Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive708

What to do? Uncooperative editor, genre warring

I'm asking you all, since I'm a bit involved by now. The case is this: User:BuddyOfHolly doesn't really like our WP:RS policy (see Talk:Old Home Town) and has been edit-warring to prove some point about some album being RnB and not Country (this is obviously a matter of great importance). Thing is, they removed sourced information (that the talk page indicates they don't care for), here for instance. I reverted and left them a note on their talk page (see the history, and see the user's user page, "Note to other users: Your messages on My talk page will be deleted."--it's that kind of spirit). They've left me a message which is pretty clear: they don't care. (See also my post on their talk page, which provided select examples of declarations of war etc. from their contributions.)

All of this is fine and dandy, but when I looked through the user's contributions, I saw a slew of edits to Glen Campbell albums, and in all the ones I looked at they changed "Country" to some other genre. I can revert. I can leave genre warring templates. I can roll back. But what's the point if they don't care? I'm involved with this editor (so I won't block them, though they're practically asking for it) and, frankly, tired of dealing with yet another case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT/IDONTCARE. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm through with the editwar. If I "don't care," why should I care what an open-source webpage has to say? Bye.--BuddyOfHolly (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)He can delete almost anything he wants from his talk page, so I doubt there's a rule against announcing it. I selected one album at random, Glen Campbell Live (1969 album), where he changed it from Country to Folk. I don't know if it qualifies as Folk, but there is almost no trace of Country in the playlist. So I think this user (who's been around for over 2 1/2 years) isn't necessarily wrong in his work, but maybe he bears watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

About blanking one's own talk page. Yes the rules say you can but just because you can do a thing it doesn't mean you should do a thing. To constantly blank your talk page and/or put up a message saying that all messages will be removed is the same as saying "I'm going to do what the hell I want to do and if you don't like it you can go piss up a rope". Furthermore, such declarations will discourage anybody from trying to discuss anything with you at all and they'll just take their concerns about your actions straight here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

...Where the complainant will be reminded, as countless other such complainants have been, that there is no rule against blanking your talk page, except for a very short list of exceptions, such as unblock notices while you're still blocked. No question the user is blunt, and looks to have been that way from day one. But this is ultimately a content issue. Glen Campbell is only a "country singer" by a rather broad definition of the term. Although as I pointed out below, the user in question does need better sourcing for his changes than his opinion of "what most Glen Campbell fans" think. But in that live album, for example, it was almost entirely folk, rock and pop covers. Only one or two could really be described as "country". So the individual changes need to be reviewed, rather than assuming up front that they're ill-informed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say there's a rule against it. I'm indicating an uncooperative spirit. Now, this genre thing, there seems to be a policy now that any unverified or unexplained change counts as vandalism. I don't really subscribe to that myself, which is why I have left those edits alone and why I'm seeking community input. But the user has just proposed something on Talk:Old Home Town, and if they stop disrupting, I'm at peace, no matter how much of my eloquent prose they delete. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bugs, I have no intention of editing anymore Glen Campbell genres; I have spoken to the main editor of such pages, Lumdeloo, and have assured him that I will no longer meddle with his pages' genres. I would like to see other sources besides allMusic and Charts, though... That's just me. Most Glen Campbell fans agree that he is not, indeed, a Country performer.--BuddyOfHolly (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that reports What Most Glen Campbell Fans Agree Upon? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Fans wouldn't normally count as a reliable source; too biased, y'know. GiantSnowman 11:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Although not strictly on topic, Buddy recently began removing large chunks of material from Glen Campbell. Although I usually find myself on the side of removing unsourced material from articles, the amount of material and the speed of the removals were disturbing. First, some of the material being removed, although it did not have inline sources, was sourced in some other way. For example, a statement that Campbell was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2005 was supported by an external link (I updated the external link, and Buddy reverted me). Personally, I prefer inline sources myself, but technically there's nothing wrong with an assertion being sourced in that manner. Second, some of the material was the kind that usually isn't sourced. For example, if you say an actor was in a film and the film is wikilinked, no one bothers putting in a source for that kind of fact. Here is the diff for how much material at one point was removed by Buddy: #1. Just before I signed off for the night yesterday, I reverted one of Buddy's removals with an edit summary that is uncharacteristic of me: #2. Fortunately, Drmies became involved after I stopped editing and helped slow Buddy down, but there's still a lot less material in the articled now than there was before he started - and there's been no discussion regarding the removals. Now I don't know if Buddy has anything against Campbell or if he's just an aggressive editor who believes in inline sources (the article has been tagged as lacking sources since March), but because of this genre discussion, I thought it worth bringing to everyone's attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jamesington

• Jamesington (talk · contribs · count)

Thought I'd ask for another opinion here; I'm very close to blocking this user myself, but not sure if WP:INVOLVED would apply. See this edit, and note the edit warring on the Cat article. User has been notified. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's hitting, or close to hitting, 3RR. Maybe this should go up on WP:EWN? --causa sui (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Had violated it on the 20th, but I figured that might be a stale report (though user continued edit-warring with 4 other users without crossing 3RR threshold in the following days). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no question the editor Jamesington is edit-warring, but so are the others. It's a freakin' free image, fer cryin' out loud. The deletionists have gone berserk in this cat-fight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue is it doesn't add anything, and overloads the section with images. If every addition of a photo to Cat or Dog was kept, the articles would be 80% image, 20% content. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several images that "add nothing" to the cat article. This, for example, which alleges that a cat is watching birds. It's basically a cat sitting there, and it could be watching anything. Then there's the one about a sleeping cat, under "cat behavior" - as if other animals don't sleep. Maybe you don't remember the yawning cat that was used in MTM Productions. A cat yawning is at least as much "anything" as a cat staring off into space - or sleeping. Then there's the fact you've got two white cats in the article. You're playing favorites, for no apparent reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Why does every freaking thing have to boil down to "-ists" of some sort? Can't we for once look at the dispute at hand without having to resort to attacks? –MuZemike 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The original post isn't about the content dispute, and I'm not discussing that further here; besides the 1-against-4 edit-warring, the user has repeatedly modified other user's comments in an insulting fashion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There being other basically worthless images in the article isn't a defense for the behavior. Edit warring over both the inclusion of the image and changing other user's comments to introduce blatant personal attacks certainly isn't excused by it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Changing other editors' comments is obviously against the rules. However, continually edit-warring to remove one particular image, when there are other similarly "useless" images, comes out looking like a personal vendetta against that one user, rather than a simple content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason to think people continually removing an image a single user just added to an article which already has too many images have a personal vendetta against that user. Just because an article already has junk doesn't mean it's okay to add more junk or that removing that recently added junk is wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is virtually no talk page discussion on this, I have full-protected Cat for 3 days. –MuZemike 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done. This is a content dispute - those involved are advised to follow dispute resolution. --causa sui (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians. (Ohnoitsjamie . in particular) Yes, I was adding neat photos of cats. But I do however feel that the removal of the cat in the depth of field wiki is nothing but a personal attack, as it is relevant to the article. Even though you argue that the other pictures highlight depth of field already. But in response to that I would also say that all the other images on cat highlight cats... and every single other wiki with more than one picture. So please stop warring against me, I thought this was something anyone could edit? Not just to be judged and patronised for making contributions. I also made a parody of the message posted to my page, as it is my page, and I feel that as such I can do what I like with it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing someone else's post, even on your talk page, is never acceptable. If you want to make fun of it, post your version after theirs. The way you did it made your version look like it was written by Tbhotch. Even on your talk page, you must follow the Wikipedia rules - see WP:USERTALK. Ravensfire (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Jamesington, would you please explain how removing an image is a personal attack? I've never seen that argument before and interested in the explanation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If I were in his shoes, I would take it personally too, given the catty remarks by the opponents, especially Tbhotch:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Some comments (since I was away doing other RL stuff in the meantime):

• Wikipedia is a wiki, which does mean virtually anyone can edit. However, it is inevitable that two or more people are going to disagree on something on a certain article. As a result, an edit war may result, especially if tensions are high. Hence, "anyone can edit" is a double-edged sword in this regard. There are going to be conflicts in such an open environment.
• Given the context of this situation, removing an image is not a personal attack (there may be other situations which it may be considered, such as in the more contentious areas of WP such as Libya, the Balkans, etc.; however, this is still far few in between). Please stop treating it as such.
• Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia (including user pages), and consequently, if one feels that much offended as to having such an edit reverted, then there are going to be problems.
• The above being said, it's certainly possible that I may have erred on the full-protection (and that I should have blocked instead). However, I wanted to give a chance for the users involved to see if some progress can occur without blocks. Given the one comment by the complainant above, I admit that I am skeptical of that.

–MuZemike 07:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This has apparently spilled over to Depth of field as well. Somebody please give me one reason why I should not block everybody here involved. –MuZemike 07:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I prefer that blocks be a last resort. I applaud your efforts here Muz. — Ched :  ?  07:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) (out of sequence post)... FWIW, I had missed the "Depth of field" issue. — Ched :  ?  09:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In that particular case, the photo appears to be redundant, as shallow depth of field has already been illustrated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked for twelve hours. Slap on the wrist for disruptive editing. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Great. Now, how about breaking through the block and deleting the other "useless" pictures in that article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
    • So not getting involved in that content dispute. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The deletionists demand free content. They get free content. And they still look for ways to kill it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Why does every freaking thing have to boil down to "-ists" of some sort? Can't we for once look at the dispute at hand without having to resort to attacks? (Yes, I have copypasted the exact same comment I made above.) –MuZemike 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Calling a spade a spade. And it also looks as if the editor in question was singled out, which is every bit as insidious as deletionism. Tbhotch, in particular, orders the user (with no authority to do so) not to upload pictures of his cats, despite the fact that most of the pictures in that article were personal snapshots of their cats. He goes on to refer to a "stupid" picture. A personal attack. If they weren't singling out the editor, they were certainly doing a good imitation of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
            • "Comment on content, not contributors". The content was at issue. Besides, Commons is always open and additions should be discussed at the talk page (if contested) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
            • As I've now mentioned above, there's absolutely no reason to delve into conspiracy theories about singling anyone out. It's perfectly normal when someone adds more junk to an article that is already full of junk someone else will remove/revert said recently added junk but can't be bothered removing the existing junk at that time. This is perfectly justified per policy and there is no requirement that a user has to clear out any existing junk before reverting any recently added junk. Just allowing more junk into an article because it is already full of junk is an inherently bad idea and it's likely one of the reasons it got so full of junk is people were initially to willing to let non-useful content be added. I haven't checked the discussion but even if things got a little heated it doesn't indicate there was any singling out. People do get frustrated when someone keeps adding junk against multiple other editors despite multiple requests not to and modifies their comments to boot. Perhaps part of the problem was the way the other editors handled it caused ill feeling from the beginning which is unfortunate but I can understand frustration if you're dealing with an article which people keep adding unwanted pictures of their own pets. Note that although most of the pictures in the article may be of the uploader's cats, the issue of dispute here is adding them to the article. And I think it's perfectly resonable that people defer to the opinions of others on whether their images belong in an article which sometimes may including asking in the talk page rather then adding them yourself, even more so if the images are of something they feel strongly about like their pets (or penis where I believe they often have similar issues). In other words WP:COI does come in to it. Of course if you do actually have some evidence anyone was singled out, you're welcome to provide it but from what you've said so far, it seems you think if someone happens to notice a recent addition is unhelpful or wanted but fails to remove other existing problems in an article they're somehow singling the editor out which as I've said is just silly. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To Basebull bugs: I've never "ordered" anyone to not upload images, never. People has free will, who am I to told people to do not upload pictures of their cats? No one. On the other hand, I told him to not add images of his pet on this kind of articles. This is promotion and Wikipedia is not a collector of images. Also, there is a note about the main image: "There has been extensive discussion about the choice of image in this infobox. Before replacing this image with something else, consider if it actually improves on the ENCYCLOPEDIC CRITERIA which led to this choice. See Talk:Cat and Talk:Cat/Lead photo and if in doubt, DISCUSS IT FIRST!", due many people had been uploading their own cat images. Bugs I am asking you this once: stop comentin on me'. Just because I lost my Miss Congeniality Award on a section above, you don't have the right of treat me like a vandal, nor defame me putting words I've never said. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 17:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Do not add your cats"[2] sure sounds to me like an order, not a request. Now, if you want to do something actually useful with that page, as opposed to what you've done so far, then you should lop off about half the images, as the page takes quite awhile to load - with or without the "stupid" picture that you and your deletionist pals singled out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

And again I see no one ordering other people to not upload pictures. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 19:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Now you're splitting cat hairs. In any case, you issued an order that you had no right to issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack.... I felt I was being attacked as I had posted two images, one to cat, and the other to depth of field. After one mod removing the image from cat, they then proceeded to follow me to depth of field and remove that too, I can understand the cat article to an extent but I think the depth of field is a perfectly resonable image to use. I resent being followed around, and then just because someone with more power doesn't like it, decides to get me blocked for 12 hours. I class that as an attack. Thank you.Jamesington (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Jamesington

The only issue with the depth-of-field picture is that it had already been illustrated, so it didn't add any new information. However, the other editor calling the other picture "stupid" was a personal attack, whether he sees it that way or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the current picture (the one of a child) does not illustrate well enough. It is also is badly lit. As i have previously mentioned, my picture shows other objects that are still recognisable as points of reference. I think the picture should be in there. That other picture hurts my eyes, it also looks like it has been edited, and a blurring tool has been clicked once over the back many times. Can things not be replaced here? Jamesington (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC) jamesington

I don’t see a problem with replacing an image in Depth of field (we have some that need replacing or removal), but is it asking too much to request that a brief case be made for doing so rather than edit warring? I agree that some of the edit summaries for the reverts were a bit cryptic (and perhaps confrontational), but some of your summaries were no different. Again, I would suggest raising the issue on Talk:Depth of field. JeffConrad (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Depth of field is now full-protected for 3 days. However, I think I should be kicking myself right now for not blocking instead, but seeing that Jamesington already got a block, if I block everyone except him, then that would not be fair. –MuZemike 21:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You could give the edit warriors that same 12 hours apiece. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that I would have to block Jamesington a second time, which I don't think it's fair for him, having coming off a block already. –MuZemike 22:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

No, he already got blocked for the edit war. You could block the Gang of 4 for that same edit war, where they were fighting against a free image and taking shots at its uploader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page, User talk:MuZemike I appreciate your effort to avoid an edit war, but is it really necessary to protect the page because of one disruptive editor? I think a glance at User:Jamesington’s Talk page and edit comments makes pretty clear where the problem lies—this editor insists on making non-consensus edits but refuses to discuss them. I inadvertently contributed to the appearance of an edit war by reverting MarnetteD without checking the edit history carefully enough; some of the edit messages could have been better, but at least the reverts (save the one I botched) of the image replacement were good-faith attempts to protect the article, and most asked Jamesington to discuss the issue. It’s tough to deal with an editor who refuses to discuss a dispute. JeffConrad (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Especially given the hypocrisy of the Gang of 4, who targeted that one image while doing nothing about equally useless images that still weigh down the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hate to play Devil's Advocate, but what is this, Communist China? The Great Wikipedian Cultural Revolution? –MuZemike 23:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to know why they targeted that one image. It's not the greatest image, but it's not the worst either, and there are several on that slugglishly-loading page that are just as "useless" and need to be removed. Oh, but the page is protected, gee, I forgot. And what are the odds anyone will bother deleting the other junk images on that page once the protected expires? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In Depth of field, the principal contributors agreed long ago that we had far too many images, and even deleted some images that we had. This article still seems to attract too many images, especially soft-focus, and if we just kept them all we’d have nothing but an image gallery (and not necessarily a good one). I concede that we may have gotten a bit lax on weeding out (I agree about the image of the child, and perhaps a few others as well), but sometimes playing cop gets frustrating. In my opinion, the current cat image is superior, mainly because of the lighting; accordingly, the case for replacing it should be made. I think the sluggish load is due as much to the article’s length as to the number of images, and yes, I agree that some trimming is in order. But the caustic comments here are not helpful. JeffConrad (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the cat article that's the problem. The mass of images is causing the page to load like a snail stuck in traffic. And deleting one image did not fix that. Delete about half of them, and it might help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You could always try getting that ball rolling on the article talk page. If you can peel yourself away from ANI for thirty seconds, that is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're funny. Anyway, I've done as you suggested. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey fellow members of the Gang of 4; who is our next target for persecution? It needs to be really arbitrary, and reek of deletionism. Hit me up on the #CABAL channel. Jeesh. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there are thousands of other free photos you could attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The cat talk page is accumulating suggestions on improvements. There's no harm leaving the protection in place until it expires on Sunday. By then there should be pretty good consensus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I’ve made a few comments on Talk:Depth of field about how we might better manage that article’s image collection, and ask anyone else who is interested to add his or her thoughts. JeffConrad (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And now for the trouts

• WHACK!! for Jamesington. After being reverted the first time, your next port of call should have been the article's talk page. It's BRD, not "BRBRBRBRBR"
• WHACK!! for Tbhotch for undoing the first edit without using an edit summary.
• WHACK!! for Tbhotch for failing to AGF by throwing around the words "disruptive" and "stupid cat" in edit summaries.
• WHACK!! for Jamesington for failing to AGF by using the term "wikipedia police" when reverting the only editor with a good explanation in his edit summary for his actions.
• Summary. I generally agree that the Cat article probably has too many pictures and the ones used should be relevant to the text. A picture of a cat yawning might be relevant to "cat behavior" but that's stretching things a bit. However, that's an issue that should have been discussed on the article's talk page not in the edit summaries of an edit war. Jamesington, I would advise you to continue discussing this issue on the article's talk page and don't restore the yawning cat picture to the article unless there's a consensus for it and be willing to accept the possibility that the answer may be "no". Tbotch, I would be pissed too if my good faith attempts to improve an article were being described as "disruptive". It was just a picture of a yawning cat for deity's sake. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How about a whack to Baseball Bugs for the repeated attacks on his bugaboo, "deletionists"? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Be sure to keep that fish contained within a sock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Content from Ibn Ishaq being deleted by User:wiqi55, skewed article, fear of sources being abused

Note: The information i mentioned below may no longer make sense or be representative, as both me and the user i am in dispute with have made new edits to the article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Concern about ibn Ishaq

• Ibn Ishaq was the person who wrote the earliest surviving biography (sira) of Muhammad, it survives in the work of other authors. According to this , recently Muslim Apologists have been trying to defend the content of the sira or sometimes deny it.
• The article on ibn ishaq only has a criticism section, and i found it very biased against him.
• I added a "praise" section, but recently it has been removed by wiqi55, with excuses such as:

1. the praise needs to be an argument ,
2. my edit is misleading because he knows something not mentioned in article . Like for example, i mentioned here that, according to Ibn Khallikan , the scholar Az-Zuhri said: "Whoever wishes to know the (history of the Muslim conquests) let him take Ibn Ishak for guide", he says that, "most of your edits should be reverted. First, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri have praised Ibn Ishaq while he was one of his students, i.e., at a very young age. This is not representative of any of his much later works". so my edit should be reverted because its misleading. i told him that "If what your saying is true, how hard is it to give proof for it". Even if he is correct, does this justifying removing the praise section, as it is still praise?
3. "Your praise section is poor quality"
4. "Removed section full of WP:OR statements; some of it is not even praise. Also the Zuhri praise is now redundant. , so to address his problem that its not really "praise", i changed the title of the praise section to "Positive views of Ibn Ishaq".
5. "It doesn't because your translation is not reliable. Besides, you know nothing of Hadith studies so why are you writing about the subject? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Concern about misusing sources

I also fear that the user wiqi55 is becoming the next jagged85 , i would like someone to investigate his sources, he has been using the Encylopedia of Islam as a source, which i dont have access to, but he somehow does. I asked him here, how he knows what his source is saying, as he used it in many articles. He did not give me an answer, instead he said in his talk page "Besides, you lack any knowledge in Hadith studies, and you lack access to essential sources like EI2" , by EI2 , he means Encyclopaedia of Islam . I cant verify any of the information he added because he used that source ! Is there something on wikipedia i dont know about, i.e that a select group of wiki users have access to the Encyclopaedia of Islam? as it is not available online free --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Accusations by other users against him

here , he has been accused of falsifying quotes about Ibn Ishaq, using false quotes to justify his belief that Ibn Ishaq is discredited by the majority of muslims. He then later removed biased information from the Ibn Ishaq article --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I know why people remove stuff from their talk pages. This issue wasn't about Ibn Ishaq in any way, see [[3]]. My intervention there was per WP:BITE and WP:OR (someone was selectively quoting a primary source without secondary sources -- the problem is still there). It was partially resolved in the talk page. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments

First, I reverted your edits per WP:NOR.[4] You have since removed some of your original research, like this one [5], which made things a bit better. But you still left a quote with wikified links, which is not allowed. Second, as I explained to you with my first revert [6], this is NOT an issue of positive or negative views, this is a matter of reverting poor-quality original research. I've already explained some of my concerns in my talk page. You have quoted a translation that was produced in 1843 (very old primary source), and it does not match the original Arabic version I have, nor the views summarized in EI2. Then you started claiming that one section contradicts the other (even though it only contradicts your own misinterpretation of the text). I think you should not quote and use your own interpretations of medieval texts. I have given you valid reasons to improve what you're adding to the article, but you then started threatening me with coming to ANI. You seem to be eager to come here for some reason. And BTW, I recently re-wrote Prophetic biography, so even the sentences you're quoting about "Muslims and apologetics"; I actually wrote that one. :) That said, please stick to WP:NOR, and write about what you know, using secondary sources. Speaking of which, try to represent all views, as I've seen many of your "battle" articles and they all deserve an NPOV tag (for example, Talk:Demolition_of_Masjid_al-Dirar). You keep hiding and misrepresenting information all the time. It's funny that you're now accusing others of doing it. So we have a clear reason for revert here: WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. Plus this user has a history of POV editing. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not answered my concerns:

1. Will you again remove the praise/positive views section, because of the reasons i mentioned here. Or will you keep it.
2. Second, about the Encyclopaedia of Islam source, you still have not answered how you have access to it and know what it says, to be able to use it on wikipedia. I am suspicious that you are misusing the sources, like Jagged85, who had been adding FAKE positive content to Islam or Muslim related articles, and had been using sources which few people had access to, it was until later that people realised he was adding garbage to Wikipedia (i see parallels between him and you, using sources few people or no one has access to)
3. As for your accusation of my articles being un-neutral, each time people accused me of making an un-neutral article, i at least addressed their concerns (like the Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar article). It is expected that controversial articles which mention that Muhammad ordered burning of mosques or killing of enemies, will be labelled un-neutral, especially by muslims who view Muhammad highly and the many apologists on this website, and especially when their are many different views on the subject. like the ibn ishaq article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
4. I think another issue here is that you refuse to admit that there are alternate positive views on ibn ishaq, you probably think all muslims view ibn ishaq as untrustworthy, which is what you said here , for this belief (which is almost like a religious belief), you will not accept a praise section in that article, only criticism? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What's so hard about you following WP:NOR and citing secondary sources? If you're going to add the opinions of experts and secondary sources then go ahead (as I have explained to you many times). But if you insist on randomly quoting medieval texts (despite your lack knowledge of the subject) then it will be deleted (per WP:NOR). BTW, I have also deleted negative views of Ibn Ishaq where it did not seem notable enough for me to mention them without the necessary details. See, for example, [7]. In any case, you're currently filling many "battle articles" with your own interpretations of medieval texts and selective citing of secondary sources. You seem to be admitting now that most of your edits are inadvertently misusing sources (i.e. biased), that is, until someone notices (as you admit). These are bad editing practices. And, yes, I do have access to all the sources I cite. Your accusations are baseless. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, please stop switching the topic, you will find in almost all the battles articles i cited muslims sources such as the Sealed Nectar. now you are saying that the source "Translation of Ibn Khallkan" i added was a primary source? how is it a primary source? ok, let say it was a primary source, the sources you used are secondary sources, and they contradict the so called "primary source", so now which is more reliable, doesnt that call into question your secondary source? one source must be telling a lie, otherwise you must have abused the source you used. I also see the Ibn Khalikan source i used as a secondary source, as it cites earlier scholars --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Your battle articles are relevant knowing that you were once accused of removing/hiding Ibn ishaq name from your articles.[8] So it is obvious why I feel suspicious about you editing Ibn Ishaq. Also, most of these battle articles need to be rewritten with each piece of information referenced to the earliest source where it is found, not some modern sira books. And your source is a primary source in the sense that you do not know whether this 168-year-old translation is reliable or not; you don't know whether these scholars are referring to his hadith or sira (most likely hadith and NOT sira); you don't know whether the "trustworthy" is being used normally or part of a technical hadith terminology; you don't know whether his trustworthiness is conditioned or not; you don't know whether they are referring to him when he was young or not (like Zuhri); you don't know whether their views are actually their views or just Ibn Khalkaan's own interpretation/whitewashing; more importantly, you don't how to integrate their views with what is mentioned in the criticism section, etc. There are many more similar arguments. But it should be clear that you need better sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 21:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The person has said in his talk page that he made a mistake when he accused me of removing the ibn ishaq source, here . You really dont want a praise section for the ibn ishaq article, this is the issue, do you think that article would be balanced with only a criticism section!

