edit by user Msberman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — shouldn't that edit be made invisible? This author seems be using multiple usernames. - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

as the target of the lie i would very much like it to be made invisible. Albertlberman (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but I can't do it as I don't have the necessary privilege to do so. Can someone with wp:oversight take care of this? - Thx. DVdm (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Old user, new username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) has returned after an absence as Patrick Haseldine (talk · contribs) (both are his real name). I believe his old account should be disabled if he's abandoned it, given his past history of creating socks. Please note that I'm not recommending any sanctions be applied for violating naming policy - happy to AGF at this time. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked him. It has been two years, and we can be open minded as to a return, but there is a degree of procedure that must be followed. I will leave it up to the community to decide if he should or shouldn't be coming back, my block was purely procedural, based on the fact that is primary account IS blocked for socking. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PJHaseldine/Archive I think he needs to explain a bit how he wants to move foward before any consideration should be given to the idea. Again, I will leave to others, I'm out the door for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise (or forgot) that his primary account is indef blocked already - I assumed he'd forgotten the password, given that the new account is under his real name and hence not hiding anything. Anyay, I'm not opposed in principle to his return - the primary issue that led to his last community ban and block is no more since the release and passing of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. However I agree with the expectation of a statement of intention/behaviour, given his track record and early lapse to a previous pattern of personal attacks after I attempted to help address the points he raised about this biography. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The PJHaseldine account is still under the community sanction given at User:PJHaseldine/Community sanction:

A community sanction has been established at this discussion:

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: ...

The same information is logged in WP:RESTRICT. In his unblock request at User talk:Patrick Haseldine, the editor states he wants to return to update his Wikipedia biography. Haseldine advances a theory that South Africa is related to the Lockerbie bombing. Most of the content of his biography at Patrick Haseldine is about his friction with the British government over South African issues. In my opinion, there is not much point to his return. He will not be able to edit his own article without adding self-serving information that is going to reignite the past turmoil. Voluntary restrictions on Haseldine in the past have not worked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In fairness to him, his activity in updating his biography has consisted of him proposing changes on the talk page, which is right and proper for someone with a COI. I would not object to unblocking the latest account if he discloses all other accounts he has created and agrees to continue editing from that one account only. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a vote at WP:AN if you want him unindef'ed. My objection is unilateral unblocking, so if the community thinks it is ok, then it is ok with me. Either than or via ArbCom, but WP:AN is a faster, simpler option. I would recuse myself from voting since I did the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

From the person who in his eyes has probably caused him the most "trouble" at Wikipedia, I propose that he be unblocked for a probationary period of 6 months subject to his existing community restriction being updated as follows:

• The previous community topic ban relating to Pan Am 103 related articles remains in place
• He restricts his activities exclusively to talk pages (no direct article edits)
• He uses talk pages exclusively for discussing article content improvements
• He does not use Wikipedia as a platform for any form of promotion, campaigning or activism
• He does not link from external sites to any edit he makes anywhere on Wikipedia, specifically, but not exclusively limited to Facebook, Twitter, any blog or campaigning site.
• He assumes good faith and refrains from any ad hominum attacks against other editors, particularly those previously involved in uncovering his previous sock accounts and activities.
• He uses a single account, and does not engage in any further sock behaviour
• Any transgression of the above will result in an immediate and permanent ban without further warning.

At the end of the 6 month period, if he's not already banned, he can request that the community review his restrictions to determine if it's appropriate for them to remain in place as is or be amended. If anyone would like to suggest any wording changes, please go ahead, otherwise let's put it to the vote.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this isn't an incident, and should be discussed at WP:AN if you want him unblocked. It will require a community consensus there, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phantom block of User:Zorro redux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anybody work out why Zorro redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked? Zorro was banned in 2006 by Jimmy Wales and the last action in the block log of that account is an indefinite block, yet the following observations lead me to think the account is able to edit.

• When editing his talk page, no message is displayed that "This user is currently blocked"
• The system considers there to be no current blocks of that account
• The log at the bottom of Special:Block/Zorro redux is in the past tense, as it is for users with a non-empty block log but no active blocks: "This user has been blocked previously"
• The markblocked script I have installed does not consider the account to be blocked

I also suspect that the same problem applies to Zephram Stark (talk · contribs), and I see several accounts on WP:BANLIST that should be blocked but aren't. None of the accounts seem to have been renamed at any time. AGK [•] 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The block somehow failed. After I re-added the block, he shows up as blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DanielUmel on Syrian Civil War articles

DanielUmel (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred, added glaringly one-sided info that misrepresents sources, and attacked other users on articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

On the article Battle of Al-Qusayr, he added this one-sided story which misrepresents what the source says and ignores key info. Myself and User:I7laseral reverted him twice each. For doing so, he accused us of supporting Islamists and trying to "hide the truth" (see here). I re-wrote what he had written to make it more neutral and in line with the source, but he reverted me. When I wrote to him about his behavior, he again simply accused me of supporting Islamist terrorists and trying to hide the truth (see here).