• Re Encyclopaedia of Islam - a source does not have to be freely available online to be a verifiable source. Many many scholarly works are not available online - or not available online other than at some expense or of you belong to an academic institution. You only need to get to a decent library to check the use of this book. EI3 is now available online and has been published as a book so it is quite wrong to suggest this is a source few people have access to. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• My concern was how and if wiqi55 had access to EI to to able to use it on wiki, as i also wanted access to EI to verify his edits (i feared he did not have access to it and was just adding garbage to wikipedia without caring what the source says, like jagged85 had done before. P.S can you tell me where i can get access to EI3 or EI2 other than a library). Back to the topic. the ibn ishaq article has several problems, it has 2 contradictory sections and another problem is wiqi55 has been removing the "praise" section i added to balance the article ( i now renamed that section "positive views on ibn ishaq"), what is your view on this--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiqi55, I am still very curious to know as to how you have access to EI2, a $1000 book (are you part of an academy), did you buy it? you still have not answered that question, and i am only asking so to make sure you are not repeating what jagged85 did--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Misconception - this is absurd. There are second hand copies on Amazon for less than £100. Not chicken feed but not 1,000 dollars! If you think Wiqi55 is misquotong a book - go and look at the book. To come to ANI accusing another editor of misquoting a source and adding garbage on the grounds that you don't have access to the book is a gross breach of WP:NPA. Go and do your homework.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i apoligize if i sounded rude. But i would like my main concern looked at, that wiqi55 has been removing the praise/positive views on Ibn Ishaq. Is he right to do this and keep only a criticism section? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a "non-apology". I would like to be satisfied that you understand why you can't accuse other editors of misquoting major secondary sources simply because you don't have online access to it. It is a serious allegation, particulalry as you suggest more than once that he is another Jagged 85, a user who systematically falsfied sources over multiple articles. My understanding of the concerns from the talkpage is that you are using old primary sources selectively rather than modern secondary sources to which you do not appear to have access. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ermmmm...actually you should check yourself (i have used both)...and there isnt serveral primary sources, only 1 or 2. Anyway. I think i have addressed wiqi55 reasons for removing content from that article and have now added more secondary sources.

Again, my apologies for accusing wiqi55 of being another jagged85.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment): The same excuse was used before here, stating "I can not verify the soruce you added about jihadism and gallup, some days ago. i also very much doubt it mentions ANYTHING, about offensive jihad". Just for info that it's not new... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see the talk page of the Offensive Jihad article, user has been accused of twisting the lede to suite his own views, his edit that he mentions has already been reverted by doc tropics --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology Misconceptions2. Now ... if you want to challenge the use of a source in future, you need the source, or find another editor who has got the source and ask them to look it up. If there are issues about the interpretation or quality of sources - go to WP:RSN. If you come to ANI with unsubstantiated allegations you should consider WP:BOOMERANG first.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A user is hounding my edits, reverting them, and harassing me

After having a disagreement over the discography section of the AC/DC page[9], User:Bretonbanquet has consistently been reverting minor uncontroversial edits in the article's intro section.[10]. I think it is clear that he is harassing me over our previous disagreement, and if anyone else made such edits there would be no problems.Hoponpop69 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Relative 3RR NB post is archived here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Off2riorob for notifying me of this, since Hoponpop69 didn't think it was necessary, apparently. I refute any accusation of "cyberstalking". Firstly, the disagreement we had over the AC/DC discography - Hoponpop69 removed an album from the discography that had been there for over 8 years, and I objected. After a bit of reverting, I started the discussion that he should have started, during which several editors disagreed with him. He called me and other editors foolish,[11] dense and lacking in intellect.[12] That discussion resulted in the album being reinstated to the discography, an action which was undertaken by other editors. Therefore I have no problem whatsoever with him over this, since his problematic edit was nullified via the proper channels.

The other issue of the intro section is a similar thing. He removed some information from the intro section which he believed was unnecessary.[13] I disagreed,[14], but he reverted back. Another editor reverted Hoponpop69 [15], only for Hoponpop69 to revert again, and there was some further minor edit-warring. Hoponpop69 has openly admitted that he refuses to discuss this,[16] and ignored my attempts on his talk page to discuss the issue in the proper way. The article is now protected, and I asked again for a discussion over the edit he made,[17] which he has construed as harassment.[18] This is a featured article, and changes which anyone disagrees with should be discussed. I have not encountered Hoponpop69 on any other article anywhere else, and have never reverted him over any matter outside these two I have mentioned. So where is this cyberstalking? He made two edits I disagreed with, which apparently constitutes harassment. He has made other edits to AC/DC that I have no problem with. He seems to think that because he believes an edit to be uncontroversial and "common sense", then everyone else should too, and requests for discussion are nothing but harassment. This is a waste of everyone's time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(involved in the now-resolved discography issue) I agree with Bretonbanquet that there is no stalking here. Recommend closure of thread since there is no action to be taken.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Having been involved in the relevant discussion concerning the article in question, I can vouch for this not being a personal issue. It spans a grand total of one article, and has been limited simply to the restoration of content that's being removed, not to complete disregard for any edits. GRAPPLE X 11:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed title; the term stalking should be used with caution as there are other connotations (which is why it is no longer used in policy. I've modified "cyberstalking" to "hounding" for clarity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For further clarity, I refute any notion of hounding as well, as explained above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyber-bullying at John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley

• John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wormeatingforbears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This BLP article has been discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It appears that Wormeatingforbears (talk · contribs) insists on inserting assertions about the Viscount's son. The edit summaries make it clear that the user is intent on harassment, and even the user name appears to be some kind of pejorative allusion. I suggest that they are not here for any constructive purpose. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for asking the obvious, but why don't I see a series of warning templates and a simple referral to AIV for vandalism or a report of a vandalism-only account? I mean, this account seems eminently blockable as a VOA... Drmies (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm not an expert on the matters. It seems to me a problem, with a real-life aspect, that needs quick and effective resolution by an admin and I couldn't think of a better way of getting it than here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither am I, but it doesn't take a royalty wizard to see that Worm is up to no good. AIV is usually faster than this board. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've given them a final warning for unacceptable BLP violations. The SPI case seems inconclusive, BTW. Considering that this vandalism has been going on for a while I will semi-protect the article. As for Worm and their pals, let's await the close of the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarbieHencock. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Should we use RevDel at all? Some of that is pretty nasty stuff about someone who is presumably a child. Fences&Windows 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely RevDel, the accusations are against a 15/16-year-old. Even if he wasn't a minor, it's still offensive and on a BLP page. GiantSnowman 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's an unsavory history. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

So much that I have suppressed it, per potential libel rationale, after indef blocking the account. I concur with the page protection, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed a few more, with a different but equally offensive/BLPviolation content. Please have a look and see if you concur, or if more needs to be removed. Thank you, and thanks to Fences, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Dolovis and mass creation of BLPs

About a month ago, Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned about the non-usefulness and BLP implications of creating hundreds of one-line stubs for (often marginally notable) living ice hockey players. As a result, the user lost his autopatrolled rights and some of the articles were deleted and later restored. In the past few weeks, Dolovis has created a few hundred more in the same copy-paste style (such as Petr Mocek and Marek Drtina). The created articles are still nearly identical, make no attempt to summarize the subject's career and have the same database website as the only source. Several users have raised the same concerns again on Dolovis's talk page, and on Talk:HC Litvínov.

It must also be mentioned that the stubs have one more thing in common; they are titled without the appropriate accent marks, which is not the usual practice with personal names that have not been anglicized (and is even against a consensus established at the WikiProject Ice Hockey). The creations follow an RFC and several move requests such as this (disclosure: I have opposed many of them) that Dolovis created earlier, expressing his/her disagreement with the use of diacritics. The user has also reverted others' page moves of his stubs citing WP:BRD. However, Dolovis states that the "creation of articles for Czech Extraliga players has nothing to do with the dios discussion."

Whether this is a case of living people being caught in a POINTy campaign or not, the matter needs to be resolved as Dolovis has still not addressed the BLP concerns and continues the creations, requesting that AFDs be created. This is not feasible due to the sheer volume of articles and because this is not a question of notability but of repeated poor-quality work on living people, so I'm bringing this here to get opinions from uninvolved editors. If there is agreement that these type of creations need to stop, some kind of topic ban may be necessary. I'd add that even the existing articles for European ice hockey people of no recent international interest don't seem to be very well watched, so I don't see how the mass creation of new sub-par stubs would improve the encyclopedia. The article on Pentti Matikainen remained vandalized for two and a half years until a Finnish newspaper ridiculed it: "Wikipedia shoves Pentti Matikainen". Prolog (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it's POINTy: the user simply disagrees that these stubs are useless, and of course that isn't helped by the likes of DGG encouraging him. Nevertheless, there's a difference between "useless" and "disruptive". If these articles are getting vandalised due to lack of attention, the real root cause would seem to be that the notability threshold for hockey biographies has been set too low to be be able to practically enforce BLP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have also advised him to complete at least some of the stubbs. We need articles on people who are certainly notable started. We also need them finished. When there is something controversial, there might well be an objection to stubbs. But for these there isn't , so calling them a BLP problem. And ues, he should use diacritics. But Wikipedia is known for the people willing to fix typographic errors of this sort. I'll take another look at the actual articles tonight. If they are getting substantially vandalised, which can happen with sports figures, that might indeed be a problem. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that they will be vandalised. They are too obscure. Most of these guys have never played outside of the Czech Republic, and this is an English language encyclopaedia. Except for the very small number of bilingual users that we, no-one will have heard of these guys, and certainly won't go looking for their articles to vandalise. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Dolovis. The tough thing about these mass article creations, is that they're being mass moved (via WP:HOCKEY's dios compromise) to diacritics titles now. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The creation of articles for Czech Extraliga players has nothing to do with the dios discussion, and the introduction of that red-herring into the discussion is regretful. The players' articles have been created because they are notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. End of story. Dolovis (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• The subjects of these article pass WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth. Dolovis hides behind wp:nhockey saying that the subjects are notable. However, wp:nhockey says that the subjects are "presumably notable", i.e. not certain but likely. Most of the subjects fail the other criteria spectacularly: all pass criterion 1, but almost all fail 2 through 7. Some of the subjects are truly notable, e.g. Michal Travnicek. But Dolovis didn't take any time to mention his AHL career, his international career, his three year suspension; that was done by a user that came across the merger discussion. Instead, Dolovis prefers to create a steady stream of poorly sourced, single sentence, cut-and-paste BLPs. Granted, some of these articles could become decent BLPs, but Dolovis point-blank refuses to expand them, while the vast majority will never be improvable. H's created an article on almost every player that played in the Czech league this year. Dolovis is more interested with this "articles created" count than he is with quality. I personally pleaded with him twice to expand these BLPs but he didn't. Even after the merger discussion was opened, and Dolovis had seen that three or four editors had raised concern, he carried on churning out this stub-spam. The hockey notability criteria needs to be rewritten. I'll ask a rhetorical question: How can someone that played a single match in Kazakhstan's top league be worthy of an article when some that has played 99 games in the AHL isn't? — Fly by Night (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If people want to change NHOCKEY, or other notability guideline, that's always a possible approach if there's consensus. I have no opinion on that sport specifically, but I've seen enough problematic athlete articles at PROD patrol that I tend to think that notability for athletes might be a little too broad. And there have been discussions at AfD where it has been accepted that for some very small countries the presumed equality of all countries does not apply (I think they were with respect to football.) DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Some background:

• Dolovis had previously been creating hockey player articles, but not at the same rate, and many of them did not have diacritics in their names which he could have stripped.
• On 17 May, Dolovis started a huge discussion at WT:ENGLISH#Use of diacritics in biographical article titles. The user got little support for the contention that we should strip all diacritics from titles, but the support that he did get was very vociferous and unrelenting – leading to a contentious situation.
• On 19 May, Dolovis notified more than 100 editors personally of that discussion. [19]
• Around that time, Dolovis was already moving articles from diacritics to non-diacritics versions.
• Around 2 June, Dolovis was engaged in a number of requested moves between diacritics and non-diacritics versions. Some of them had (or still have) no consensus, in some the diacritics version won.
• Oddly enough, on 5 June, Dolovis created a player article with Å in the title (but others with o or a instead of ö or ä). [20]
• On 6 June, Dolovis (who had twice been blocked for socking) creates an SPI case against two users who disagree with him about diacritics.
• Around 9 June his article creation activity increased (more than 20 articles, some Scandinavian ones correctly with diacritics, some Slavic ones without, and a number of articles where the question doesn't arise). 10 June: >30 articles. 11 June: 28 articles. 12 June: 14 articles.
• On 13 June he created only few new articles but reverted numerous "controversial" page moves back to non-diacritic versions.
• 14-17 June: roughly 30 articles created per day.

Apart from the mass creation of BLP stubs of little value, there is a general pattern here of trying to fight our current practice of using diacritics in titles (where appropriate) by fighting over individual articles. While there are only few users who feel strongly that diacritics should be removed, this is not the only user following this strategy, see e.g. Talk:Julia Görges.

The disconnect between our naming convention (WP:ENGLISH#Modified letters doesn't give very clear guidance either way) and our daily practice (diacritics are used unless there is clear evidence that the bearer has dropped them, as happens frequently when people move to the US) has led to an unstable situation that may soon erupt similar to the hyphen/n-dash thing. Hans Adler 15:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's funny that you mention the sock puppet issue. I remember a while ago that I brought the case of one of Wikipedia's top 10 most active users to this page. He was making one sentence articles about obscure places in Russia. All using article creation tools. After some theatrical performances a check-user stopped by to say that s/he'd blocked the user as a confirmed sock. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply Comment: The sock puppet allegation raised by Hans Adler was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that is why all of the blocked accounts (the alleged master and puppets) were all unblocked. Dolovis (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. [21] It's unfortunate that this was not logged in the SPI somehow. I should have checked the details before accusing you in this way. While there can never be certainty, your explanations sounded sufficiently convincing that I guess I would have unblocked you as well. I am striking my erroneous comment. Sorry for the mistake. Hans Adler 06:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Response by Dolovis: The players' articles have been created because they are notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. As the encyclopedia is a continuing project relying on the principle of communal sourcing, to start articles and hope others will finish them is acceptable procedure, and to demand that an editor who creates valid stub articles to change the way they work may be construed as a Wikipedia:No-edit order. Please know that hockey players who have played in the Czech Extraliga meet the first criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and are therefore presumed notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. The ice hockey project has delivered a clear consensus stating that playing just a single game in the Czech Extraliga is enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria, and yes, I fully expect that all of the articles are likely to be expanded. These ice hockey players are all notable professional athlete's who are playing at an elite level in a premier league. Any editor who feels otherwise has the right to follow the deletion process and nominate that article for deletion. It is also disturbing that in this instance new articles have been challenged very early (such as User:Fly by Night tagging articles for merge just 3 minutes from the article's creation[22]) before any editor could reasonably have had a chance to expand the stub articles. It would be very regrettable if the personal view of a few editors—totally unsupported by policy or consensus—that stubs are unhealthy, were permitted to affect Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I told you at talk:HC Litvínov. I tagged some articles so quickly because I'd seen all of the articles you had created the night before, e.g. Lukas Rindos on the New Pages list. I had been monitoring your stub-spam and edit history for the best part of a day. It was only when you started a new flurry that I decided to act. That's why some were tagged 3 minutes after creation, some 30 minutes after creation, and other 23 hours after creation. My edit history and your edit history tell the full story; so it's pointless cherry-picking examples. The merger guidelines say that "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Looking back at Dolovis's other creations, say for example Philip Kemi or Ziga Pance, we see that other than some BLPPROD's and general housekeeping (renaming, adding categories, page moves) the articles haven't been touched for more than six weeks. The same is true for almost all of his other stubs: they haven't been expended. As such it is unlikely that many of his stubs will be expanded within a reasonable amount of time; unless he does it himself which he refuses to do.— Fly by Night (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It was for the mass creation of these marginally notable players that I removed this user's WP:AUTPAT rights a while ago. I believed these needed to go through the usual WP:NPP process and had some concerns in general about this user's mass creation and contention over diacritical marks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Toddst1 has demonstrated a COI against me ever since I posted this message to his talk page. It was only after that posting that Toddst1 removed the auto-patrolled rights. Dolovis (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

So what do we do? Dolovis seems to be a loan voice. Seven or eight editors disagree with what he's doing, but he doesn't listen. Most of those seem to be admins too. It's clear that he has no interest in improving anything other than his "articles created" count. I suggested putting these players into Squad articles, and then branching out with solo articles if and when a subject becomes more noteworthy and interesting. All of the same information would be there for a user, the only problem is that his "article creation" count would suffer. I put it to him that that depends on which is most important (creation count or usefulness to users) and he didn't reply. Looking at the bigger picture, it seems that he wants to get as many articles as he can without accents so that that implies a consensus. So it's much worse than creating stub-spam with little regard for quality; it seems he's trying to push his agenda by building up a majority of articles without accents. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that anything needs to be done. From what I can see, Dolovis has created reliably sourced articles - albeit stubs - about many notable living people. There's nothing wrong with that. And if this is all a game to get as many articles as he can without accents so that that implies a consensus, I doubt he will be successful. Especially since all one would have to do is look at the history to see that all the articles without accents were created by him. And since anyone can just add the accents if they want and know how. Rlendog (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose a sanction such that Dolovis (talk · contribs) be placed on a new article parole where any new article relating to Hockey must have at least 3 WP:RS used as properly cited footnotes. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Then we'd get three different links to stat pages. Personally, I'd like to see him add just one non-trivial source in addition to the stat page. It isn't that hard to turn a microstub into a regular one with a few sentences. You know, something that actually benefits the reader. Resolute 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• All of his articles rely on Criterion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY, which is a very poor criterion. I would ask for the subjects to meet at least two criteria from WP:NHOCKEY, and have a paragraph each explaining how, why, and where. Or that the articles be worthwhile BLP's in their own right. If we just ask for one reliable, non-stat-page source then he'd probably quote some small town Czech newspaper: ex-plumber signs for local hockey team. In the mean time, we need to reform WP:NHOCKEY; like I said earlier, one game playing in a Kazakhstan league gets you an article, while 99 AHL games doesn't; even though most AHL players would be consistent MVP's, and hall-of-famers in the Kazakhstan league. But to be honest, I don't think anything will achieve what we really want. We want interesting, accurate, complete articles written for the good of the readership and for the good of Wikipedia'a reputation. I don't think we will ever get that from Dolovis. His repeated efforts to ignore, side-step, and wikilawyer his way out of fulfilling requests and heeding criticism have proven that beyond reasonable doubt. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Requiring a player to meet multiple criteria under WP:NHOCKEY doesn't make sense, especially if the player meets #1, the primary one, of playing in a premier professional league. A star player in the Extraliga may not have played enough minor league games to meet the minor league criteria, or be a first round draft pick in a North American league, or have played in an amateur league in a country without a professional league, since the Czech Republic has one, nor be in a Hall of Fame, because he is active. WP:NHOCKEY is actually very sensible, and there is good reason why players who meet even one of the criteria are presumed to be notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• No. If what he's doing is wrong, then it's just as wrong whether he does it once or a hundred times, and so the relevant policies ought to be updated to reflect that. Singling out one editor is not an effective solution. --causa sui (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  Speaking of policy, how does WP:BLPPROD fit into this? Can't you just BLPPROD all the articles and handle it that way? --causa sui (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No because a {{BLPPROD}} is for "any biography of a living person (BLP) which lacks at least one source." Dolovis always links to the same statistics site which gives the team's statistics for the season. So a BLPPROD is not applicable. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe this is an indication that BLPPROD in its current form is inadequate, and the bar should be raised? In any case, I stand by my original point. If existing means of handling this are inadequate, then we need to give ourselves the tools to handle this generally, not single out one editor like we're playing whack-a-mole. --causa sui (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• BLPPROD is a bright line, much like 3RR. It is perfectly possible to find exceptions to the spirit of BLP which "pass" BLPPRODUC just as it is possible to see clear edit warring which doesn't quite get to 3RR. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No. Wiki-policy states that Any registered editor may start a stub article. Contributors are Wikipedia's most valuable resource, and creating valid articles that can be expanded is an encouraged activity. The articles that I have created all conform to notability policy, verifiability policy, BLP policy, and stub policy. Editors cannot and should not be expected to create finished articles on the first draft. Many of the articles that I have created have been quickly and significantly expanded by both myself and others. Why should any one editor, who is editing within established policy, be singled out for sanctions? If there is to be any proposal for sanctions it should be a Wiki-wide policy that all editors must abide to. If there is a new consensus saying that BLP articles now need three sources, so be it; but to force one editor to edit to a higher standard than other editors is not fair or reasonable. Fly by Night's real concern seems to be with WP:NHOCKEY, and if he feels that Czech Extraliga hockey players should are not notable then he should raise that issue with the ice hockey project. Dolovis (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Please, don't put words in my mouth. My main concern is your mass produced stub-spam, and the way you wikilawyer, and hide behind wp:nhockey. If you refuse to stop then a change to wp:nhockey is the next best thing. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• No We already have a policy on how many reliable sources are required to create a valid BLP stub: one., not three. A suggestion that more might be needed is a proposal to change BLPPROD, not to mention WP:V. Does anyone really want to re-open BLPPROD? All good faith editors are equal, and the degree of evidence that lets you or me create an article lets anyone else do it also. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's not quite right. Editors who are acting in good faith are sanctioned all the time, as one's good faith does not have to be questioned for one's actions to be found to be unproductive. That we encourage everyone to create articles does not preclude our finding consensus that a given editor's actions are unproductive, and taking one single, short, statistical reference (a team sheet stat) and using it to create twenty BLPs is precisely the sort of thing that we could consider to be unproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • DGG, this thread isn't about BLPPROD. BLPPROD was suggested as a solution, but wasn't applicable. We're trying to find a way to stop Dolovis writing mass produced, poorly sourced, one sentence, BLP stubs that he refuses to update. Please take a look at Toddst1's proposal at the top. That was the real point of this thread, although we seem to have lost our way down side roads. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Agree to Toddst1's proposal; although it needs to be made water tight. Also propose review of WP:NHOCKEY so it can't be used to justify such junk. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy specifically for hockey? ROFLMAO :) Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst Dolovis creating microstubs does not appear to be against policy, he should be encouraged to try and create as complete an article as he can, even at the expense of slowing down the rate of creation. If the sources are available, it is quite possible to create an article that is near GA class from the start. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No Every person is expected to bring a different set of skills to Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, pretty much the whole thing, Dolovis has done less than nothing wrong here. He's added valuable content to Wikipedia. We should be thanking him for the time and effort he has put it to expanding the encyclopedia in appropriate ways, not looking to sanction him! --Jayron32 18:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I take you haven't looked at his 100+ stubs then?
    • I have looked at some, and I don't see anything wrong with the subjects of the articles. The number of stubs is not terribly concerning to me. That he leaves it to others to expand them is also not a concern, Wikipedia:Editing policy specifically encourages people to leave for other jobs they are not good at themselves. --Jayron32 20:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
      • So you will have seen that there are dozens of BLP stubs that have not been touched for six weeks. You will also see that the WP:MERGE criteria says that short articles that won't be expanded in a reasonable amount of time should be merged into a broader topic. The fact that almost none of these stubs ever get expanded means that down the line they should be merged. Given Dolovis's track record, these articles should not be made, because they will inevitably be due for merger. These players should be included into Squad Articles where the single sentence articles are condensed into something more interesting and valuable. Please take some time to do your research. Don't just look at a few. Look at his edit history over the last two months. All of the admin, and non-admin, objection hasn't appeared from no where. I raised concerns and many users came out to confess their problems. Once again, please do your research; then you'll see. Please don't skim read, do no research, and then just argue to save face. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

  I don't see the problem. If you think that many closely related articles should be merged into a larger article, whether or not the articles are new, there's nothing stopping you from doing that is there? Why do you see a need to stop someone else from editing as they want to edit? Is there any actual BLP related issues involved here, or is there just some nebulous fear that there might be some issue eventually?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I TRIED! I tagged 16 of them for merger and Dolovis objected. I asked him to expanded them, and he refused. Some other users arrived to voice their concern about his editing patterns, and then we all came here. Please read the whole discussion. This is becoming a farce. You're the second decent editor in a few hours that's made a comment that shows they haven't been following this discussion. Don't get me wrong, I know you're acting in good faith; it's just the thread's too long. No-one's bothering to read it all but they're still adding their (uninformed) opinion. Basically Dolovis was creating 20-30 one sentence, single source, BLPs, that scrape through WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth, each day. I suggested a merger per WP:MERGE -- please read rationale 3 -- (he has stubs from six weeks ago that haven't been touched, so it's reasonable to assume that none of the 100 new ones will). But he objected to the merge. He was asked to expand them and he refused. There's also an on-going problem about accents in people's names. It's possible that he is pumping out all of these BLPs, without accents, to push his point which goes against the consensus on the hockey project. So we're trying to find a way to get him to write decently sourced, worth while, informative BLPs that don't go against well established consensus. But whatever we do he hides behind the presumed notability of crietrion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY (even though they all fail the other criteria) and wikilawyers like hell.— Fly by Night (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• It's not "hiding" behind criterion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY. He is creating articles, albeit stubs, that can be reliably sourced to show that they meet Hockey's primary notability criterion. The accent issue is another matter, but anyone can add the accents, and anyone can expand the articles. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• WP:MERGE says "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Not that the page "should" be merged, only that it "often makes sense." In these cases, it probably doesn't make sense. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Right, just like WP:NHOCKEY does not say that people that pass criterion 1 are notable, but that they are presumed notable. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I really don't care about a user creating accurate stubs about subjects who appear to meet the notability guidelines, especially when all the substantive content of those stubs appears to be adequately sourced. We have truckloads of BLPs with grossly inadequate sourcing, and a Wikiproject with active members devoted to papering over sourcing problems by adding a trivial source or two to unsourced BLPs and moving on. We have hundreds of porn BLPs laced with kayfabe. Speaking of which, we have hundreds and hundreds of BLPs on performers in the wrestling industry which hopelessly conflate the performers and the fictional characters they portray in scripted entertainments, which we don't even acknowledge to be scripted entertainments. Then there are all the Bollywood/South Asian cinema related articles whos contributors don't seem to have read BLP, NPOV, RS, and V. As far as priorities go, dealing with the "problem" of accurate stubs about people who meet notability guidelines should be right down there with en-dashes versus hyphens. Humbug. Humbug, I say. Grumpy Old Man Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - If the players Dolovis is creating articles for meet even on criterion of WP:NHOCKEY, they are presumed notable and Dolovis is doing nothing wrong by creating these stubs. There will certainly be multiple reliable sources (at least in the form of stat sites) to back them up. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Related to this issue is that ‎Toddst1 has unilaterally revoked my Autopatrolled rights. While it does not make any difference to me, I do believe revoking my Autopatrolled rights has provided no benefit to Wikipedia, and just serves to needlessly increase the workload of new page patrollers. Dolovis (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It does allow new page patrollers however to catch the articles you put sources on that don't actually source what have stated they source which has happened on a number of occasions. It also allows them to catch the ones you weren't even sourcing at all which you were doing for a considerable amount of time. Your revoked autopatrolled does you no harm and helps make sure your articles are of a decent standard. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Djsasso: Rubbish. I have never created a BLP stub without a source. Show us the articles you are referring to, and if not, then stop making stuff up. It's true the autopatroll does me no harm, it just needlessly increases the workload of the parollers. Dolovis (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't be that had to do at all. There were numerous ones that linked to pages that didn't exist, ones that linked to team rosters that players never played for. I fixed a number of them and you have been going through many of them stating things like fixing reference djsasso removed. So just look through your history. That will give you a few hundred that didn't have any. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't support the proposed sanction from Toddst1, but I do support revoking Autopatrolled. I'd suggest that we consider that as the solution to concerns about the prolific article stub creation, and consider it a fair compromise. -- Atama頭 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

He could have at least gotten an uninvolved party to make the change. That's rather poor behavior for an admin, to be revoking someones user rights while in the middle of a dispute with them.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fair to say that Toddst1 was involved, but that user access level can be granted or revoked at the discretion of any administrator so I don't think it's worth more than a trout. There seems ample justification for revoking it, it just would have been better if someone else had done it. -- Atama頭 19:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, exactly.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Several admins have voiced concern about the articles that Dolovis creates. Maybe the clicking of the button to remove autopatrolled rights was (necessarily) done by one user; there are many admins that agree with the decision and would have done exactly the same thing themselves. I think Dolovis has totally misunderstood the tone of this discussion. It seems that very few people want to impose restrictions on his editing and page creating, but that is a very different thing to them approving the mass manufacture of low quality BLP subs. The only way to describe his request for a return of autopatrolled rights is a bare faced cheek. Although there is no consensus to sanction Dolovis, there is a clear consensus that his actions fall short of what is expected and hoped for. Hopefully Dolovis will re-read what has been said and learn from that, and carry it forward with him in the future. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with your conclusions, for what (little) that's worth. Bringing up BLP as a boogie-boo is disingenuous, at best. Regardless, this little section has nothing to do with the issue that started this (User:Dolovis' article creation), it's about Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems you haven't followed the whole thread then. The admins were lining up to voice the discontent. It's not about Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins at all. The last three or four posts have been about that. This discussion has been open for almost a week. Granted, it's a very long discussion; but I recommend you read it all, and not just this subsection. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis, you have created BLPs without at least clearly marking your source (Evan Rankin). Your current fight against the personal names of Czechs and Slovaks has led to another problem: You are creating duplicate articles, and sometimes you are the creator of both. Your latest creation is Jiri Dolezal, but an article for the person already existed at Jiří Doležal. Others include Lukas Krenzelok (already at Lukáš Krenželok, fixed by Darwinek) and Tomas Rachunek (already at Tomáš Rachůnek, fixed now by me). Prolog (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This thread has become off-topic, but in reply to Prolog I will repeat what I said to Djsasso; I have never created a BLP stub without a source. And contrary to the POV of the pro-Dios crowd, I have no fight against the personal names of Czechs and Slovaks. I create articles pursuant to WP:Article titles, and fault for creating the duplicate articles must lie with the editor who created the earlier article using non-English letters in the title, contrary to WP:Commonname and WP:EN, and then failed to provided even a redirect using English letters - thereby rendering those articles invisible to this English editor. Dolovis (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor not creating the appropriate redirects in two of those three cases was you. And now that you are omitting diacritical marks in your titles, you are not creating redirects from the subjects' proper names (which are equally important). Before the unavoidable moves per standard practice, you need to create the redirects to get rid of misleading redlinks, even if it means (gasp!) finding out the actual names of the people you create articles about. Prolog (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving articles

He still is moving articles without requested move vote and without consensus (in a discution he has started). --86.61.34.51 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was a consensus, I'd say. And it was certainly against his view. No such user (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Back to his old tricks again

• Even after all of the criticism and concern that was raised, Dolovis has ignored everything that was said and has gone back to his old tricks again. Yet another one line, one reference, joke of a BLP. I don't think that his contempt for the community's wishes and the values of this project could be any clearer if he had tried. (Yes, the article has bee touched up slightly, but only after Dolovis wandered off and left it in the pathetic state I just linked to.) I hope all those people that !voted against sanctions, clearly without reading the whole discussion and without doing their research, are pleased with themselves. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I was the one who improved the Zach Phillips article, I think I have to say something. Between his last edit and my improvement, three minutes elapsed. I don't know if Dolovis intended on improving the article before I had or not, but perhaps that isn't the point. The fact is, it was improved. It was a collaborative effort, which what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Do I wish Dolovis started the article at the state it's at instead of what he started? Yes, it would have made my edits unnecessary. The J. T. Miller is another example. I don't know if he was rushing to get "something" out there first instead of taking the extra 3-5 minutes to put something better out there. Having said that, it seems all his articles for notable individuals, so I don't see that as an issue. From reading the above, there are questions of the length of the articles (several sentences can easily be condensed to one), the use of diacritics (which is a separate issue), lack of citations in these articles (which an external link section can easily be turned into a reference section), etc. As someone who has also created hundreds/thousands of articles, though not usually of players that haven't played in the NHL or similar "major" North American league, I don't see a huge issue here.Patken4 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Well done of finding and improving the article three minutes after Dolovis had finished editing. It was amazing that that Dolovis didn't try to make any edits while you were editing, and that there were no edit conflicts. From your recent edit history, you only ever seem to edit Ice Hockey articles; which implies that you're not a WP:NPP. Amazing that you found Dolovis's article three minutes after his last edit. I wonder why that was? I'd also be interested to know how you managed to find your way to this page to make your first contribution to this discussion when there has been no overt communication between you and Dolovis; in fact nothing on your talk page mentioning this discussion, and nothing on the article that you edited. If I weren't assuming good faith then I might be inclined to believe that you know one another in real life. I'm glad you're happy that he left the article as he did. I also assume you'll be happy to expand the 20 or 30 he made that day too?! — Fly by Night (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering I was following the NHL draft last night, it isn't all that "amazing" that I improved the articles. There were others who added to his articles as well, so I can't take all the credit. And since you bring up my recent contributions into this, you might notice that many of those hockey edits were last night. Prior to that, looks like I have some baseball, American football, stadium/arena/sports facility, basketball, soccer/footy, business, etc edits as well, so it is far from just ice hockey articles that I edit. As to how I found this discussion, you can assume whatever you want. Of course, there are other options out there if your goal is improve to the articles. For one, you can code a bot to flag any article he/she creates and give a one week period for him/her or another editor to improve the article to a point which you or others here accept. If after that period the article is not improved to your satisfaction, delete the article or move it to his/her userspace. Also, I've spot checked some articles at the 2011 NHL Entry Draft. Dolovis has created a decent percentage of these. Some of these creations are for players that don't currently meet NHOCKEY (I haven't checked GNG). I've started a discussion to see how best to deal with these articles. Feel free to participate. Patken4 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The original issue seemed to be related to Czech players who are obscure in English speaking countries. Zack Phillips was an NHL first round draft pick, who as a result easily meets WP:NHOCKEY, and is not obscure at all in English speaking countries. If Dolovis doesn't improve this article himself (and any like it), it will certainly be improved by others (myself included). Again, I do not see a problem with this creation. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• You appear to be obsessed with stopping Dolovis from editing. I'd suggest moving on to something else and simply ignoring him. There's a fairly significant history of the people who behave as you are here suffering the consequences that they're seeking to impose on others (see: WP:BOOMERANG). Start an RFC/U if you think that it's needed, but otherwise please drop the stick.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I am focused on stopping him, and others, from creating one line, cut-and-paste stubs which he, and others, refuse to improve. That's very different to being obsessed with stopping someone editing. I welcome thoughtful editors that listen the the views of the community with open arms. If Dolovis did what half a dozen people on this page have asked him to do then I would be amongst the first to thank him. The truth of the matter is that you don't know the full story, and you haven't tried to investigate the full story. Myself and may other people have raised the same issues, over and over again. I have asked him polity to expand the articles and he refuses. When I saw that he had carried on doing exactly the same after all of this discussion, all of the discussion on his talk page, and all of the discussion on the original article merge discussion, it proved his contempt for quality, hard work, and the views of his peers. I will concede that I have taken it personally, and allowed myself to become annoyed. I think you are right, maybe I should ignore him and his edits, and just let Wikipedia's well documented slip in the public's perception continue. The boomerang reference is very badly placed. My edit history and article creation log show that I practise what I preach. And the stick reference is equally as badly placed. I didn't start this discussion. Myself and three admins had discussed starting such a discussion. It's only the fact that the discussion got so long, and people started mentioning all sorts of unrelated topics (due to reading three posts and then chipping in) that it became untenable. I don't see what right you have to censor the expression of my thought in a topic opened by someone else, when I express a multilaterally supported point. I can see that the only people talking sense (Dolovis included) have left the discussion, so I will too; there's no sense to be had here. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued harrasment of User:Minorhistorian by User:Goldblooded

Simple really User:Goldblooded continues to place a nonsensical and abusive message on my talk page which I have removed several times here only to have it replaced, complete with some attempt at a threat:

"So there we go , case close and dont be a pathetic moron as to remove this for "Vandalism" or spam my wall with your blabble. And afterall it was YOU who posted it on my wall , so in other words Dont bother me again. Goldblooded (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)"

This user had placed a message on User:Dapi89's talk page, exacerbating an already tense situation:

Good call on the block, Dirk. Dapi89, you were repeatedly told that these images do need a fair-use rationale before inserting. You did not go on and place that, you choose to revert and revert. This is not the way forward. These images clearly fail WP:NFCC#10c - no rationale for this use. Not that a rationale would be enough - they also fail WP:NFCC#8 - they are here purely decorative. Please reconsider your edits. Thanks Goldblooded (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked Goldblooded on his talk page to refrain from doing this:

"The note that you have added to a somewhat unnecessary and gratuitous comment to Dapi89's talk page: ever consider that sticking your oar in does nothing but inflame an already undesirable situation, particularly when it had nothing to do with you in the first place? Minorhistorian (talk) 05:56, 23 June 20"

Which, I admit, was possibly a little strong: however I did not believe at the time that this user's intervention in a dispute was helpful or wise. Goldblooded removed this comment as "vandalism" and answered with this:

"In response to your post it was that Dapi was previously rude to me and he also vandalised my page so i thought i'd get my own back, Besides your not any better your sticking your nose into things that arent your business!" Goldblooded (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

For one thing "getting my own back" is a poor response in the first place - I have had lots of dealings over several years with Dapi89, I consider him to be a friend, and considered the matter of him retiring a matter of some importance. I also found Goldblooded's behaviour in this petty and offensive. Nothwitstanding this Goldblooded has continued to add repeated messages to my page and has added yet another message to Dapi89's page. I consider this behaviour to be childish in the extreme and ask that an administrator step in to deal with this.

Oh for crying out loud, Minorhistorian; Why ask me a question on my page and when i give you a reply you keep removing it from your page? If you dont want me to answer you , Dont ask me the questions then , and Dont post deogratory comments on my page either. Goldblooded (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to know why i posted that on Dapi's page it was because he was rude to me a while back but anyway , why are you so concerned that isnt even your business! Crying to the admins isnt going to do anything either , So if you dont mind im trying to add a new page to the site. Goldblooded (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So, Goldblooded has confirmed his "He was rude to me so I'm going to get my own back" attitude, which is unhelpful and childish: need I add more? Minorhistorian (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol. What are you talking about? Stop wasting my time im busy. Goldblooded (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• What, specifically, is requested of an admin in this situation? I can see a possible case for an interaction ban, but given how petty the back-and-forth appears just in this thread, I doubt there would be compliance. The best option would likely be taking this...well, for lack of a better word coming to mind, "disagreement"...to WP:RFC/U. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Well i was trying to cut ends loose by ending the dispute on Minorhistorians page , By which i answered his rather rudely presented question on my page so i gave him a reply and for some reason or another he kept removing it, whilst insulting me in the process. Goldblooded (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Ottoman Algeria related articles

Hello,

Two new users (probably sock-puppets) are making disruptive edits on Ottoman Algeria related articles [23][24].

This issue has been discussed before [25] ; it seems that this vandal wouldn't give up.

Thanks to intervene.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Duck-ho! Ready the cannon! To banning stations! Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

They're both blocked now for abusing multiple accounts (see User:FAIZGUEVARRA). I've rolled back their edits. Do we need to semi-protect even more of these articles? I hope not... Drmies (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Flinders--it's blocking stations. Sorry for being pedantic, Drmies (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Right right, though so long as the hammer is dropped and the revisionism is deleted. Imho, it depends on how persistant these guys are. They might either A, hopefully give up, or B, pull a SuperblySpiffingPerson and be at it for a whole month. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A rather troubled user

Rose Marie Aragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been around some time now but is not really helping. Most of her edits are unsourced and controversial. Really, I don't think she wants to discuss. I got into an edit war with her on Raymond v. Raymond. She discussed for a bit but all hell went loose because she somehow declared with an iron fist that consensus was reached but it didn't. Should we take any action? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 15:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say some mentoring or help with policy would be a great prescription in this case - the editor seems to be interested in contributing to Wikipedia, but there are a few kinks to be ironed out. I wouldn't support any drastic action such as a topic ban, though. m.o.p 15:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Gloria Hemingway

Resolved

 – Discussion now on article talk page. GiantSnowman 17:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I need help at this article - Gloria Hemingway determining the proper gender that should be used. The IP 204.51.84.210 (talk · contribs) is over the top already engaging in an edit war and I don't want to step over the line either, thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Should this person born Gregory - and the father of 8 children and the husband of 4 wives be called him or her? He or she?...Modernist (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The only admin involvement needed here is for the improper use of rollback by Modernist. -Atmoz (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the answer to the question - do you have an opinion?..Modernist (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Has had a male-female sex change and now identifies as a woman - so your answer is pretty obvious. GiantSnowman 17:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So she fathered 8 children is correct?..Modernist (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not the issue here, is it? FYI, you're edit warring on the Hemingway article, be very, very careful not to break 3RR. GiantSnowman 17:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am asking a question concerning the proper way to use gender in articles like this article and I am interested in the opinion of other editors, and when you say That's not the issue here, is it? frankly I disagree with your implication...Modernist (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Surely this is an issue for the article talk page, not here? GiantSnowman 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with that...Modernist (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

On the talk page we have this ambiguous link Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity, which is clearly open to interpretation - which has led to the dispute at the article...Modernist (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion started at Talk:Gloria Hemingway#Him or her, she or he. GiantSnowman 17:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an amiable solution will be forthcoming...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeated name calling, historical revisonism, and intentional misrepresentation of disagreeing users by Paul Siebert

Resolved

 – Report withdrawn Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Active discussion of WP:BOOMERANG's application to the complaining party

(complaint/report withdrawn)

The user Paul Siebert has been repeatedly engaging in intentional historical revisionism on Rape during the occupation of Germany and associated discussion pages. Such revisionism includes pro Russian/Communist denial of genocide, as well as Holocaust denial. He has also used name calling as a way of deliberately misconstruing anyone who disagrees with him as "racist" or "Nazi". He has also made comments in support of rapists.

Historical revisionism

Paul has repeatedly made pro Russian/Communist edits to Rape during the occupation of Germany to remove any information that portrays either unfavorably, regardless of whether such information is of neutral POV, or cited reliably as fact. Through discussions, he has also made clear his intention to portray the mass rape by the Russians as a German-Russian issue, focused on revenge, rather than as a mass rape and murder of defenseless occupied people by the Russians, which is supported by reliable sources. I provided numerous examples of mass rape and murder of Russians, Poles, Jews, and Germans persecuted by the Nazis.