DanielUmel has also been edit warring on the articles Rif Dimashq offensive, Darayya massacre and Al-Nusra Front (in the latter he ignored WP:TERRORISM). He has been reported four times for edit warring since 26 July.
~Asarlaí 22:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the worst kind of edit warring — taking material that could be of use and making it useless. Obvious civility problems, to boot. DanielUmel could use a time-out from editing on articles related to the Syrian Civil War. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Add that to remarks as this (which win the "I don't even think you tried to keep your POV in check" award) and the bad-faithed, disparaging talk headings I changed here and here. See also any of 4 3RR reports filed against him: [219] [220] [221] [222]. Additionally, he has made virtually no edits whatsoever outside of this topic area since his explosion onto the scene at the end of June. An acronym beginning with S and ending with PA comes to mind here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Marcelo Samuel Berman

After adding comments to the autobiographical Marcelo Samuel Berman talk page, the first editor started personal accusations and made legal threats. If somebody could please take a look at it... Thank you Albertlberman (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note - I guess this is about user MarceloBerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I have also noticed this outing/threat edit by user Msberman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — shouldn't that edit be made invisible? This author seems be using multiple usernames. - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

as the target of the lie i would very much like it to be made invisible. Albertlberman (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but I can't do it as I don't have the necessary privilege to do so. Can someone with wp:oversight take care of this? - Thx. DVdm (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Old user, new username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) has returned after an absence as Patrick Haseldine (talk · contribs) (both are his real name). I believe his old account should be disabled if he's abandoned it, given his past history of creating socks. Please note that I'm not recommending any sanctions be applied for violating naming policy - happy to AGF at this time. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked him. It has been two years, and we can be open minded as to a return, but there is a degree of procedure that must be followed. I will leave it up to the community to decide if he should or shouldn't be coming back, my block was purely procedural, based on the fact that is primary account IS blocked for socking. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PJHaseldine/Archive I think he needs to explain a bit how he wants to move foward before any consideration should be given to the idea. Again, I will leave to others, I'm out the door for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise (or forgot) that his primary account is indef blocked already - I assumed he'd forgotten the password, given that the new account is under his real name and hence not hiding anything. Anyay, I'm not opposed in principle to his return - the primary issue that led to his last community ban and block is no more since the release and passing of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. However I agree with the expectation of a statement of intention/behaviour, given his track record and early lapse to a previous pattern of personal attacks after I attempted to help address the points he raised about this biography. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The PJHaseldine account is still under the community sanction given at User:PJHaseldine/Community sanction:

A community sanction has been established at this discussion:

PJHaseldine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. This topic ban includes, but is not limited to, the following articles: ...

The same information is logged in WP:RESTRICT. In his unblock request at User talk:Patrick Haseldine, the editor states he wants to return to update his Wikipedia biography. Haseldine advances a theory that South Africa is related to the Lockerbie bombing. Most of the content of his biography at Patrick Haseldine is about his friction with the British government over South African issues. In my opinion, there is not much point to his return. He will not be able to edit his own article without adding self-serving information that is going to reignite the past turmoil. Voluntary restrictions on Haseldine in the past have not worked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In fairness to him, his activity in updating his biography has consisted of him proposing changes on the talk page, which is right and proper for someone with a COI. I would not object to unblocking the latest account if he discloses all other accounts he has created and agrees to continue editing from that one account only. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest a vote at WP:AN if you want him unindef'ed. My objection is unilateral unblocking, so if the community thinks it is ok, then it is ok with me. Either than or via ArbCom, but WP:AN is a faster, simpler option. I would recuse myself from voting since I did the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

From the person who in his eyes has probably caused him the most "trouble" at Wikipedia, I propose that he be unblocked for a probationary period of 6 months subject to his existing community restriction being updated as follows:

• The previous community topic ban relating to Pan Am 103 related articles remains in place
• He restricts his activities exclusively to talk pages (no direct article edits)
• He uses talk pages exclusively for discussing article content improvements
• He does not use Wikipedia as a platform for any form of promotion, campaigning or activism
• He does not link from external sites to any edit he makes anywhere on Wikipedia, specifically, but not exclusively limited to Facebook, Twitter, any blog or campaigning site.
• He assumes good faith and refrains from any ad hominum attacks against other editors, particularly those previously involved in uncovering his previous sock accounts and activities.
• He uses a single account, and does not engage in any further sock behaviour
• Any transgression of the above will result in an immediate and permanent ban without further warning.

At the end of the 6 month period, if he's not already banned, he can request that the community review his restrictions to determine if it's appropriate for them to remain in place as is or be amended. If anyone would like to suggest any wording changes, please go ahead, otherwise let's put it to the vote.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Again, this isn't an incident, and should be discussed at WP:AN if you want him unblocked. It will require a community consensus there, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phantom block of User:Zorro redux

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anybody work out why Zorro redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not blocked? Zorro was banned in 2006 by Jimmy Wales and the last action in the block log of that account is an indefinite block, yet the following observations lead me to think the account is able to edit.

• When editing his talk page, no message is displayed that "This user is currently blocked"
• The system considers there to be no current blocks of that account
• The log at the bottom of Special:Block/Zorro redux is in the past tense, as it is for users with a non-empty block log but no active blocks: "This user has been blocked previously"
• The markblocked script I have installed does not consider the account to be blocked

I also suspect that the same problem applies to Zephram Stark (talk · contribs), and I see several accounts on WP:BANLIST that should be blocked but aren't. None of the accounts seem to have been renamed at any time. AGK [•] 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The block somehow failed. After I re-added the block, he shows up as blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.