Holocaust denial

After citing numerous sources (including The Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor and Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State episode six) about the mass rape of Jews, Poles, Russians, and Germans "liberated" from Nazi concentration camps by the Russians, Paul has engaged in numerous incidents of edit warring to remove such information. He has also engaged in arguments in which he openly denies that mass rape of Holocaust victims by the Russians occurred in any significant number of occasions, if at all.

Name calling

During many discussions, Paul has fallen back on a tactic of arbitrarily bringing up some accusation of racism or Nazism as a way of damaging the reputation of those who disagree with him. One example is when we were discussing the issue of genocide denial on Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany; without any racist comments, or anything that could have been reasonably interpreted as racist, Paul made the comment that attempts to portray rapes as genocide by some Germans were a manifestation of racism followed by please refrain from encouraging racism on WP talk pages. I had not made any sort of comment to imply racism, and have repeatedly emphasized anti Nazi views. In this incident, he was clearly attempting to deliberately and falsely portray me as racist to damage my credibility because I disagreed with him. I also went on to acknowledge that there were many Germans who held racist attitudes (viewing the rape as genocidal) toward the mass rape by the Russians, but that not everyone who views the rape as genocidal is racist, and that attempting to generalize everyone with a particular view was inappropriate and closer to the sort of behavior of the Nazis than simply claiming that mass rape is genocide.

In another incident, he referred to my insistence that five year old girls did not deserve to be raped based on the actions of other people thousands of miles away as Nazi aplogist BS, after I had expressed many anti Nazi opinions and it was clear to him that I am very anti Nazi.

Defense of rapists

Paul has also repeatedly emphasized that the rape of German women and young girls (not just of Nazis) is justified, or at least not that bad because of things that other people did thousands of miles away which caused the Russians to "suffer" "severe trauma" and made their rape of Germans, Jews, Poles, and Russians somehow less bad. He also has failed to address how the mass genocide of the Germans against the Russians mitigates the mass rape and murder by the Russians against Jews, Poles, Russians, and Germans persecuted by the Nazis (who were often found in concentration camps, and therefore known to the Russians to be victims of the Holocaust, and obviously not Nazis). Paul has repeatedly taken a sexist, victim blaming stance on the mass rape by the Russians. Under his view of rape, a boy who is abused by his father and commits several rapes is the victim and should not be punished harshly; this interpretation is taken from Paul's own statements, and I have also informed him that this is what he is saying when he expresses his attitudes toward the mass rape.

--Anonymiss Madchen 03:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymiss Madchen has a history of personal attacks. This appears to be a continuation of this history. Her recent edits [26] [27] [28] [29] have been soapboxing and argument from personal opinion. She has recently been warned in relation to NPA under DIGWUREN for soapboxing and personal attacks. She has not provided any diffs of the behaviour she alleges. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll not comment on the specific allegations here (a bit difficult, without any links), but I will draw readers' attention to this talk page dialogue during the occupation of Germany#Mentioning that Nazi women got what they deserved. I suspect that Anonymiss Madchen has little concept of how Wikipedia works, and is engaging in soapboxing as Fifelfoo suggests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• (2xec) I saw your note on Paul Siebert's talk page. The complaint you have outlined above is strong on rhetoric but somewhat weak on evidence (no diffs are provided). A look at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany suggests that there is a dispute here, which may easily WP:BOOMERANG back on you. Withdrawing this complaint can be done, I imagine, if you say so here explicitly. Forgiveness, that's an entirely different matter. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have followed the dispute involving Paul Siebert and Anonymiss Madchen and noticed her increasingly irrational and hostile attacks on him as well as irrational talk-page edits. In this discussion thread she is accusing another editor of holocaust denial against which she was warned. Could an administrator please block her. TFD (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup, WP:BOOMERANG time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the discussion in which Paul engages in name calling, the Nazi apologist BS accusation. The name calling occurs toward the end. This is completely uncalled for and unacceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Paul_Siebert#Something_you_might_be_interested_in_reading.

Drmies, I am aware of the uncivilized behavior that I did on the talk page of Rape during the occupation of Germany. I have gotten over that and I do not intend to return to it.

TFD, I am making a serious statement about Paul's behaior, and actually taking to explain objectively what he did; this is not name calling like you are trying to imply. Again, those irrational talk page edits are a thing of the past.

The other locations that Paul's offenses occur are here:

Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany

User talk:Anonymiss Madchen/Genocide Denial (Talk:Rape During the occupation of Germany)

I think that based on what has been discussed, that maybe I should drop the report and seek advice from an experienced user, to try to get help with dealing with the situation. I have this user, (Piotrus) who left a message on my talk page, or any of you.

--Anonymiss Madchen 04:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Based on this recent comment from Paul, "I am not sure that the vast majority of Germans knew about the Holocaust, I would say, the opposite was more correct.", I can see that I may have misinterpreted his actions before. I will withdraw my report, continue civilized discussions with Paul. I have been civilized, recently, though unfortunately not in old edits. I will also like to receive and accept help from any of you on how to handle disagreements, sililarly to how Piotrus did.

--Anonymiss Madchen 05:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is user harassment. Paul said "I am not sure..." at 02:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC). 40 minutes prior to this being filed. I'd like to see WP:BOOMERANG here. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean "user harrassment?" I was on the edge while I was writing this up, and as I was going over everything, and I just changed my mind. --Anonymiss Madchen 05:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Read WP:BOOMERANG. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I see. That stuff was already delt with. I don't see what it has to do with user harassment, unless you are trying to say that I only made this report to get back at Paul. I can assure you that I would not have taken the half hour out of my time, plus what time I have spent on it since, just for retaliation. After reviewing some things, I realized that I'm not in as much of a disagreement with Paul as I thought. I withdrew my complaint. --Anonymiss Madchen 05:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Its nice that you've withdrawn your complaint. We are dealing with your behaviour now. Such as maintaining two user subpages with titles that accuse another editor of serious behaviour, and lack any substantiation of the same: here "Mentioning that Nazi women got what they deserved" and here "Rape according to Paul Siebert". You created one of these at 05:20 UTC after withdrawing your report at 05:12 UTC. We are concerned with your habit of falsely accusing Paul Siebert. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
• Accusing a fellow editor of "Historical revisionism", "Holocaust denial", "Name calling" and "Defense of rapists" without proof are serious personal attacks. You have done this previously to Paul Siebert. This is a pattern of inappropriate conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• I deleted those two subpages; I thought that I was supposed to keep some sort of record of them. As for my behavior, it was already delt with. I will not make any more accusations against Paul. As for the proof, it was going to take time to go through and get specific incidents, and I'm not good with the technical wiki, stuff, so I didn't get it at the same time. I'm not going to get it now because I've with drawn the complaint. I also did give proof of the name calling. I probably shouldn't have brought this up. I promise, not one single accusation on Paul from here on. --Anonymiss Madchen 05:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to work with you and any other users to prove that I have changed, and to learn how to deal with conflict better. --Anonymiss Madchen 05:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of this, I think it's something I should do. I'll write a formal apology to the users I've affected, including what I've done wrong, and explain what I'll do and how I've reformed. Looking back, there was a lot of stuff I shouldn't have done, but still a lot of civility and cooperation; I don't what those parts to be ruined. --Anonymiss Madchen 06:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

I personally see no problems with Anonymiss Madchen's behaviour except one aspect, which seems to be totally overlooked here. I mean the edits like this. By doing this edit, AM replaced the number of rape victims from 1.4 millions to 3.4 millions, despite the fact that the source (which is freely available online) tells about 1.4 millions. Independently of her actual intents, this is a direct falsification, and it is a result of deep misunderstanding of WP policy by Anonymiss Madchen. By adding the figures or facts that are not supported by the cited sources Anonymiss Madchen undermines a credibility of Wikipedia, and such activity is profoundly disrupting. AM is engaged in such falsifications systematically (by the same edit she replaced "tens of thousands" with "hundreds of thousands", and "100,000" with "2 millions", despite the fact that the source states otherwise, another example is this), that AM arbitrarily changes the text of sources sentences (e.g. [30], from "ahistorical approach" to "historical approach"), and these are only the most recent examples. Importantly, the ANI report had been filed by her almost immediately after I warned everybody about inappropriateness of this behaviour [31] on the "Mass rapes..." talk page, which means that Anonymiss Madchen learned no lessons from this warning.
In connection to that I suggest that Anonymiss Madchen should be warned that from that moment on she is personally responsible for the veracity of the content she adds to Wikipedia, and that, taking into account her previous violations, she will be reported (and subsequently blocked) immediately after she added any factually incorrect information not found in the sources cited by her, or after she changed the properly cited content without making sure that the cited source supports the change. Taking into account that AM is de facto a SPA [32], her block hardly would have a negative impact on Wikipedia.
Again, I see no problem with the Anonymiss Madchen's behaviour towards me, however, I am deeply concerned about the way Anonymiss Madchen treats the facts and sources. And I still am not sure she has realised that this her approach is deeply flawed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Fish - help!

Resolved

WTF? do you see what I see... can't fix it Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback seems to have worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh -- I didn't expect the bot to be part of this. thanks. (Still curious how that could happen though...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the culprit was Citation bot 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but the version it modified on June 16th looks OK now too, so it was probably somebody screwing around with a template somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This template vandalism was the culprit. All I can say is expect much, much more of this disruption in the future. –MuZemike 08:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the only one, as there was a pornographic anime thing of some kind there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

[33] T. Canens (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag from Jews and the slave trade

Although another user and I both have been discussing why we feel the article isn't neutral, the POV tag was removed. [34] The argument for removal was (1) that you can't have a POV tag unless a specific issue is raised and (2) that nothing specific has been mentioned. However, Halaqah and I have both been mentioning specific issues for the last 3 days, for example:

1. Rather than saying in the article that scholars demonstrated that Jews did not dominate the slave trade ("refuting that thesis"), we should say that they dismissed NOI's thesis, asserting that Jews did not dominate the slave trade. 16:14 June 24th
2. ... despite being an article on a controversial issue, only the Jewish sources and cites are listed. 19:10 June 24th

This is baffling (if one assumes good faith), or vexing (if one thinks an admin can get away was blatantly ignoring the ongoing discussion of the article's neutrality issues.) I'd prefer to remain baffled, because it's much more pleasant. So please take a look at Jews and the slave trade and talk:Jews and the slave trade. Is there enough of a discussion, which is sufficiently specific, from enough different users, to justify keeping the POV dispute tag on the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:NPOVN or WP:DRN. Fences&Windows 21:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User:AccounttoSavetheHoneyBadger states intent to become autoconfirmed to cause disruption

User:AccounttoSavetheHoneyBadger states in their user page that the only purpose of their account is to edit the article honey badger, which is semi-protected, to add snakes to its diet. They clearly mention that as the account's sole purpose and that the only intention behind their contributions so far is to become auto-confirmed: "the page is semi-protected, and we must make 10 edits and 4 days without receiving a ban". XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC) (c) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Their other edits were all vandalism, so I've blocked them as a vandalism-only account. 28bytes (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The weird thing is that the article already includes the sentence "They kill and eat snakes...". Bizarre. Black Kite (t)

Michael Lissack article legal claims

Per Wikipedia:NLT which states, "Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" I am filing this report. Anon IP 209.203.10.194 has now raised an issue of libel and defamation in two separate diffs: [35] and [36]. Background: The Michael Lissack article has been changed by multiple anon IP's with the intent of changing the content away from what the cited sources say. I was alerted to the underlying article when an edit by an anon IP was tagged as, "Reverting an anti-vandal bot" with this diff [37] and cleaned up the article a bit. Attempted changes by different anon IPs here: [38], [39] and [40]. The BLP content was originally cited to multiple reliable sources [41] and [42]. Two of the anon IPs (82.210.99.54 and 209.203.10.194) claim to be the subject of the article in the edit notes [43] and in the content of an edit [44] yet are making changes which contradict the reliable sources cited based upon what appears to be either original research or WP:SYNTH. Since multiple anon IPs have claimed to be the subject of the article and claim that the article is not factual, I will entirely refrain from editing the content in question and leave it to admins to determine how best to proceed on the content of the article which currently does not appear to match the reliable sources cited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd usually have sympathy for people who make a decent case for being defamed on Wikipedia, would cut them some slack, and would not pretend to be competent to interpret the law. But, as I point out at BLPN, this guy didn't cop to something like a parking ticket, as he wants us to say. He pled guilty to a crime that could have carried a (short) jail term and was put on a sort of "probation" (I don't know if I'm using the legal term right, but it's roughly accurate) for a year. The New York Daily News said he "pleaded guilty yesterday [not current reference] in Manhattan Criminal Court to harassing four top executives." The New York Times reports he was barred from the securities business for five years in a settlement with the SEC, an event that seems to have been expunged from our article. I can't definitively answer the questions here, but this looks to me more like a guy who's pushing too hard to sanitize what's said about him than somebody's who's being victimized by WP editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If the IP is in fact Michael Lissack, he probably shouldn't even be editing that article, per WP:COI. There's a big difference between "making sure the information is correct" and "sanitizing the article". --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've pointed the IP to WP:BLPEDIT and advised them that if the continue to edit the page it will be semi-es.

In the interum, see how much of what has gone on is helpful and howmuch damaged the article.

- J Greb (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the folks above. I NEVER pled guilty to any kind of a crime NOR was I placed on any kind of probation. It is claims such as these which are NOT founded in fact which have led to the problem. I pled guilty to a civil violation -- I have provided the references for the same. As noted above I was sanctioned by the SEC I have ADDED that to the article with appropriate references. But please note it is DEFAMATORY to keep stating that someone pled guilty to a crime when they did no such thing. Michaellissack (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Michael Lissack

The passage in question currently reads, "Later in 1998, Lissack was arrested in New York on behalf of the Manhattan District Attorney's office. He was charged with using the Internet to harass executives at Smith Barney by posting messages that solicited phone calls to the company's headquarters and, in some instances, to the homes of executives. [13] He later pled guilty to the civil violation [14] of second degree harassment [15] and acknowledged that he sent phony harassing e-mail to Salomon Smith Barney employees.[16][17][18][19]" and a new user account named MichaelLissack has stated, "As requested by several editors I now have created an account so that I can be tracked by my name. Many thanks for the exchanges I believe the article now fairly depicits events without defaming me." in this diff [45]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like Michaellissack (talk · contribs) is WP:WIKILAWYERING by making a very fine distinction between a crime and a violation. Unfortunately, as I understand the law (disclaimer: I am not an attorney; my knowledge comes from several job-related blocks of instruction), "violations" are chargeable under criminal law, with the level of offense one step below that of "misdemeanor". Since it's a violation of criminal law, the correct term would indeed be "crime", as opposed to a violation of civil law, which would be a "tort", which would normally result in monetary forfeiture instead of incarceration or probation. With all that in mind, my 2p is that the article's phrasing was correct in stating Lissack pled guilty to a crime. I'm not sure how the concept of "pleading guilty to a civil violation" came about; that would be a question for an attorney admitted to practice in NY, since that's where the case arose. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the article to conform to the sources. I found no support for the so-called "civil violation", so I removed it. I also removed a blog source and a primary source that were both unnecessary to the reworded assertion (and not really helpful before I edited it). I have not seen a source that Lissack claims he provided that says something other than what the article now says. If Lissack has such a source, he should post it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Michaellissack

Bluntly:

The proper route for contesting the article and it's contents is at WP:BLPEDIT. It is not edit warring either through an IP or a registered account. It is not to creat an account so you can be tracked, you were making that easy while editing through the IP.

You are broaching WP:COI.

You are breaching WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE.

You are breaching WP:OWN.

You are breaching WP:BLP. (And you really should read all of that one.)

You are coming close to breaching WP:NLT.

Please step away from the article and follow the instruction under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Wikimedia Foundation resolution and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation.

If you continue on you current course, the article will be protected against IP editing and your registered account could be temporarily blocked from editing.

- J Greb (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I commented and offered some advice on BLPN. I think we've got something at the intersection of WP:BLP vs. WP:COI vs. WP:NLT vs. WP:BITE. You'd probably do the same if you were new to a site that you felt mischaracterized a run-in you had with the law. I see no evidence of bad faith here in the ordinary sense. He does seem to be going to town as it were on his own article now that he's figured out where the "edit" button is. Lissack may or may not have a good point that the article was misleading, and we can handle that courteously and properly as a content matter while holding firmly to our editing rules. If he's still not satisfied he can get a second look at WP:OTRS, right? Nothing to see here, although it may indeed need some administrative help to make sure the train stays on the track here. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting brave admin to close contentious RfC

Would an uninvolved admin review Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Requesting brave admin to close contentious RfC and close Talk:September 11 attacks#Moving on to a general consensus? From the AN discussion:

Can we have an admin (or experienced editor) close this RfC? Option 1 has already been implemented about a week ago and there's been no further edit-warring or even objections against option 1 since then. The main opponent of option 1 has seemed to have accepted that consensus has not gone his way. This RfC isn't as contentious as it was when I first posted this. Can someone please close it? I'm heavily involved so I don't want to do it myself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Lithuanian edit-warring

I hope there's an editor or two with some experience in a Lithuanian/Polish naming issue. By chance I came across this edit, where an editor adds a Polish name to an article on a Lithuanian town. It becomes clear pretty quickly that Keepweekmestary (talk · contribs) is duking it out with Xraig (talk · contribs), who's duking it out with another few editors including Angryplansss (talk · contribs), Agensaved (talk · contribs), Lefttheresomeshi (talk · contribs), and Enjoykeepsmeone (talk · contribs). The stench of socks is overwhelming here, no one is bothered with providing edit summaries or addressing matters on the talk page, and it's a mess. Keepweekmestary is at 3R on Labanoras (or may have crossed it while I'm typing this--if so I have no qualms about blocking them), but I think there's something bigger here than one or maybe two hardheaded editors. Your help is much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I see that HelloAnnyong has blocked an account (Weeksusuallllllll (talk · contribs)) that seems to be related. Hello, I'm about to call you up here. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Urgh. No one's done any laundry in a while, that's clear. Suggest a day's worth of full protection along with a full WP:SPI check. Once the quacking dies down, perhaps the principals will do what should be done and talk it out on the Discussion page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit of digging through Hello's activities brought this one forward, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weeksusuallllllll. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Full protected for a week. Drmies, why were you engaging in this edit war? Fences&Windows 20:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, one page protection won't do much... Fences&Windows 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted twice and then came here. That's not much of a war. The user in question has now reverted four times, and they received a 3R warning after the third time. You're right, protecting one page won't do much. You could have blocked the editor who reverted four times, of course. Or you could call them ducks and block them and the other ducks (and there is good evidence, considering the case of Weeksusualll. I think by coming here and not blocking anyone I did the proper thing. Fences, do you want me to proceed to the 3RR noticeboard? Drmies (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, why was I called here? I'm not really sure what you're asking for. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You blocked Weeksusuallllllll with the argument that they were socking (at the time I checked I don't think there was a link to the SPI). I had opened up a thread here on edits like the ones Weeksusuallllllll made. I thought that as the blocking admin and a known expert in socks you'd be interested. That's all. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Miacek, but I reckon that, yes, they'd want them checked too--I'd like that. Enjoykeepsmeone, Agensaved, Angryplansss, and Lefttheresomeshi are still at large. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, um.. I blocked that account per the checkuser findings. It was found that the account and its confirmed socks were  Unrelated to Jacurek - so I kept the listings separate. If you want us to run a CU on those other accounts, then we can do that - but this is the first I've heard of those. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the ec, Hello. Agensaved was mentioned in Miacek's note at the SPI; I assume that the others were included in the "to name just a few". Yes, I'd like them included. Should I add them at the SPI? 23:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, toss it on. (Unless a CU sees it here first...) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done. BTW, I went to ANI since I figured that these edits (after I saw the other, similar edits) were part of a pattern, some sock or other habitual editor/edit war, and I posted it here to draw on the collective knowledge of regulars. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is Jacurek (talk · contribs), a well-known long-term troublemaker who is already blocked for multiple issues, including the creation of sock farms to edit-war Polish exonymes into the opening sentence of multiple Lithuanian locations. He is now continuing his edit wars from a travelling circus and attacking those who report his socks, I added respective background information to the current SPI. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is here [46]. Basically, the whole issue Polish-Lithuanian naming has been a total mess for something like 4 years now and all attempts to resolve the situation have failed. In March Sandstein topic banned three users, two Lithuanian, one Polish, on the basis of this AE report [47]. Apparently, soon after, some of the involved users turned to sock puppeting to continue the edit warring.

Having observed this, frankly insanely dysfunctional, situation for some time, I'd venture that the problem will remain unsolved until the fundamental issue is addressed. But that'd be, like, you know, hard and stuff, and there's too many people making political capital out of this being a mess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Notzrim

This was posted on ANI twice before, about 6 and 10 days ago, and to be honest I do not in any way blame admins with sense for ignoring it. It's a trivial content dispute in a trivial dicdef article that has been built, against an admin (at the time) intervention out of a REDIRECT to Nazarenes, as a POVfork promoting the "pre-Christian Nazarenes" theory that has two main primary sources : the heresiology of a 4th Century bishop who wished to show that a "Nazarene" sect in his day was non-Christian, and a rabbinical History of Jesus of uncertain date. Most, if not all, mainstream secular/scholarly sources do not take these two relatively late sources as having much value in establishing possible lost usage of Nazarenos/Nazoraios/Notzri prior to "of Nazareth", however the view is apparently strongly held among some Syrian Malabar Nasrani in India, again apparently (?) as part of the claim to Jewish ethnic origin and the need to support endogamy in the Knanaya community and diaspora. I've tried adding scholarly refs to Notzrim only to have them "backfilled" by a cluster of IPs (by "backfill" e.g. writing the exact opposite of what 3 dictionaries say before the source refs). I personally am of the view that an AfD should go ahead, and the REDIRECT restored, plus academic sources salvaged into main article. However a concern would be that even if an AfD goes ahead, the IPs activity will continue trying to rewrite other articles. Advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How is this an issue for admins, instead of a content dispute? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello The Mark of the Beast. Well it isn't, as above "It's a trivial content dispute in a trivial dicdef article" aside for all the IP activity. I'm merely looking for advice that's all, if advice is available, and if not then no big deal. Two admins recommended ANI and RfC, RfC seems to be dead. Certainly could proceed to an AfD, for example, without bothering admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds like it would be disruption by IP's, especially if they (or it) were to gang up in order to create artificial "consensus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs. Now that you mention it, yes, the word "consensus" has been used quite a lot by the IPs. There's 1 core IP who has an objection on principle to registering (fair enough I guess) and has some edit history, mainly on related pages, wheras the other 1,2,3(?) seem to be simply moving around terminals travelling - though User_talk:149.254.218.241 did welcome himself by pasting a welcome template to his own User talk, so I left the ANI notice there. Is it (a) technically possible (b) appropriate/advisable, to get page protection so that only registered users can edit a specific article? And maintain the protection even if, post AfD, the result is to bring back the REDIRECT, given that there's no logical justification for having a separate POVfork article for the Hebrew spelling of a word which already has an English article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's demonstrable vandalism or contentiousness or edit-warring or other misbehavior by IP's and redlinks, and if it's mostly just this one article, you could try WP:RFPP and make your case for temporary semi-protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, did as you suggested; 2 weeks page protection was granted, notability tag and source refs restored, and autoconfirmed editors and admins returning. Many thanks for your directions. Subject closed, hopefully. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted protection of Buford Highway International Community

The editor Nyttend has protected Buford Highway International Community to prevent it from being a seperate article from Georgia State Route 13. I suppose he has done this because he thinks that the two are synonymous, but they are not. The international corridor is only present for a few miles of the roadway, with the vast majority of the roadway not being within the international community. He has refused to engage any other editors on the subject, has not made any entries on the discussion page, and has instead strong-armed the process and forced his view by protecting the page and re-directing it. This is not fair, nor is it accurate.--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• See also the related WP:AN discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Issue is simple: the OP keeps wanting a content fork, refusing to observe that the sources treat the topic very differently frmo how s/he sees it, and thus is highly displeased that the relevant guideline is being enforced. Please offer comments at "the related WP:AN discussion". Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 13 is a 50-mile-long highway, yet only 3-4 miles of it retains a status as an international community. Through this stretch, it has been designated by DeKalb County as an "international corridor community." Here is a source (notice the name is "Atlanta neighborhood guide", and it includes the neighborhood known as "Buford Highway"): http://clatl.com/neighborhood_guide/CL_neighborhoodGuide1.pdf --Mmann1988 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What new information would a separate article have? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't resolve content disputes here: the question is whether Nyttend should have protected the article if he was involved in the dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP raised the question as a content dispute disguised as a complaint about the admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the better question would be; was he involved in the dispute to such an extent that protecting the article was not appropriate? Monty₈₄₅ 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the standard is, but it would have to be awfully high, considering the history page for the Buford Highway International Community, seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buford_Highway_International_Community&action=history , the history page for Georgia State Route 13, seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_State_Route_13&action=history , and ESPECIALLY the history page for DeKalb County, seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:DeKalb_County,_Georgia&action=history , and the exchange between Nyttend and another user here: User talk:Keizers--Mmann1988 (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the outcome on this? Is this admin going to get away with being a dictator?

Lithuanian edit-warring

I hope there's an editor or two with some experience in a Lithuanian/Polish naming issue. By chance I came across this edit, where an editor adds a Polish name to an article on a Lithuanian town. It becomes clear pretty quickly that Keepweekmestary (talk · contribs) is duking it out with Xraig (talk · contribs), who's duking it out with another few editors including Angryplansss (talk · contribs), Agensaved (talk · contribs), Lefttheresomeshi (talk · contribs), and Enjoykeepsmeone (talk · contribs). The stench of socks is overwhelming here, no one is bothered with providing edit summaries or addressing matters on the talk page, and it's a mess. Keepweekmestary is at 3R on Labanoras (or may have crossed it while I'm typing this--if so I have no qualms about blocking them), but I think there's something bigger here than one or maybe two hardheaded editors. Your help is much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I see that HelloAnnyong has blocked an account (Weeksusuallllllll (talk · contribs)) that seems to be related. Hello, I'm about to call you up here. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Urgh. No one's done any laundry in a while, that's clear. Suggest a day's worth of full protection along with a full WP:SPI check. Once the quacking dies down, perhaps the principals will do what should be done and talk it out on the Discussion page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A bit of digging through Hello's activities brought this one forward, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weeksusuallllllll. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Full protected for a week. Drmies, why were you engaging in this edit war? Fences&Windows 20:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, one page protection won't do much... Fences&Windows 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted twice and then came here. That's not much of a war. The user in question has now reverted four times, and they received a 3R warning after the third time. You're right, protecting one page won't do much. You could have blocked the editor who reverted four times, of course. Or you could call them ducks and block them and the other ducks (and there is good evidence, considering the case of Weeksusualll. I think by coming here and not blocking anyone I did the proper thing. Fences, do you want me to proceed to the 3RR noticeboard? Drmies (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, why was I called here? I'm not really sure what you're asking for. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You blocked Weeksusuallllllll with the argument that they were socking (at the time I checked I don't think there was a link to the SPI). I had opened up a thread here on edits like the ones Weeksusuallllllll made. I thought that as the blocking admin and a known expert in socks you'd be interested. That's all. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Miacek, but I reckon that, yes, they'd want them checked too--I'd like that. Enjoykeepsmeone, Agensaved, Angryplansss, and Lefttheresomeshi are still at large. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, um.. I blocked that account per the checkuser findings. It was found that the account and its confirmed socks were  Unrelated to Jacurek - so I kept the listings separate. If you want us to run a CU on those other accounts, then we can do that - but this is the first I've heard of those. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the ec, Hello. Agensaved was mentioned in Miacek's note at the SPI; I assume that the others were included in the "to name just a few". Yes, I'd like them included. Should I add them at the SPI? 23:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, toss it on. (Unless a CU sees it here first...) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, done. BTW, I went to ANI since I figured that these edits (after I saw the other, similar edits) were part of a pattern, some sock or other habitual editor/edit war, and I posted it here to draw on the collective knowledge of regulars. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

This is Jacurek (talk · contribs), a well-known long-term troublemaker who is already blocked for multiple issues, including the creation of sock farms to edit-war Polish exonymes into the opening sentence of multiple Lithuanian locations. He is now continuing his edit wars from a travelling circus and attacking those who report his socks, I added respective background information to the current SPI. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The other side of the coin is here [48]. Basically, the whole issue Polish-Lithuanian naming has been a total mess for something like 4 years now and all attempts to resolve the situation have failed. In March Sandstein topic banned three users, two Lithuanian, one Polish, on the basis of this AE report [49]. Apparently, soon after, some of the involved users turned to sock puppeting to continue the edit warring.

Having observed this, frankly insanely dysfunctional, situation for some time, I'd venture that the problem will remain unsolved until the fundamental issue is addressed. But that'd be, like, you know, hard and stuff, and there's too many people making political capital out of this being a mess.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Notzrim

This was posted on ANI twice before, about 6 and 10 days ago, and to be honest I do not in any way blame admins with sense for ignoring it. It's a trivial content dispute in a trivial dicdef article that has been built, against an admin (at the time) intervention out of a REDIRECT to Nazarenes, as a POVfork promoting the "pre-Christian Nazarenes" theory that has two main primary sources : the heresiology of a 4th Century bishop who wished to show that a "Nazarene" sect in his day was non-Christian, and a rabbinical History of Jesus of uncertain date. Most, if not all, mainstream secular/scholarly sources do not take these two relatively late sources as having much value in establishing possible lost usage of Nazarenos/Nazoraios/Notzri prior to "of Nazareth", however the view is apparently strongly held among some Syrian Malabar Nasrani in India, again apparently (?) as part of the claim to Jewish ethnic origin and the need to support endogamy in the Knanaya community and diaspora. I've tried adding scholarly refs to Notzrim only to have them "backfilled" by a cluster of IPs (by "backfill" e.g. writing the exact opposite of what 3 dictionaries say before the source refs). I personally am of the view that an AfD should go ahead, and the REDIRECT restored, plus academic sources salvaged into main article. However a concern would be that even if an AfD goes ahead, the IPs activity will continue trying to rewrite other articles. Advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

How is this an issue for admins, instead of a content dispute? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello The Mark of the Beast. Well it isn't, as above "It's a trivial content dispute in a trivial dicdef article" aside for all the IP activity. I'm merely looking for advice that's all, if advice is available, and if not then no big deal. Two admins recommended ANI and RfC, RfC seems to be dead. Certainly could proceed to an AfD, for example, without bothering admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds like it would be disruption by IP's, especially if they (or it) were to gang up in order to create artificial "consensus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Baseball Bugs. Now that you mention it, yes, the word "consensus" has been used quite a lot by the IPs. There's 1 core IP who has an objection on principle to registering (fair enough I guess) and has some edit history, mainly on related pages, wheras the other 1,2,3(?) seem to be simply moving around terminals travelling - though User_talk:149.254.218.241 did welcome himself by pasting a welcome template to his own User talk, so I left the ANI notice there. Is it (a) technically possible (b) appropriate/advisable, to get page protection so that only registered users can edit a specific article? And maintain the protection even if, post AfD, the result is to bring back the REDIRECT, given that there's no logical justification for having a separate POVfork article for the Hebrew spelling of a word which already has an English article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's demonstrable vandalism or contentiousness or edit-warring or other misbehavior by IP's and redlinks, and if it's mostly just this one article, you could try WP:RFPP and make your case for temporary semi-protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, did as you suggested; 2 weeks page protection was granted, notability tag and source refs restored, and autoconfirmed editors and admins returning. Many thanks for your directions. Subject closed, hopefully. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Unwarranted protection of Buford Highway International Community

The editor Nyttend has protected Buford Highway International Community to prevent it from being a seperate article from Georgia State Route 13. I suppose he has done this because he thinks that the two are synonymous, but they are not. The international corridor is only present for a few miles of the roadway, with the vast majority of the roadway not being within the international community. He has refused to engage any other editors on the subject, has not made any entries on the discussion page, and has instead strong-armed the process and forced his view by protecting the page and re-directing it. This is not fair, nor is it accurate.--Mmann1988 (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• See also the related WP:AN discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Issue is simple: the OP keeps wanting a content fork, refusing to observe that the sources treat the topic very differently frmo how s/he sees it, and thus is highly displeased that the relevant guideline is being enforced. Please offer comments at "the related WP:AN discussion". Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 13 is a 50-mile-long highway, yet only 3-4 miles of it retains a status as an international community. Through this stretch, it has been designated by DeKalb County as an "international corridor community." Here is a source (notice the name is "Atlanta neighborhood guide", and it includes the neighborhood known as "Buford Highway"): http://clatl.com/neighborhood_guide/CL_neighborhoodGuide1.pdf --Mmann1988 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What new information would a separate article have? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't resolve content disputes here: the question is whether Nyttend should have protected the article if he was involved in the dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The OP raised the question as a content dispute disguised as a complaint about the admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the better question would be; was he involved in the dispute to such an extent that protecting the article was not appropriate? Monty₈₄₅ 04:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the standard is, but it would have to be awfully high, considering the history page for the Buford Highway International Community, seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buford_Highway_International_Community&action=history , the history page for Georgia State Route 13, seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgia_State_Route_13&action=history , and ESPECIALLY the history page for DeKalb County, seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:DeKalb_County,_Georgia&action=history , and the exchange between Nyttend and another user here: User talk:Keizers--Mmann1988 (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the outcome on this? Is this admin going to get away with being a dictator?

user:Gamaliel Adding highly contentious material to a BLP without consensus.

user:Gamaliel Has added some highly contentious material to Michele Bachmann over the past couple of days without consensus. The issue is currently under discussion for various issues including NPOV, Undue Weight, and BLP problems. The issue is from a 2006 account that at the time was eventually removed from the article for apparent BLP violations and being a minor issue. Recently due to the higher profile nature of Michele Bachmann a couple of left-leaning sites have gone through her history to bring up old issues, this being one of them. Given that Bachmann is now a national political figure it appears that this is being done for purely political reasons and is undue weight. This was a minor issue at the time and is no less so now. Additionally, there are some serious BLP issues as one section quotes Bachmann directly yet the quote can only be attributed to the two women she encounterd in a bathroom as their point of view of what happened. Additionally, Gamaliel should be reminded that there is no race to include information in a BLP. This is something that has not been in her article for at least 3 or 4 years, yet he seems hell bent on having it included right now without letting the natural discussion move forward. Most disturbing is that Gamaliel is an Admin and should be expected to uphold basic WP policies, especially when dealing with a BLP. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Arzel, for years, has been a contentious and offensive partisan ideological warrior. He has followed me and others from article to article and never, as far as I have witnessed, participated in any sort of congenial discussion or editing with any editor who has disagreed with him. His opening comment about this matter was to accuse me of a "hatchet job" and from there just more and more and more attacks and not a single effort to find common ground. I have researched this issue carefully and extensively, I have produced multiple local, national, and international sources, I have answered every objection including the inappropriate personal ones. I want nothing more than to discuss this issue on the talk page, but Arzel doesn't want to discuss this with me, he wants to use the talk page as a forum to attack me. I have no wish to nor do I see the need to seek consensus with someone whose idea of discussion and negotiation is personal attacks and accusations. When he wants to stop libeling me and edit warring, I'll gladly have a policy and content-based discussion with him. Until then, his "objections" are nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT and IHATEGAMALIEL. Gamaliel (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see on a quick read, the material Gamaliel inserted doesn't violate WP:BLP or WP:NPOV, since according to reliable, verifiable sources, the events occurred as described and are noteworthy, although at least one of those events should probably go into a "Controversy" section or similar. Whether they cross the WP:UNDUE line is a matter for discussion on the article Talk page; doubly so now that Bachmann has declared herself a candidate for the office of President of the United States. I think Arzel's complaint is likely to come back on him. Bringing Gamaliel's admin bit into the argument appears to be a red herring. I'd strongly suggest this be taken to WP:DRN, if not back to the article Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So adding highly contentious information about a living person from one point of view without including Bachmann's point of view at all is not a NPOV violation? Please explain to me how that works. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As I responded to you on the talk page, I feel I did represent Bachmann's point of view as best I could given that she does not seem to have spoken publicly about the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still a matter of WP:RS. Just because it conveys a less-than-flattering image of a person doesn't make it contentious. Had the material been published by, say, Democracy Now! or a similar clearly-biased source, I would have no compunction about seeing it removed. However, the stories came out in mainstream news outlets, and I see no reason to question the accuracy or reliability. As to Bachmann's refutation (or lack thereof), that's a matter for her press secretary to deal with, not Wikipedia. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just from a very brief look, my first impression is that the material is rather a bit of WP:UNDUE, but that's a content dispute best left for the talk page. And personally, I don't really want to get into those political discussions. (again). Didn't really see any attack by Arzel either, especially the "I HATE" part, but perhaps that was deleted. My view is to use caution in accusing someone of personal attacks, but I know some folks are more easily offended than others. Not sure there's anything to do here to be honest. Find consensus on the talk page maybe? — Ched :  ?  01:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

At least two personal attacks by him, including the "hatchet job" comment, have been deleted. Every comment from him is something about my "agenda", how I'm performing character assassination, etc., etc. This is pretty much par for the course from him, as if he's unable to discuss anything without violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK ... I agree that we shouldn't try to judge another person's motives here on WP. I suspect that we'll all see quite a bit of these types of disputes as we get ready to head into another election year in the US. I'd just like to mention that the last one, 08 and 09 escalated into a rather unpleasant mess that ended up at Arbcom with some rather un-enjoyable results for many of those participants. Having seen already one request (the santorum issue) there recently, I'd just suggest that it best to remain calm, and be respectful of all the editors here. — Ched :  ?  01:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like a content dispute. Anyone mind if I protect the article on a revision without the contended material and let them shoot it out on WP:DRN? -causa sui (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea ... but that's just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Gfoley4 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did it already. --causa sui (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Except he protected it WITH that contended material, contrary to what Causa sui was suggesting. And Gamaliel broke through to add an ironically-fitting "correct title" to the source: "From Tea Party kook to contender". No sirree, no bias in that source, nope. This being a BLP issue with the reliability of the source questionable, that segment ought to be removed until or if consensus can be reached. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is sub-trivial tabloid style material that really has no place in an encyclopedic article. Jimbo has weighed in on the talkpage and seems to have hit the nail on the head - "They are just weird little bits that happened to make the press somehow." - unprotect, remove the material and minnow the admin who protected the version with the disputed material in the article. Exxolon (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

One admin protecting another admin's questionable entries is not at all appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like the personal attack leveled by Gamaliel against me here edit removed immediately. I am seriously tired of his crap. Arzel (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal action by an editor purporting to represent Delta Kappa Epsilon

Resolved

 – User blocked for WP:NLT by 28bytes (talk · contribs). Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there will be legal action since I have reverted this person's repeated blanking of sourced material about his fraternity. I suggest that, per WP:NLT, he should not be allowed to edit while the possible legal action is outstanding or unresolved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked them and left a note on their talk page explaining why. 28bytes (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are all of these legal threats so ridiculous in both their wording and lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do with Bert Mizusawa prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review

• Missclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bert Mizusawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Missclark has been trying to get Bert Mizusawa undeleted / recreated for a few days, they have posted in WP:REFUND and that is still to be actioned (expect it is the wrong place as it was deleted after a AfD) in the mean time Bert Mizusawa prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review has been created. Can an administrator come to the editors help ? Mtking (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I've filed the DRV for her and tempundeleted the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Jetijonez

User:Jetijonez is continually attempting to add a fan-made SVG logo to the article Glenn Beck, which they designed and uploaded themselves. I have warned the user on their talk page about reverting my removal of the fan-made logo, which does not resemble the show's logo to begin with, but the user has consistently disregarded this, and readded the logo to the article. There seems to be some ownership issues on the user's part as well. Gage (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Fat&Happy is also restoring the image, so I'd recommend starting a conversation on the talk page. I will note that User:Jetijonez's edit summaries ("Vandlism. fixed!") are inappropriate as your removals are obviously not vandalism but a content dispute, so I will leave a note on Jetijonez's talk page to that effect. 28bytes (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, you (Gage) are currently at WP:3RR on that article, so keep in mind not to exceed that. 28bytes (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that. Gage (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The summary tag for that image indicates that the logo is owned by "News Corporation for Glenn Beck", and that the source is "News Corporation". What is the basis for the claim that this is a fan logo? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The official logo appears to be this. A version of that is already on Glenn Beck (TV program). There is no need for a fair-use logo on the article for Glenn Beck himself. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll will take this up with articles talk page, and go from there Jetijonez (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals

Enough. Nothing here indicates any bad faith in the nominations, and this ANI is being used as a platform to drag everyone in the discussion through the mud. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Related to the (now closed) discussion immediately above this, there has been a recent rash of synagogue deletion proposals, including a dozen or more today alone by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs). The latter, as has been pointed out on Basket of Puppies Talk: page, is problematic, particularly as there are a very small number of editors actually editing in this topic area, so the time and resources available to them for improving the articles is limited. I recognize that not all synagogues are notable; while I've written articles on many, I've also initiated deletion processes on over a dozen, but certainly not all in one day, or even one week. Also, Basket of Puppies has stated that he is an "ordained rabbi and ritually observant Jew", and I note that he has nominated only Reform and Conservative synagogue articles for deletion. A large number of selective deletion attempts is troubling. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I agree that it's unfortunate that a lot of potentially valid articles are being nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Israel Congregation (Beaufort, South Carolina) in particular) but I don't think there's any capacity for administrative intervention here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I looked at them, they look at least facially valid and I actually supported one. These need to be decided at the various AfD pages.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) BoP obviously thinks that the articles should go, hence why he PRODded them. If anyone is unsure/opposes, then contest and take to AfD, as suggested above. However, I would argue against the temptation to bundle, for obvious reasons. GiantSnowman 19:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Although to be fair to Jayjg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Hebrew Congregation was desperately sloppy at best. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 19:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Part of the solution is in the editors' own hands. The better an article that is written to start with, the easier it is to demonstrate notability and less likely it is to get PRODded or AfD'd. All editors should be encouraged to have a personal sandbox to work articles up in. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I do agree, but in his nomination statement, BoP said, "Non-notable religious organization." But by literally putting those three words – Cuban Hebrew Congregation – into either Google News or Google Books, he would have come up with hundreds of sources clearly demonstrating notability. So one must conclude that either (a) he did not bother to do even this most basic research before listing the page for deletion, or (b) he did this and went ahead with the deletion request despite knowing that it was unfounded. Neither scenario is impressive, although I do hope (a) was the case. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 19:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Then the authors of the articles should have absolutely no problem bullet proofing them against AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC) As I said, I absolutely agree. But that still doesn't excuse the making of such an obviously sloppy deletion request. On such a basis, it would be legitimate for the Crown Prosecution Service to put anyone on trial for any crime at random, because if the person was innocent then they'd have no trouble proving that. There's no point creating needless work for other people. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Or, BoP might have looked at the actual results of the GNews search, noticed how many of them were the "Religion Notes" section of the Miami Herald or coverage like "A $2400 watch and $240 were stolen from a purse while the owner attended a wedding ceremony at the Cuban Hebrew Congregation", and decided they weren't suitable for establishing notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC) So I wonder how it is that I was able to find sources establishing notability with a quick search when he wasn't? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 21:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Ah... remember the last time someone went on a streak of Prodding/AfDing articles? If editors want the article to be kept, improve the article and make impassioned defenses of the article. Sometimes you discover a single finger of ice sticking out of the water only to discover a huge iceburg underneath. I'm just as guilty when I went on a streak of prodding a series of football(soccer) BLPs that were either unreferenced or were so marginally referenced that they did not stand up to the specialty notability guideline. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Yep, and I CSDed/PRODded about two-dozen non-notable Serbian football clubs just this morning, after uncovering such an iceberg. GiantSnowman 20:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The hot air expended at BoP could have been more usefully directed to power the expansion of several of the articles that deserve it. The same could be said for the time of those complaining about him.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The rate at which they are nominated for deletion is problematic. Thoughtfulness is supposed to go into nominating an article for deletion. The community functions at an optimal pace, or at least within an optimal range of paces. No one is asking Basket of Puppies to go too slow. But what several editors are saying is that he is going too fast. Thoughtfulness is a good ingredient all around. Others are not able to respond to nominations for deletion that are coming on too rapidly. There are considerations that have to be weighed. Sometimes it is not clear whether an article should be deleted or not. I lean toward keeping most of these articles. That is the way I feel about most schools or yeshivahs too. I have trouble accepting the argument that an institution of learning or worship involving a community is non-notable. The nature of an institution of learning or worship, in my opinion, confers notability—at least in most instances. Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Whatever the merits of individual AFDs might be, the large number of poorly justified speedy nominations, which I contested quite a few of, wasn't appropriate. I also was troubled by the apparent selectivity of the proposals, but wasn't familiar enough with the general subject area to form a solid opinion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I think what is more of an issue for ANI to be discussing is whether the idea that BoP is nominating articles for deletion in a POV fashion (nominating only Reform and Conservative synagogues) holds any water. If it is such a pov action, then we have a problem. SilverserenC 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I disagree. Whether they are liberal, conservative, or in-between—the bigger problem is the rate at which they are being nominated. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I agree that it is can be much more time consuming to research and source articles when many are nominated. Bummer too when off-wiki sources are needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC) If the AfDs in question generally result in deletion, I'm not troubled by the fact that the editor(s) singled out for deletion Jewish houses of worship. If, on the other hand, the AfDs in question do not result in deletion, IMHO we certainly have a problem. Can someone perhaps list them here, so we all can take a look? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Can we wait for BOP's response before jumping to conclusions please? GiantSnowman 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Of course. But that's no reason to prevent an editor from listing the AfDs in question, so we can all take a look at them. As we await BOP's response.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC) <ec>In general I'd suggest it is best for the encyclopedia to not have large nominations of articles in the same area come quickly. We want people to have a chance to find sources and ideally source the articles. If only a handful of editors are working in that area each topic won't get the look it deserves. I'd rather we delete only those where reasonable effort couldn't save them. I think it's reasonable to ask the nom to limit themselves to having no more than 5 or so active nominations of these articles at any given time. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure what the total number is, but perhaps an agreement could be reached at AfD to delay the closing of some of these nominations so people who work in that area aren't overwhelmed?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Undeletion is trivial. Notable pages will be restored in due time. Throttling good-faith AfDs is pointless. As for Silver Seren's suggestion that there could be something POV about nominating only one particular group's synagogues for deletion, that's neither here nor there. A long time ago I nominated a long run of Transformers-related cruft for deletion and it turned out that practically all of them were Decepticons. It doesn't mean I should have been stopped from trying to give Wikipedia a pro-Autobots bias. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC) The few times that I have tried to source synagogues and yeshivas I have found it hard to do. These can be very important institutions and yet have very few sources, available online at least. I feel that it is unrealistic to expect notability to be as easily established for religious institutions as for public and secular institutions. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Offline sources are more than fine, and AfDs run for at least 7 days, so that's plenty of time to show notability, should it continue that far. GiantSnowman 21:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC) One example that went past my watchlist was Temple Beth-El (Riverside, California) (Google-cached version here). I tried to find reliable sources that do more than mention the synagogue in passing but I failed. The best I could do was a Western states Jewish historical quarterly article from 1979 by Samuel Reznick titled "Early Jews of Riverside" in which he says that, of 450 Jewish families in the area, 250 were affiliated with Temple Beth-El, "the only Jewish congregation in the city." However, the article was not so much about the synagogue as it was about Jewish people. I agree with Bus stop that it can be very difficult to source articles about synagogues, and my position is that if no sources can be found, the article deserves deletion. Note that I did not try to stop the above article from being deleted. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Were most of these articles originated by the same person? I should also note that unsourced articles about religious institutions are a bad thing, they may impute to the organizations positions which they do not take, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I'm sure that these places are important to those that attend them, but I'm not sure that makes them notable in their own right. I photograph a lot of churches in the UK and France, mostly the fixtures, fittings, and architectural details. Nearby to them are village halls which probably have more attendances than the 11th or 12th century church, but one is highly unlikely to write an article about the village hall. Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't it the communities that belong to these institutions that are important, not the institutions themselves. John lilburne (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC) in response to GiantSnowman I have to say that offline sourcing is also likely to be more difficult for synagogues and yeshivas than for secular institutions. I should not have singled out "online" sources as I did above. I actually have never tried to source these religious institutions offline. I am merely reasoning that a great deal of coverage in print is unlikely to be found for even prominent synagogues and yeshivas used by very large numbers of people. Unlike Binksternet I reach the opposite conclusion. In my opinion, the fact of the existence of a substantial community institution in and of itself tends to confer notability on it. I think this applies to secular as well as religious institutions. These are extremely culturally significant no mater how one construes the word "cultural". I think Wehwalt is raising a "content" issue. Incorrect information in an article would be clearly a problem—not necessarily requiring deletion. Furthermore Wehwalt expresses concern that our article "may impute to the organizations positions which they do not take". These are religious institutions, and they are all Jewish religious institutions. As such any variance in positions taken are likely to be relatively minor. But any information in an article must be sourced; incorrect information is unacceptable. I don't think John lilburne's comparison is apt. He refers to "11th or 12th century" Churches while under discussion here are mostly contemporary and functioning synagogues. Yeshivas would certainly be functioning. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Nevertheless, a functional synagogue which no independent party has ever bothered writing about in any analytical or at least non-trivial manner is very much the proverbial tree falling in the forest. I'm sure our mothers all think we're very important people, and the Chatanooga 75th Scouts group are all very proud of it too, but if nobody else cares then these things are no more befitting an encylopdia than lists of local telephone numbers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Chris Cunningham—There are different standards of notability for different entities. I have tried to source yeshivas in Israel some time ago because they were nominated for deletion. A large structure existed. It was staffed by numerous instructors. There was a sizable student body. But information on it was scarce—online anyway. I doubt that much more was available offline. My argument is that institutions do not all need extensive sourcing. Notability is almost conferred on them by their existence. It takes a lot of money to build an institution. A lot of people have to participate in an institution to ensure its continued existence. This is evidence of its notability. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) That's certainly a valid position to hold, but it is contradicted by WP:N/WP:GROUP, which is the current consensus minimum-notability standard. You are proposing lowering the bar for religious organizations...take that up with the notability-guideline talk-pages and see if you can get consensus to change the guideline. In the mean time, we're stuck using the guidelines we have, which obviously results in deleting pages that don't meet the current minimum guideline standards. If the standards change to become more inclusive, trivial to retrieve the deleted pages at that time. Changing the standards is not a topic for this noticeboard. Alternately, you might be proposing to change the deletion process to be based on future possible changes to standards. I doubt that's going to get much traction, but you're free to argue it in general (it is something with administrative implications, but belongs on the main afd talkpage not here) or as your keep !vote on individual afd pages. DMacks (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I was juxtaposing the church with the community. I'd be hard pressed to find independent justification for the local village hall which will be of a early to mid 20th century build, or the local Catholic churches which may be mid 19th century (though some of those might be notable wrt the architect), or the non-conformist and the Methodist chapels. A few miles from me is an 11th century church in a tiny village, and although it is reputed to be the oldest in the county it is very low key, not even a grade I listing. My blog page for it gets more hits than any other, and from all over the world. It seems that surrounding that place is a very active and thriving community, but you'd search high and low to find any RS for it. It just isn't encyclopaedic. John lilburne (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Growing number of AfDs and Speedies It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the nominator seriously because he has made no effort to engage editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who would have the potential interest in working with him to resolve his concerns. Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72] (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs). How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC) There is an obvious way both to frustrate the nominator and improve the project, and it's been discussed at some length above. Source the articles and make it clear that they are notable. Win-win.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) I fail to understand how this is an issue for AN/I. All the nominations appear to be in good faith, as the state of the articles when nominated were poor, and notability was not presented clearly in any of them. I see that most are being kept rightly after a search for sources but some are not so clear cut. Isn't the proper response here to source the articles properly instead of moaning about the nominator? Either way, I fail to understand how this pertains to AN/I. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) It takes a certain number of minutes per article to evaluate and possibly source. Multiply that by the number of articles nominated and consider the scarcity of editors reviewing the nominations and the flaw becomes obvious. The same process at a slower pace might not be objectionable. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC) You have not addressed my question. How is that a problem relevant for AN/I? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Personally, I'd hope to see consensous that mass AfDs in a given area are a bad idea and have an admin attempt to throttle this. One could imagine nominating ever single article for deletion that has fewer than two sources. That would be disruptive. Where is the line for mass AfDs being more harmful than helpful? How relevant is it that the user seems to be ignoring WP:BEFORE? Consensus thus far seems to be that these aren't significant enough problems to require the throttling. But asking for help here isn't unreasonable--it's likely we are going to be deleting articles on notable places just because no one has time to source them before the deadline of 7 days... Hobit (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Plus one pony. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I was really hoping for a donkey. Hobit (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC) You assume that the sequence of events was "check article, start AFD, check article, start AFD" and so forth. Far simpler to check articles at leisure, make a list, check it twice, and nominate seriatim. By the way, do we have to keep referring to these as "Jewish synagogues"? Are there any other kinds of synagogue?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Without going into specifics (not my subject), I'd suggest that if articles are being created at a rate greater than they can be evaluated and sourced at, there is also a problem - arguably a more significant one. As has already been pointed out, a deleted article can be recreated, when sourcing is found - while a flood of unsourced articles of questionable notability is not really in anyone's interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Of course I agree with this 100%. That's why it is so infuriating to see people wasting their time complaining rather than simply doing the work to source the articles properly.Griswaldo (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I don't think any editor has alleged that "articles are being created at a rate greater than they can be evaluated and sourced at".[73] Bus stop (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I have a strong hunch that the nominator was inspired to visit and evaluate articles about synagogues after seeing AfD "keep" arguments (example here) along the lines of "Keep as there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States." It is easy to see why the WP:OTHERCRAP argument would cause people to go see what the rest of the "othercrap" looks like -- and seek to get rid of poor content that is creating a bad example for the creators of new pages. Concerted campaigns against "othercrap" can be stressful for the people who are generating that content that gets targeted, but it sometimes takes a campaign to get the attention of the users who are propagating the stuff. --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Getting back to what I think is the crux of the problem, it does appear that at least some of the nominations in this slew (I still have yet to see what all of them are) are nominations that the community has 100% rejected. See, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Hebrew Congregation (all 8 editors disagreeing with Basket), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida) (all 9 editors disagreeing with Basket). Quite oddly, editor ConcernedVancouverite has at precisely the same time been AFDing the same type of synagogue articles, at times with the same unanimous negative feedback, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey) (2nd nomination) (all 7 editors disagreeing with nom). It does appear that something is amiss here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Apologies as I'm in a rush - job interview - but is anyone please able to check to see if BoP has continued with his nominations after this ANI was raised? Thanks, GiantSnowman 07:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC) No, this ANI was posted about 20 minutes after he stopped editing (presumably for the night in whatever timezone). He's not returned since. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 07:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC) OK, many thanks. GiantSnowman 11:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Reply to everything above So I called it an early evening last night and this morning I arrive to the above. I'll be brief as possible. I only nominated congregations that I thought clearly were non-notable and unencyclopedic. I looked through every article in the Reform and Conservative categories and read them all before nominating anything. The super-vast-majority of the articles were clearly notable and the articles established just that through the use of reliable sources and verification. I realize that I am human and have likely nominated one or two articles in each category that would easily pass an AfD. Please understand that I am acting entirely without prejudice to any of the denominations or congregations and am acting entirely in good faith. In regards to the accusations above I can only say that they are without merit whatsoever. I feel that this ANI thread is entirely unnecessary and is the expression of some who feel I should either consult with them before taking any action on Judaism related articles (in clear violation of WP:OWN) or others who feel that I am nominating in a hurried and reckless manner. The former holds water and the latter holds none. I sincerely hope this ANI thread is quickly archived/collapsed/hatted so that editing can resume, articles that might survive the AfD process be improved and those that are not/cannot be deleted. Basket of Puppies 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I see some are responding. I reviewed two, concluded both should not be speedied, but the tag was gone by the time I was ready to edit.--SPhilbrickT 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism ? Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Right, but there is still no prohibition on editors nominating articles for deletion (even multiple articles) before running it by random Wikiprojects (which, it should be remembered, are strictly informal workgroups that don't have any actual juristiction on the area of their chosen subject matter). The onus is on WikiProjects to watch articles and improve them, and not on individual editors to "consult" with them before making edits in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC) I don't think the issue is solved yet. Basket of Puppies returned to Wikipedia, responded here, and immediately attempted to speedy 2 synagogue articles (Congregation Shomrei Emunah, Lincoln Park Jewish Center), and AfD a third (Shaarei Tefillah). Looking at the articles, it appears that these proposals are still being made without sufficient care or forethought. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I am giving a great deal of forethought and care as to the articles that I nominate for deletion. The two that you listed for CSD are examples of articles that do not assert notability, are bare bones are entirely unnotable. Please tell me what is notable about this article at the time that I nominated it for speedy deletion? It was one line long with no references whatsoever. Shomrei Emunah was slightly longer than LPJC but still made no claims of notability, had no references and did not pass the notability threshold in the slightest. Shaarei Tefillah, the congregation that I began an AfD on, is the poster child for WP:NOTINHERITED. The article even says that the only reason why it's on Wikipedia is because of the notable people who go there, which should probably be used as an example article for WP:NOTINHERITED. So, as you can see, I have given an entirely appropriate amount of forethought and careful consideration as to the articles that I am nominating for deletion. The accusations that I am failing to do so should immediately cease as they are entirely baseless. Will you agree with this, Jayjg? Basket of Puppies 05:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Hi Basket: By your own standards and methods would you say that these articles you have created (I found them posted on your user page and no doubt there are others that you created have these technical failings) should they not be AfDd because they look very weak to me and much less notable than many of the synagogues you are AfDing: You created (all stubs, but not marked as such): Yeshivat Ohr David [74], what's notable about it, with only one citation from an affiliated organization's website, and it's only an 8 line stub, not grown or improved since 2009? Academy for Jewish Religion (New York) [75], three-liner with one link to an article, not grown or improved since 2009. Academy for Jewish Religion (California) [76] a three liner with two weak links, since 2009. Yitzchak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life [77] a three liner not with real secondary sources since 2009. Someone was polite enough to ask you for more citations using a {{Notability}} template which you have not done for the synagogue articles. Personally I would never charge at these articles and try to mass delete them, rather I would call on you to improve them if I came across them, especially if I saw that you were still an active editor. Please try to understand me, I do not have any personal complaints against you but as a fellow editor I am pointing out that you cannot have two standards, one for topics that you seem to like and do not wish to delete and one for topics that you created and just let them exist because no one is bothering them. This is simply not consistent. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC) IZAK and violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been commenting and converting every single of the above listed AfDs into a battleground by copying the same exact (or extremely similar) statement onto every single AfD. This statement does not address the merits of the AfD in question but rather is a charge against me. Examples of this battleground statement: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (this is an incompletely list, but you get the idea). In these notes IZAK turns the AfD from a discussion as to the merits of the article into a rant against myself, including accusations of violating WP:EDITWARRING (I have not), WP:AGF violation (I have no idea how), WP:CONSENSUS violation (which is the point of an AfD- to determine consensus for the inclusion or deletion of an article). Additionally, IZAK has made "notes" in every single AfD by placing "notes" to alert everyone to this ANI thread 1 2 3. The inclusion of such "notes" and the long rant against myself in every AfD is a textbook example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND violation. While myself and other editors (whom I may disagree with) are discussing the issues in a civil manner, IZAK is turning the AfDs into a battle field in clear violation of policy. Basket of Puppies 05:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC) While that behaviour isn't really acceptable, I suppose you can take comfort from the realisation that there's nothing quite as likely to make a reasonable editor's (or closing admin's) eyes roll in an AfD than a copy-pasted, personal attack laden rant about deletionists. I know fish on a Friday is more of a Catholic thing, but obviously IZAK 's done himself no favours here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, many Jews have a tradition at Shabbat of both a meat course and a fish course. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I'm reminded of IZAK's pointy creation of the now deleted Economic history of the Muslims and Economic history of the Christians during the Noleander saga. The entire time IZAK maintained that it was not a WP:POINT violation, and that despite completely opposing Noleander's "Economic history of the Jews" his entries were justifiable. So there is a history of this kind of reactive disruption from IZAK. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC) There's nothing new here in that regard: I was just pointing out that the actions in question weren't likely to cause that much trouble when it came to the outcome of the AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Hi Griswaldo: Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Out of hundreds of AfD and CfDs that I have participated in or those that I have nominated in over eight years as an active WP editor, there have been near to zero complaints raised. My massive sum contribution to WP from its earliest days has been to help and improve WP which I should get credit for as well. Like everyone else I have some bad days, but mostly they are very good. Not a bad record for an active editor. As you should recall Noleander had unfortunately had a record of creating problematic articles relating to Jewish topics, and I had not met him until his article was posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism for attention of those interested in WP:JUDAISM, and it was not I that nominated it for deletion either, it was just too riddled with fallacies and prejudices and I voted to Delete it, that is not a crime or wrong. While on the other hand I did locate enough reasonable material to start two other articles but unfortunately they were caught in the cross-fire, so I let it go, but they can still be recreated if an editor wants to take on that complex task. I would not be opposed to any article that deals with Jews in a WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL manner that avoids WP:NOR. As for Chris Cunningham's observation from a long gone case in 2005, I was still relatively pretty new then, but there were real concerns about anti-Jewish bias from controversial User:Sam Spade who has long retired. 99.99% good work over 8+ years is more important than .01% mistakes. FYI, late June-July is going to be a very slow month for me, will probably be on WP:WIKIBREAK. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Response by IZAK Hi. 1 At no point whatsoever was any "personal attack" leveled by me at Basket of Puppies. He misconstrues my citing of WP policies within AfDs as being "personal" against him. And while he may disagree or think I am "wrong" but he has no "right" to spin the story and allege falsely that I have "attacked" him "personally" which I have not done and reject 100%. 2 BoP is in effect saying here that "he" is the "sole" interpreter of WP policies and if any user contradicts him then they are somehow guilty of "personal attacks" which is just absurd and false and a flawed lack of logic and playing with words (this is just a debate BoP it's not personal!) 3 Furthermore, it is very curious and dare I say self-contradictory that while User Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) pastes the exact same claims of "non notability" while nominating at least seven eight articles about synagogues for deletion and similarly uses one argument to apply for the speedy deletion of at least another fifteen seventeen synagogue articles (to date), see #Growing number of AfDs and Speedies, that he should then claim that I have the "temerity" to reply to his mass copy-and-paste deletionism with a counter-response that fits all of his AfDs and Speedies, and simply notes that and that there is also a wider debate going on right here at ANI above. 4 Another very odd thing is that Basket of Puppies was approached by a number of other concerned editors on his talk page to cool it, but instead he either totally ignored or rebuffed them refusing to engaged them in reasonable discussions per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, see: User talk:Basket of Puppies#Synagogue articles request by User JoshuaZ (talk · contribs) User talk:Basket of Puppies#Notice notice by User Jayjg (talk · contribs) User talk:Basket of Puppies#Article deletion rate by User Hobit (talk · contribs) 5 Not to mention the very detailed and still-ongoing responses and objections of many other users to BoP's spurt of anxiety-inducing deletionism to most Judaic editors. 6 The point is that every editor cares not just about specific articles that may sometimes be weak, but also about that field in general and when incisions via AfDs and rash Speedies are made that feel painful and hurt, that in turn will elicit a response. No use complaining that other users take a topic they care about too seriously rather than engage them in constructive debate on your or their or a WP project talk pages as BoP has so far refused to do. He states openly declares when approached that he only wishes to "discuss" things in the framework of an AfD he initiates which means the dice is loaded his way. 7 Mass AfDs and Speedies of very sensitive topics will automatically cause reactions which BoP must surely have known before he went down this path, which is also exactly what many other editors feel, not just with the nomination of the synagogue articles for deletion but the way it was done, without starting a real discussion anywhere to induce goodwill, which would have been the right thing for BoP to do before. 8 BoP must surely have known that his own actions would be the real cause of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND which he ignited and not me. 9 Because it should be obvious that Jews are sensitive to synagogues being erased be it digitally or in real life and BoP needs to be aware that this is sensitive stuff that must be done carefully. 10 Had he nominated one or two articles and started genuine discussions somewhere then everyone could live with it and come aboard, but when he compares getting rid of these articles to "cleaning up" as if he were disposing of bird poop it is a bit too much. At any rate if anything his "complaint" here is his red herring to take attention away from the complaints he is facing and the pot calling the kettle black. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC) This is a point I have also noticed in other, similar discussions you had: "Because it should be obvious that Jews are sensitive to synagogues being erased be it digitally or in real life and BoP needs to be aware that this is sensitive stuff that must be done carefully." No, this should not be obvious, and this is not "sensitive stuff that should be done careful": this should not be treated any more or less careful than any other article, and is not any more or less sensitive. If you have more problems with synagogues or other Jewish-related articles being nominated for deletion or otherwise discussed, then it should be you who needs to take a step back and withdraw from these discussions. If you can't approach such discussions and deletions neutrally, as if they were any other subject, then you get into WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:OWN territory. Please leave discussions to people without such prejudices who will look at the cases rationally instead of emotionally. Fram (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oh, and please don't change your post after people have already replied, even when your addition to point 7 of "of very sensitive topics" only emphasises my point. That an article on a synagogue is nominated for deletion shouldn't be any more sensitive to you or anyone else than that an article about a church, football club, band, writer, ... is nominated for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Fram: I was typing and did not know about your editing my post, I don't run the system or the Internet. To get to the point. I am not disagreeing with you. There is no "emotionalism" but any well-educated person who is familiar with the topic of Jewish history will understand that this is by its very nature a sensitive topic. (I do not wish to bring up the topic of Kristallnacht because it may seem too harsh but this is the RECENT history of the Jewish people that almost all educated and sensitive people know about --or at least should know about-- and its implications, and that is why it IS a sensitive topic by its very nature, nothing to do with "emotionalism" but everything to do with facts and raw history). What if an editor not well-known with Christian or Muslim editing suddenly nominated 7 Church or Mosque articles and nominated 15 other Church or Mosque articles for Speedy Deletion without either any willingness to engage in discussions and complained that his actions were "reasonable" (most of the articles are going to be saved by the way, so the flow of the argument is not with BoP at this time which is maybe why he resorts to creating a discussion about me instead of holding real discussions not just with me but with the many others who want to engage him but he refuses and rebuffs them) -- there would definitely be a strong response from Christian and Islam savvy editors that something is remiss and there needs to be a slow down. No-one becomes WP's "authority" on synagogue articles and Judaism simply because they find technical faults with articles and rush to delete them. There are better and more harmonious and congenial ways to do things. Note, a house of worship is not like a nightclub or hamburger joint, this is a reality that any editing rules cannot erase. WP articles strive to reflect the world as it is and not as it is spun or un-spun by editors with no track record or evident history editing in an area they wish to radically change. Thanks, IZAK (talk) Did you just compare the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis? because it seems like you just compared the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis. I needn't have to point out that the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles is not, in any way, comparable to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis. If you believe that the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles is comparable to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis, that would strongly indicate that your temperament is not suitable for a career in Wikipedia editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Nope Chris, don't put words in my mouth. I was very reluctantly (read my words again please) citing a strong example from recent history why this is an objectively sensitive topic, and why any editor should proceed with caution. Anything relating to religion (and politics) is sensitive by its very nature and can be volatile. It is not like writing about the stock market or sports teams. Houses of worship are symbols of a religion, so why the surprise that almost all the Judaic editors are as concerned as I am and as you and any well-educated and well-informed user should be. Otherwise they need to take a few steps back and not ignite these types of situations. As I said, had BoP shown a good track record in editing Judaic articles and built up a good rapport per WP:CONSENSUS with editors in this field, everyone can live with AfDs as I and others have nominated many in the past. But rash actions will automatically cause a furor which has nothing to do with me as such and no amount of changing the topic will stop what BoP has begun. IZAK (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC) "As I said, had BoP shown a good track record in editing Judaic articles and built up a good rapport per WP:CONSENSUS with editors in this filed,": yep, pure WP:OWN. "Houses of worship are symbols of a religion, so why the surprise that almost all the Judaic editors are as concerned as I am and as you any well-educated and well-informed user should be. " Thanks for the back-handed personal attack against anyone not agreeing with you, but you are wrong anyway. Wikipedia doesn't care if something is a symbol of a religion (no matter which religion), just like it doesn't care whether someone is a hero or a criminal, or whether some topic is morally good or morally corrupt. We care about whether the topic is notable (as described in WP:N, WP:ORG and the like) and whether the article is written in a WP:NPOV manner from WP:V/WP:RS sources. If someone honsetly believes that a subject fails our policies and guidelines, then he is free to pursue a number of procedures, including speedy, prod and AfD. At no time should that editor take into consideration whether the subject is sensitive to some editors or whether some project (or members of that project) feel protective of the article. The subject of the article should not be treated in an insulting or belittling fashion in e.g. the deletion statement, and care should be taken to indicate that the reason for the deletion nomination is that the subject doesn't meet our policies and guidelines, and not for some ulterior motives, but there it ends. The opposite is also true: the only arguments in deletion discussions that will be taken into account by the closing admin are those based on policies and guidelines, not those based on some emotional reason or some version of WP:OWN. You are free to express such reasons, but you shouldn't be surprised if they are discounted when closing the discussion, and that you ay be asked to withdraw from such discussions (or to post them on the talk page ofthem) if that is all you have to offer there. Fram (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Fram: 1 My objections in the AfDs were all based on policies. 2 The discussions here are about how articles are created prior to being deleted, so please do not take words out of context. 3 It is easy to destroy but much harder to build. That is why the advice of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is good. Articles do not come out of the womb "perfect" they take work. 4 And that is why there are stubs and all sorts of "under construction" and "request for citation" templates that were not used in this series of AfDs. 5 The way "work" is done on WP, even AfD work, is to show good faith efforts by seeking WP:CONSENSUS to improve the content which was not done in this case. 6 Sure, one can be brutal and blunt and just shoot down half of WP's articles because the articles are not plu-perfect yet, but that is not the way editors in the trenches work and which was not done in this case. 7 By calling for more cooperation from BoP when he has shown none is not a "violation" of OWN or anything else, it is a common sense and reasonable attitude of working editors improving a field. 8 I am NOT known for WP:EDITWARRING in article creation and writing, and NEVER have been, I avoid it like the plague, so you have no argument against me. But I do try to take the long term view and see what can be salvaged when rash AFDs come up and when I am in agreement with lots of other editors in any case. That is not a crime either. 9 Mass deletions are not advisable no matter what you say, especially because they will inevitably cause friction that WP does not need. 10 It is easy to sit back and view the world as a string of WP policies, with everything being "the same", but that is not the way the real world works and it defies reality testing which come first, otherwise nothing would make sense, but it is much harder to look at articles as having the potential to improve and asking editors who care to participate in that growth without antagonizing them. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC) IZAK, if you can't be honest it is no use discussing things with you anymore. "The discussions here are about how articles are created prior to being deleted, so please do not take words out of context."? No, the discussion here is very clearly about the deletion of articles. But please do indicate how I have taken any words out of context, and how that context would change the interpretation I gave to them. "It is easy to destroy but much harder to build." Really? I am spending hours for the moment on correcting, including deleting, a large number of articles created in the space of minutes. Deletion is not easier or harder than construction on Wikipedia. And in some cases, mass deletions are the only thing that is truly workable, considering the sheer amount of articles that in some cases warrant deletion. Whether that is the case here is a different discussion, but incorrect generalisations are not helpful. Further: Why do you bring up editwarring when I haven't used that as an argument against you? Strawman? Your point 10 is the only one that adresses my reply, but I can't find the point you are making. Do you mean that you need to do some reality testing, to realise that the deletion of an article on a synagogue has no impact on that synagogue in the real world? Fram (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC) So, what is the response of the community to IZAK's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? He doesn't seem to acknowledge it is a problem. Basket of Puppies 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Again, Basket, your own attitude is astounding when you have now caused a massive eruption at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is WP:BEFORE obligatory? (I have nothing to do with that, it is what you are causing, so it will be interesting to see who you "blame" next for those who disagree with your personal "forward-charges"?) Your ongoing confusion between vigorous debate and disagreement with your personal methodology of deletionism to a "battleground" when many Judaic editors, including myself, would welcome a more congenial attitude and approach and discussion from you so that you not arouse so much bitterness and resentment to you unilateral moves no matter how well-intentioned and that are causing so much dissension and discussion, as noted by at least one astute observer that remarked about the havoc you are causing, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is WP:BEFORE obligatory?: "Look, nobody is going to be blocking and banning people over BEFORE (well, if someone does I expect the community to overturn such action), but as others have said above it really ought to be a required checklist that you go through prior to nominating an article at AFD. This is one of those things that's not really policy, but it's certainly good procedure. We wouldn't be here (and at AN/I) if User:Basket of Puppies wasn't in the process of embarrassing himself and causing all sorts of unnecessary drama by following BEFORE'. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)" Not my comment, but it makes 100% sense. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC) What the hell are you dragging me into this here, for?!? :( — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC) IZAK, you make a lot of extreme accusations and turn everything in to a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I sincerely hope that the community recognizes this and places strong sanctions upon you. As for the Village Pump conversation, I did not start it and had no input to it before it began. It is demonstrating, however, that WP:BEFORE is entirely optional. I do hope that you will cease with accusations of WP:BEFORE violations in the future as it is not required. Basket of Puppies 11:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC) IZAK, I never accused you of violating WP:NPA. You did, however, violate WP:BATTLEGROUND by posting long rants about my nominations for deletion in every AfD that I began. You didn't comment on the merits of the AfD but rather on my habits, deletion nominations and threw around essays, guidelines and policies. You clearly violated WP:BATTLEGROUND and need to agree that AfDs are not the appropriate venue for venting your frustrations at how and what an editor nominated for deletion. OK? Basket of Puppies 12:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Basket, calm down, They were not "rants" please apologize, they were the same set of links to the 7 AfDs and 15 Speedies I posted right here at ANI above that no one knew how to locate until I took the time to pull them together for anyone to check for themselves because had you nominated all your proposed AfDS and Speedies as a group it would be known by all but instead you went about it piece meal fashion. You should have indeed "bundled" them per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. All the AfDs are linked because you nominated them in one fell swoop and it's important for any users to know that, that you are on a roll and that they need to be aware, what's not kosher about that? WP is not a police state. Why are you so intent on not discussing but on attacking me instead as if that "solves" your questionable behavior, it was not me who has already floated a topic ban against you, so obviously many others are upset with the way you are going about things, and please stop personalizing it as "me" and then accuse me of doing the exact thing you are doing. How about some plain old communication and WP:AGF? Personally I hardly ever bring things to ANI because I believe in direct communication. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure how to reply to the above. I think the most artistic reply I can muster is to hope that the community speedily imposes sanctions upon IZAK. Basket of Puppies 12:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Does this sound familiar? Oppose Several of the articles I have nominated have already been deleted demonstrating that I am not a loose cannon and do understand deletion policy. I am human and realize that I might accidently nominate something for deletion that might notable. For that I am sincerely sorry. I believe that this proposed topic ban is an inappropriate reaction to differences of opinion and ask that it be speedily closed. Basket of Puppies 13:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Now...wouldn't that be an example of a non-apology apology? The term you threw at me the other day? Tinton5 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC) "I might accidently nominate something for deletion that might notable. For that I am sincerely sorry" sounds very much like a proper apology to me. Go get some fresh air. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Tinton, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Basket of Puppies 22:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Accusations of WP:POINT violation by TreasuryTag In the latest round of drama, TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accused me of violating WP:POINT by not following the optional WP:BEFORE. I am unsure how one can violate WP:POINT by not following an optional instruction set. Due to the serious nature of this accusation I thought it wise to bring it here. Basket of Puppies 11:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC) BoP is nominating a huge slew of articles for deletion, many of which are on topics which are eminently notable, as even the most basic Google search will establish. He freely admits that he has refused to perform any sort of WP:BEFORE check, including the 'basic Google test'; however, he has admitted that it is "good practice to investigate before nomination." I therefore asked him, quite politely, why he chose not to follow something he admitted to be good practice. He refused to provide any explanation of why he performed literally no assessment of potential sources, voluntary or otherwise, so I suggested that if the only reason he chose not to do something which he admitted was "good practice" and a good idea is that it wasn't explicitly required, that was essentially a WP:POINT violation. What other possible explanation could there be for deliberately refraining from doing something you admit is a good idea, solely on the basis of the fact that it's supposedly optional? (Incidentally, there seems to be no clear consensus as to whether or not it is optional anway, although there is a near unanimous consensus that it is a good idea, and I particularly endorse the sentiment of this comment from earlier today.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 11:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Incidentally, I will happily withdraw my accusation of POINTy behaviour if BoP can explain why he chose not to voluntarily follow WP:BEFORE with a reason more convincing than, "I didn't have to." ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC) As you know I looked at one of the AFDs which some are adamant is notable. With the best will in the world there is not one reference in the article that establishes notability. John lilburne (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Yes, I think it's just possible you're missing hte point... ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 08:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC) What is the WP:POINT you are trying to make? Sorry, I just had to say that. This whole thing is so absurd that a measly attempt at humor just seemed the right thing to do. Basket of Puppies 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Proposed topic ban for Basket of Puppies The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I have proposed a topic-ban for Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) at WP:AN#Proposed topic ban for Basket of Puppies. Please leave your comments there. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC) On what grounds? I can see a great deal of evidence of assumptions of bad faith here, but no real evidence that he has done anything other than what he states he did - go through a list of articles about a common topic, and propose the ones he saw as not meeting Wikipedia notability requirements for deletion. This discussion has been singularly notable in itself - for the way that everyone seems to be more concerned with looking for evidence of ulterior motives than with the actual events. How about everyone stepping back a bit, and considering things from a broader perspective, rather than engaging in this unseemly reenactment of Cultural Revolution show trials as reinterpreted by Mel Brooks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, other than noting BoP's false accusation of harassment, I explicitly stated, "As I suspected, it's not intentional disruption but a misunderstanding." I then went on to explain that it's an issue of WP:CIR, of which bad faith is no part. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I agree that BoP's accusation of harassment was incorrect and likely posted in haste. I respectfully disagree with your good faith proposal of a topic ban. I accept BoP's explanation of his actions, and agree with other's assessments that (aside from a possible error or two), they were also done in good faith. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC) TreasuryTag, how can an action properly carried out be a competence issue? The articles in question didn't, in his opinion, meet Wikipedia notability requirements, so he proposed them for deletion. If being wrong about the outcome of an AfD is an indication of lack of competence, then we have serious problems. As for the suggestions that he should have looked for evidence for notability before proposing deletion, that is getting it entirely backwards - articles with no evidence of subject notability shouldn't be written in the first place, and expecting others to 'fix' them is more of a competence issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC) I agree that the accusation of harassment against JonathanZ was inappropriate and I offer my public apologies to JonathanZ. To revisit the issue for a brief moment when coming across an article like this would the possibility of deletion not come across your mind? (It is one line long, no assertion of notability and zero references.) Basket of Puppies 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Oppose Totally unjustified, no basis. There may be better ways for BoP to go about things, but such sanctions are way over the top. Chesdovi (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Please note that, per convention, proposals for bans take place on AN rather than ANI, and TT is simply providing a courtesy link to that discussion. !voting should occur there, not here.--SPhilbrickT 15:17, 24 June 2011 (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. Synagogue AFD documentation After having run across the VP discussion related to this, I happened to glance at a couple of these articles which were AFD'ed and have since been kept. I notice that none of them are getting the AFD history documented on their talk pages. Adding that information would be a really good idea. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC) A little piece of background information This is not the first time that BoP has attempted rapid deletion of a wide swathe of articles with (apparently) no due diligence; these two surges of deletions of visa/passport articles were (if I remember correctly) triggered by some kind of disagreement over Palestinian travel documents. I don't want to drop a ton(ne) of bricks on BoP's head, but I would hope that BoP learns from the controversy that mass PRODs/AFDs cause (even greater controversy if you try blaming somebody else for the problem, such as arguing that an anonymous administrator recommended the deletion attempts). Have there been any other similar cases? bobrayner (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources and other disruptive behaviour by User:Bus stop

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – nothing for admins to do. Users are reminded to behave so that remains the situation. It would be a shame if one or the other person involved here did something which did require admin intervention --Jayron32 23:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

---

In a long winded and somewhat heated AfD debate - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri) - User:Bus stop has made a claim to notability reliant on this source: [78] - an article about "The Sunday-sabbath Movement in American Reform Judaism". In response from a comment from me that I considered the comment in the source trivial in relation to the topic of the AfD (The synagogue), Bus stop instead asserted that it was evidence of notability: "The reason a reliable source such as this scholarly article sees fit to mention the Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri) is because of its stature among similar houses of worship. We depend on reliable sources to provide us with good quality information. We can safely assume, based on its mention in this reliable source, that the Temple Emanuel is a noteworthy institution". (diff: [79]) As I have repeatedly pointed out (see AfD project page), this is a misrepresentation of the source, which does not state that the Temple is 'notable', and makes no comment whatsoever about its 'stature'. Rather than concede that his comments were a mischaracterisation of the source, Bus stop went on to argue that the source conferred notability: "The value in a good quality source is that when they provide an example of something, they are not going to provide a non-representative example. That implies stature. What good would it do them to argue a point based on the examples of insignificant institutions? Significance implies notability" (diff: [80]. As User:Orlady points out, the single mention of the Temple in the article on the Sunday-sabbath Movement, is instead almost "a footnote", and in any case, is in a 30-year-old article - hardly evidence for current notability (diff: [81]). I have asked Bus stop to redact his misleading claims, but he has refused.

Were this an isolated event, I might consider it unworthy of comment, but it is part of a recurring pattern in Bus stop's behaviour. He misrepresents policy, engages in nit-picking arguments where others are attempting to resolve serious issues, endlessly forum-shops for support over trivia, and generally disrupts discussions and procedure - all in support of his obsession with boosting articles relating to Jews and Judaism. I note that he has previously been blocked for just this sort of behaviour (see block log [82]), and I can see no solution to this systematic disruption other than either a block, or a topic ban - I'd suggest that the latter might be the most appropriate response, and that he be banned from any topic relating to Jews and/or Judaism, broadly construed, at least until he shows real signs of conforming to WP:NPOV over these issues, rather than using Wikipedia as a platform for ethno-boosting, and as a database for everything remotely related to Jews and Jewishness regardless of notability, or indeed of the reliability and relevance of sources.

I can of course provide further evidence regarding Bus stop's pattern of behaviour, but I'm not alone in finding him problematic, and it may be more appropriate for others to comment too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting, Andy? --John (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking that admins take appropriate action to ensure that Bus stop no longer disrupts discussion with his misrepresentations, trivial nit-picking, and ethno-boosting, and that he instead be required to adhere to WP:NPOV. I suggest that a topic ban may be the most appropriate course of action - I note that past blocks seem not to have worked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop's actions and behavior is indeed highly disruptive to this Wiki. It appears to me that he needs to be issued a very stern warning that any future infraction will be met with immediate blocking with no previous discussion. Basket of Puppies 22:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Many sources support the notability of the Temple Emanuel (St. Louis, Missouri). Andy continues to argue that notability has not been established. Only recently, which is to say only today, which is fairly late in the referred-to AFD, did I bring the source that Andy refers to above. There is no misrepresentation. I conceded early-on that the source of course does not say that the referred-to institution is "notable". Sources never do. "Notability" is a concept of Wikipedia. My argument is that the source does indicate notability; Andy's argument is that the same source does not indicate notability. Bus stop (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• There is no admin action required here. Questions of notability are settled by consensus at AfDs, not by admins. Whoever closes the AfD in question can weigh Bus stop's and AndyTheGump's arguments for their value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nothing here. What Beyond My Ken said. Next ... --Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)*Comment. The AFD involved has become greatly overheated, and forumshopping like this isn't helpful. Andythegrump disagrees with Bus stop (and with me, and with DGG, and with Epeefleche, and a batch of other users) over the application of the GNG. That doesn't make us wrong, or our position illegitimate. In fact, I think consensus supports our position. But even if it didn't, it's a position held by a significant share of the community, and it's often sustained in AFD debates. The argument is over whether it holds in this particular case. Having a different opinion isn't "disruptive." What's become disruptive in this discussion is Andythegrump's personalization of the argument with Bus stop and his insistence that holding a contrary opinion from his is so wrong that it can't be allowed. His comments have become too sharp, and he needs to be advised by somebody outside the dispute to lower the intensity. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the notability of the Temple - that is a debate for the AfD. My complaint relates to Bus stop's misrepresentation of a source - which is entirely consistent with his NPOV - breaching behaviour throughout Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2011 (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.

60.229.137.200

Resolved

 – Talk page access revoked by Materialscientist. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Keeps being disruptive while blocked, see [83], [84]. See this death treat as well. Mathonius (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Darley62

Resolved

 – Darley62 has been blocked for legal threats by Nyttend. 28bytes (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

User is misinformed regarding the fact that Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable and has been removing File:Cynomys ludovicianus -Paignton Zoo, Devon, England-8a.jpg from all of its uses at Wikipedia. It was freely licensed at Flickr at the time and was validated by the Flickr upload bot. This was an attempt to avoid discussion that other users have started at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cynomys ludovicianus -Paignton Zoo. We see that they've uploaded a delightful flame at Wikipedia in general and while there was frustration expressed in the deletion request that attribution was to the pseudonym "Simple Steve" based on what the Flickr upload bot saw at the time, they've now decided to name themselves "Diddlesome Dawcock" and delete all their images at Flickr entirely. User profile states that Wikipedia lies and is a bunch of scumbags. I don't expect this user's edits to be constructive given all this.

Removals of the image on the following pages, removing a second time after others reversed the removals.

• Prairie dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of mammals of Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Black-tailed prairie dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

– Adrignola talk 03:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Block

Due to statements of "I will be seeking legal advice and compensation" and "Wikipedia have been warned that they face legal proceedings for theft and copyright violation" (both currently visible on his talk page), I have blocked this user indefinitely under WP:NLT. It's been a long time since I last did this, so I'd welcome input: did I do everything as I should have? Please reverse me immediately if I did something wrong. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I can think of another (unrelated) user, a few months back, who behaved in much the same way and used the same argument about images he had uploaded; and got what he wanted by issuing legal threats directly to the WMF. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Question, how do we know that the user who uploaded it to Flickr under the Creative Commons license had the authority to so license the picture? I don't know how the upload bot works, so maybe it isn't an issue, was just wondering. Monty₈₄₅ 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The block was perfectly fine, IMO. It was a clear legal threat. However, I'm finding it hard not to sympathize with the editor, as he claims to have not intended to release the image under a CC license and says he doesn't want it used on Wikipedia, but the Commons users are essentially telling him "tough shit, the bot said it was CC, and the bots never lie, so we're using your images, like it or not." Very uncool. 28bytes (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• The flickr account user called Wikipedia members a bunch of "scumbags" and "liars" and you are saying that he made an honest mistake? Maybe in some cases I can accept this but not here. The Flickr upload bot proved that he licensed those 4 images from his flickr account as 'cc by generic'. Sometimes, people license some images freely on their flickr accounts so if they get used on the web, why should they freak out suddenly or be surprised? But frankly calling others such vile names over so few images is just intolerable behaviour. He can't ask for trust and good faith here if he doesn't give some to others sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, he quite obviously shouldn't have called people scumbags and liars and such. If he retracts his legal threats he very well may find himself re-blocked for personal attacks should he resume making that type of comment. 28bytes (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well I agree with Nyttend's block and with your statement above too 28bytes. He shouldn't have called people names in the first place. He only had 4 images on Commons and really he could have relicensed his other flickr images more restrictively with say a 'Non-Commercial' CC restriction. I've done this to one of my flickr images. But somehow this user scares me. Its like he's become unhinged at seeing his photos used in wikipedia and will go all out to war to delete them...or else. This sounds like a lose lose proposition to me. Just let the 4 images stay on Commons but keep the copyright over his other pictures sounds like a more reasonable solution than deleting all his flickr images. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I support this block. The point of the legal threats block is that it's something that can't be resolved here, the user must either recant his threats, or resolve them through the legal process before editing again. The user clearly threatened to sue us, that is of course, his privilege. However, until the suit is resolved, he must wait to edit. It's not punishment.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get it

Someone takes a photograph. Good quality. They put it on Flickr, where it can be obtained in its full resolution glory. They then throw a fit when it happens to appear somewhere else? And people like it? I don't understand this mentality. If you don't want your work viewed then why publish it in a freely accessible format? (Personally, on this debate, I would follow the Jon Stewart philosophy of "be a fucking person" and delete it, rather than jerk off about rules and licenses being sacrosanct, but that doesn't change the fact that his stance makes no sense to me.) --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The "be a fucking person" position did not carry the day, unfortunately. The Commons debate has just closed as "keep". 28bytes (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And I intended to add, before I edit conflicted with you, that that position existed only on his first request - once he had his public hissy fit and started throwing things around his room, my sympathy died. But on the first request, were it civil, that would have been worth possibly acting on. But that's not the point of my post here, the point of my post is why did he care in the first place. Was he intending to make mint on this photo? Did he want people only to see it through flickr? Why, does he own stock? --Golbez (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It can be jarring to see your work appear someplace you don't expect it, without notification or compensation. Happened to me once, actually, although after a polite inquiry it got settled. I don't know if flickr still does this, but for a while CC-BY-SA was the default, so it was very easy to accidentally release your images that way. Occasionally people would find a picture of their daughter in a cell phone ad or something, and the cell phone companies would say, tough luck, you released it. 28bytes (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The default is 'All Right Reserved' but is possible to change that with little effort, or understanding of what it means. The problem is that one isn't dealing with people that understand licensing. That is why I'd always recommend approaching a CC licensor in the first instance to determine that they really mean what they say. John lilburne (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I do get it. The user made a mistake in releasing the images on a Wikipedia compatible licence in the first place. They made a second mistake in blowing their top once they realised that the images had been uploaded to commons. If a complaint is raised in a civil manner, then you are more likely to get a satisfactory result. Blow your top, and those complained about will just dig their heels in and stick to the letter of the law. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And then they might do like Xanderliptak, who succeeded in getting his own images deleted by writing to WMF and telling them they were "copyright violations". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it's up to WMF to make its own decisions in that case. I've seen editors blocked for legal threats here who have subsequently gone to WMF directly and gotten what they wanted revdelled, for instance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Then why do we even bother trying to fight these kinds of cases here, if they can just do some end-around and say "F.U." to wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We specifically ask people to go over our heads to WMF for legal matters. We don't so much fight them here as refuse to fight them here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A large number of the CC licensed image uploaded to flickr are done by people that have no idea what the license means. Frequently the licensing groups, and help forum on flickr have people complaining that their CC-BY licensed images are being used off site. Yes they made a mistake, yes they are angry because they don't understand the licenses. Insisting that they are retained leaves a bad impression that those taking advantage of a mistake are 'thieves'. John lilburne (talk) 10:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. Wikipedia has a bad enough reputation already, for various things - we don't need to add to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There was a case about 2 years ago when I contacted a flickr account owner to see if he would license a single image as 'cc by sa generic' for a wikipedia article. He was a blogger and had tens of thousands of pictures on his flickr account. He agreed but a few months later I noticed he had uploaded all his images since our contact under the same cc by sa generic license. I became alarmed and flickrmailed him to advise him to place a 'Non-Commercial' restriction on his future images to stop them from appearing on web sites...and he understood the problem and did what I suggested. Since then, he has never lifted the Non-Commercial restriction on his images unless someone contacts him. But 39 images from his account made it to WikiCommons when his images were freely licensed for a few months. He knows about the situation but its not a big deal to him because...as he told me, "all he wants is Attribution." Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Flickr can keep this from happening by making it so any image uploaded can only be uploaded as "all rights" reserved". If one wishes to change to another license it could only be done after the image is uploaded. This would make it all but impossible to "accidentally" release an image under a free license. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• There's nothing new here. The same thing happened to this guy back in the day. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The lesson here

"Be a fucking person" works both ways. If you want to convince someone to do something that they do not have to do, you don't do it with "tantrums and cartooney threats". You ask nicely. If the guy who first uploaded these images conceded the possibility that he made a mistake and first uploaded them with the wrong license, that commons deletion request might have turned out differently. Nobody likes being called "scumbags" and "thieves". The same sometimes applies to something that one would normally have to do as was demonstrated here. In short, if you want to convince someone to "be a fucking person" then you have to "be a fucking person". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Either Wikipedia removes images that have been mistakenly released under a permissive license as a courtesy to the uploader, or it doesn't. I'd favor removing such images, in general--I don't think it's good practice to take advantage of honest mistakes that other people have made--but I don't think that the community reaction should be highly dependent on the image uploader, who is unfamiliar with the practices and norms of the Wikipedia community, asking really really nicely. I'm sure no one especially feels inclined to be kind to someone who's calling them names, but if we'd remove the images if the guy had asked nicely, we might as well remove them now, anyhow, saving us time and the uploader frustration. Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The request to remove the images should (in my opinion) be considered separately from the legal threats and abusive language, but human nature being what it is, people are reluctant to do favors for someone who's insulting and threatening them. UserB extended an olive branch by nominating the image for deletion; unfortunately that good faith gesture wasn't reciprocated by the image owner, with predictable results. 28bytes (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the norm at commons? I have the idea I've seen in the past the norm is to remove images where the uploader owns the copyright but claims they made a mistake or weren't aware of the implications at least when the image isn't used in other projects. I do agree the legal threats and foul language (and apparently lies?) before the request had even been considered hasn't helped the contributors case whether or not it's a good thing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that once an image is released to commons it may be used by all sorts of people separate and apart from the Wikipedia community. Changing the image licensing, whether because of a mistake or not, creates potential problems downstream. JodyB _talk 11:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:DragonTiger23

DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs) is blindly reverting while also insulting other Wikipedians. This and this are not acceptable. He is trying to force an irrelevant ethnocentric imprint on various articles where there shouldn't be any. --Lysozym (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I am trying what?, please act like a normal neutral human being. the user describes himself, The article of Timur and Timurids is constantly being edited by users of (likely persian origin), who keep removing sourced facts about everything that is related to Turkic history. They make themselves ethnocentric edits removing all turkic parts, I just add the sources back. Is this wikipedia or Persiopedia?? DragonTiger23 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop insulting people. Stop assuming that because they edit, therefore they are of a specific ethnic origin, and therefore they are biased. Just stop it. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both of you, please don't make editors/administrators start counting to see which one of you gets to WP:3R first. These are, as yet, content matters: take them up on the talk pages. Both of you have less than 500 edits and apparently some short fuses. ANI is not for solving such matters: you should all start talking to each other, on the article talk page(s), not on this board. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? DragonTiger writes "please act like a normal neutral human being" and you call that a matter of content? BTW: I have much more than 500 edits. This is a new and alternate global account, my original non-global account has been deactivated. Thank you! --Lysozym (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and you're saying they're blindly reverting and are forcing POVs. Pot, meet kettle. If there are personal insults flung around, let it be dealt with the normal way: they're acts of vandalism and not of real, imminent concern at this board. The diffs you pointed out are matters of content that do not require admin intervention. If you like, I'll be happy to give you both some NPA ("No personal attacks") warnings on your talk pages--or you can drop the matter and talk it out like adults without being immediately accusatory (Lysozym) or insulting (DragonTiger). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with any of the users or their ethnicities, I find it sad that so much sourced materials are being deleted from an article.DragonTiger23 (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a recommendation: If there is a controversy over the ethnic background of Timur and the Timurids, and that controversy plays out in the reliable sources (i.e. some reliable sources say he is of one ethnicity, and other reliable sources say he is of another) rather than deciding who is right and who is wrong, just cite both sources, and merely indicate that both opinions exist in the scholarly press. Don't try to make an opinion for the reader. --Jayron32 20:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@ Drmies: you have totally misunderstood the purpose of this report (well, maybe it was my fault because I did not specify my concerns). I did not point out the actual changes in the article (which in fact are blind reverts with an ethnic imprint), but the comments in which DragonTiger is accusing others as nationalists. That is nonsense. I am not even Iranian, although he seems to see Iranian nationalists everywhere. Just check his contributions' history. Anyway, I am out of here. A simple comparison with the German version of the article (de:Tamerlan) proves how stupid and immature the English version is. I just wanted to help. But if my help is not needed, it's fine with me. --Lysozym (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry if I misunderstood. I've looked through a bunch of DragonTiger's edits, but all I see is "only added back what nationalist iranians keep removing" in one summary--that's probably not a very helpful thing to say, but I don't see how that's over the top or actionable. If there are clear examples of where they make personal attacks, I'd like to see them--but I'm still not sure if that is a matter for this board. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • A minor point not really relevent to ANI but 'History of Uzbekistan' doesn't exactly seem like a 'persian iranian' category Nil Einne (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

His edits are neither neutral nor normal. If he is entering this site from Turkey, I think that it's very difficult for him to be persuaded to stop his ethnocentric approaches and eccentric behaviors (i.e. Talk:Timur#Fake). Because probably he must believe official ethnocentric historiography of the Republic of Turkey (see 16 Great Turkish Empires). Takabeg (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg shows his true face, he supposes I enter from Turkey, he assumes users entering from Turkey to be ethnocentric, eccentric behaviors, believing in16 Great Turkish Empires). This user Takabeg is attacking other users and having prejudices about them because of their origins or countries. I am in no way related to what he wrote, Takabeg makes himself [[Ethnocentrism|ethnocentric] edits, he removes and deletes the word Turk or 'turkicfrom articles related to Turkic history'. I just added sources back which he removed. For example he insists on removing category Turkic rulers from Timur. I talked alot in the talk page. There are sources which describe him as Persian, Mongol and Turkic ruler, for me its no problem if all 3 categories would be added but he thinks that adding Turkic rulers to Timur is a Turkic ethnocentric edit, I just try to make the article neutral by using sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonTiger23 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Veiled legal threat from an IP at Yadav

A veiled legal threat has been made at Talk:Yadav here. Although it comes from Special:Contributions/122.168.108.41 I feel pretty sure that this resolves to User:Vikraantkaka.

The issue is complex, revolving as it does around the classification of a Hindu caste in the varna system. As with many caste articles at WP, caste members seeks to portray themselves in a glowing light that often differs from that which reliable sources indicate to be the case, most commonly by claiming to be of the kshatriya varna rather than the sudra varna.

I am unsure how to deal with this. Neither myself nor the other involved contributor (User:MatthewVanitas) are based in India and therefore the threat is highly unlikely to amount to anything in practice, but the IP, if it is indeed Vikraantkaka is simply not getting the general principles here, especially with regard to the problems relating to primary sources. Off the notify the IP and that user now. - Sitush (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

"So be careful now and stop your this so called fake shudra propaganda otherwise you can face legal actions for defamindg hindu caste's and hindu religion.". Regardless of country of origin, it doesn't seem very veiled to me, but actually as a quite straightforward legal threat. An SPI might be in order, because this is completely unacceptable. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I said "veiled" because it is not saying that it will happen. Well, that is what I thought anyway. Regardless, it is unpleasant. - Sitush (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a month under WP:NLT and notified them accordingly. SPI is definitely required to indef the user until threat is lifted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. SPI now requested - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vikraantkaka. BWilkins, the block you have imposed is for 1 month but the note on the IP talk page says indefinitely? - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. NLT blocks are typically indef, but that's tougher for IP's that don't have a history of similar issues. Removed the word "indefinitely" from the message (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

legal threats from an IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:115.113.103.104

Threats from an IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:115.113.103.104

[85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]

Bentogoa (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I read one of those messages on someone's talkpage this morning, but fail to see it as a violation of WP:NLT. They appear to be simply stating that as per India law, because a case is before the courts, certain types of comments could be considered contrary to Indian law...no threat (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It does look like a legal threat to me. An account is taking a similar position - User:Ghulam_Zeeshan - Off2riorob (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like a legal threat or at least trying to scare people. This fellow should be informed that the Indian Penal Code does not apply to anyone outside of India btw, and not to Wikipedia itself as the servers are based in La Florida. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 11:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, even though the "legality" of the threat is questionable, it still comes across as an attempt to intimidate, which is what NLT is about. However, one caveat could be that although wikipedia itself is out of India's jurisdiction, individual contributors in India might be within reach of the arm of the law there, so caution should be exercised by India-based editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

All I did was reverted "Unexplained removal of sourced content" on 18 Jun [92] , I had to hunt for the diffs as I had no recollection that I had edited the said Article. This is an attempt to intimidate, So he is free As he wants Bentogoa (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Also Take a look here [93] Bentogoa (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The above is clearly an attempt at intimidation through legal threats. Block the user making the threats. Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

On their own, the notices don't seem like legal threats at all. However, coupled with a reticence to discuss the topic and the blanking of information, administrative action seems necessary.LedRush (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Is undergoing significant IP vandalism at such a rate that I can't undo it due to edit conflicts, could someone please help? Reichsfürst (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Semi'd for a month - previous protection expired and the vandals went right back to work (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

KevinOKeeffe

KevinOKeeffe

Due to this user's edits here & here, I've just blocked them as a possibly compromised account. Review is, as usual, welcome. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Your links don't seem to be functional. However, if we look at this diff, it definitely raises questions. The editor's contributions have overall been positive and constructive, with the glaring exception of that one unsourced edit. I'm not sure if it can be written off to an accidental stumble, or something more nefarious, but even assuming good faith, it makes me wonder. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

They're not functional as I deleted both pages per WP:CSD#G10 as attack pages... I should have mentioned it, sorry. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why you have assumed that this account may have been compromised. user:KevinOKeeffe has openly identified himself here as a member of the National Alliance, described by this article as "a pro-white, anti-racial mixing, anti-Jewish, anti-homosexual group", which is entirely in keeping with his general editing and the homophobic remarks left on the IP's take page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, since he seemed to be an established user, I assumed he should have known better than to write two egregious attack pages; that's why the first thing I could think of was a compromised account. If that's not the case, then the block can be tweaked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO the creation of attack pages warrants a block, good edits elsewhere notwithstanding. This editor's been around long enough to know what to do, and more importantly, what not to do. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the attack pages warrant a block whether they are caused by compromise, or were written with intent. Good block. --Taelus (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevin has just replied on his talk page:

I'm afraid my account wasn't compromised. I realize what I did was inappropriate and very foolish, but in my defense, I would simply wish to point out that this person has been harassing me all over the internet, for over four years. He's gone so far as to send an email to my wife, wherein he claimed to be my gay lover, in order to encourage her to divorce me, for example (and for the record, he and I have never met). I have been greatly provoked by this (mentally ill) individual, I believe its fair to say. When I saw that he'd created yet another Wikipedia account, which he was using for the sole purpose of harassing me (just like his last 3-4 accounts were so used), and just like he's been doing to me for the last nearly five years, at various websites all over the world wide web (all due to the fact he was banned at an online political discussion forum in early 2007, and inaccurately blames me for that event).

Within that context, which is not necessarily mitigating per se, but certainly does help to explain why I might have chosen to do something so otherwise out-of-character, I would like to request that my ban be lifted after a period of one month. I realize that I can't simply expect to receive no sanction for my extremely reckless and stupid behavior, but by the same token, it hardly seems to be in the best interests of Wikipedia for a constructive editor such as myself to be permanently banned, merely because of a single instance* of foolish behavior (and in response to a four-and-a-half-year long campaign of internet harassment by a person who belives that I am part of some paranoid conspiracy to destroy him...when all I have ever desired from that person is to never hear from him again).

• Since January of 2005 ie., six-and-a-half years of NOT misbehaving. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Opinions? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

His motivation was understandable. His approach, however, was unacceptable. What would have happened in a perfect world was that Kevin would have approached an admin and asked for assistance as soon as he realized the other user may be WP:WIKIHOUNDING him. That said, perhaps now is the time to identify the other user (off this board) and examine their actions. Meanwhile, there's still the matter of the attack pages. In this non-admin's opinion, a finite block for those attack pages is still warranted. Sanctions against the other user, if any, are a completely separate matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming it's true, he has recourse off Wikipedia. He has no recourse on Wikipedia. He crossed the line, period. If you want to change his block from indefinite (as a compromised account) to a month or so (for multiple egregious personal attacks) that's your call. I would oppose just full unblocking him though. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

An indef isn't appropriate, but agree that some kind of block seems appropriate. This behaviour - regardless of the baiting and harrassment - is not acceptable whatsoever. GiantSnowman 19:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The last part of both messages reads "stay the Hell out of my damn business, or pay the price". That's a plain threat, not just a personal attack. Deciding how seriously to take that threat isn't administrators' place; mail the diffs to emergency@wikimedia.org -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

For reference

<REDACTED> of Lancaster, Pennsylvania is a gay homosexual who got that way through being violently sodomized by his father...over and over again. He wears pink shorts, and once hosted a website called (and I shit you not, here) <REDACTED>

Here's what he looks like: Picture of <REDACTED> in his world-famous pink bicycle shorts

And here's <REDACTED>'s Facebook profile

In case you're wondering, yes, <REDACTED> is a worthless fuck who would be well-advised to leave me alone here at Wikipedia (and stop importing a 2006 conflict from another webiste; I don't want to play anymore, <REDACTED> - I never wanted to play, so stay the Hell out of my damn business, or pay the price).

I thank him in advance for his cooperation in this matter. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: Fuh fuh fuh!

• Aside from the threat and the homophobic slurs, this is clearly WP:OUTING. KevinOKeeffe has admitted that his account was not compromised. A review of his edits might make clearer his goals in editing here, but if it is necessary for me to dig through the edits of an acknowledged white supremacist in order to have his block upheld, something is seriously wrong so I'll assume that won't be necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Much as we may not necessarily like it (and I admit that I do not in this incident), we are not in the position to be making moral judgements about Wikipedia editors themselves. That is, we must comment on content and not contributors, and what sort of content we expect them to generate. I am saddened and somewhat personally disgusted that an established editor would think this sort of behaviour acceptable even in a moment of errant judgement (commenting as a gay admin who has been here since 2004). However, we can't hold that against editors, necessarily; there is no policy to ban white supremacists nor homophobes from Wikipedia simply because they are these things, and nor should there be. I have every expectation that this editor is unlikely to repeat this behaviour again, as he knows the ropes. He suggests that his block be lifted in a month; indeed I'd say probably a week would be sufficient. Of course, were the behaviours repeated, I think then we'd talk a month or longer. After that, it escalates to Arbcom and/or indef. There shouldn't be different rules just because of the subject matter. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have said before -- here and elsewhere -- it simply is not possible in practice for someone holding an extreme worldview such as this to edit within our neutral point of view guidelines. I am not singling out white supremacists - that applies to many other forms of bigotry or strong biases. Shortening this block was a mistake. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

So you'd have indeffed him without the comments in question? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have accepted his request to be reblocked for 1 month, as opposed to indefinitely. This is on the basis that it was established that the account was not compromised, long-term editing history shows positive contributions to date, and this is the first incident of this type (as far as I can determine from history). Should any admin disagree with this change, it may be reversed at will. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that is excessively generous, the combination of outing and implicit threats against the individual he named suggests to me that he simply is too dangerous to be allowed to continue editing. I'm not an admin but I have been able very easily to find and read all the deleted content from the attack pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I was the one that suggested one month, but that was before I saw what was actually said. In light of the outing and threats, I'd be not at all opposed to lengthening the block even more. However since the block has already been agreed upon and all that, instrad I would move that he be told by an uninvolved administrator that "if he creates a page like that again (i.e. one that attacks, threatens, or outs someone) that he's gone for good." Sven Manguard Wha? 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

O'Keeffe's justification/rationalization for his actions looks like one of the more extreme cases of the "look what you made me do" game that I've seen on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And if that's all he said then I'd say he should be left indeffed. However, he went on to apologize sincerely and noted that the behaviour was both out of character and entirely unacceptable. I'm fine with a 1-month block for a first offense, despite the seriousness of his attack and outing. Were it a pattern, then the indef would be appropriate, but I'm not very keen on permanently blocking an editor of six and a half years for one incident, regardless how egregious. If it makes things more palatable, I'd be happy to support some sort of probation upon his return, to be decided by the community. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Throw. We should take into account his many years of positive contributions. He says he was provoked, and went berserk. Seems like an aberration--not than I'm condoning the behavior. Don't think probation is necessary.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Placeholder - the reblocking admin is aware of the comments but unable to comment here atm, don't want this archived before he has a chance to respond. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for holding the thread, Duncan.

I understand DuncanHill's concerns, and those of others, about the egregious nature of the incident and the lack of severity of the resulting sanction. His opinion, as he mentioned via e-mail, is that the attacking nature of the pages warrants stiffer sanctions than a 1-month block due to the seriousness of the behaviour. He mentioned also some personal background elements of the user which I consider to be out of bounds as they concern off-wiki conduct. There may be wisdom in applying a zero-tolerance sanction to particularly egregious instances of WP:OUTING and attack pages; however, I am inclined to agree with Throwaway85 and Lionelt above that we should take into account his record of positive contributions and lack of engagement in any similar behaviour in an editing career of six years. There is no sense in making an enemy out of an established contributor and there is also no reason for an indefinite block where it is not intended to prevent anything. For now I believe that my response to the block modification request was justified but, should this be modified by a change in consensus where zero-tolerance sanctions are applied to incidents of this nature, I would not necessarily be opposed to it. As I wrote to Duncan, however, we cannot apply this after-the-fact to incidents of this kind and this is something that needs community discussion and/or input from the Arbitration Committee as a general issue rather than localised to this specific incident. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless you intend to open discussions about overturning your shortening of the indef block, I suspect that the block will remain as is. ArbCom have shown themselves to be unwilling to consider matters of this nature (and they are busy at the moment with embarrassments of their own). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just to note, admin Timotheus Canens has removed User:KevinOKeeffe's reviewer rights for the creation of two attack pages. DuncanHill (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable action. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:63.3.0.1 disruptive editing

63.3.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is continually adding unsourced information to Hotel Transylvania (film). The IP is constantly adding actors to the article, none of which are confirmed. The IP has a history of this kind of behavior, see its block log and talk page, and is also currently blocked as User:63.3.0.129. Can someone please block it? Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Urgh. The IP is using a dynamic /10 range. Might be easier in the long run to look over the articles they're in and semi them for a while. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, y'know, I don't see an ounce of discussion on the talkpage of sayyyy Hotel Transylvania (film). How does one know what WP:CONSENSUS is when it's not visible? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

How does consensus figure in when adding unconfirmed actors to a movie article? I already left notes/warnings on the talk page of the ip, and it is unresponsive.--Atlan (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the block log, this IP was used by banned user Alexcas11 (talk · contribs). Any relation to him? –MuZemike 17:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, there is a great deal of similarities there with their way of adding unsourced info. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should request a block on the article? Gorlack36 (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that sure seems like Alexcas11's MO.--Atlan (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, look a lot like him in the way he adds unsourced and dubious cast lists, although in the year since I last had anything to do with him, I must say his spelling has improved. [94] FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked 2 years. –MuZemike 16:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User 1007D's low-quality editing

Recently, I was reading The Downward Spiral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and found that the article was almost unreadable. The grammatical mistakes and weird song interpretations (sometimes really.. "out there", and at other times almost farcically literal. For example, claiming that the song "Eraser" is named after an "invention" (his words), the pencil eraser.) really threw me for a loop. For an article as old as that one, on a subject as popular as that album, I would think it would be fairly stable and good, so I was pretty surprised at the state of it. I checked the history and found a lot of edits by User:1007D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that added a lot of weird stuff, clearly written by a non-native English speaker. I commented on the talk page (I'd really encourage reading the summary there of some of the strange things I had found, it's a bit ridiculous), and contacted 1007D as well but he seemed to not understand my problem with his edits. He actually took my interpretation of the song "Reptile" (not really an interpretation as much as an example of a part of the song that clearly did not line up with his strange interpretation) and edited it into the article. This shows a clear lack of understanding about what information is worthy of being included in an Encyclopedia.

His user talk page User talk:1007D (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) is almost totally unusable, but I did find some others who had taken issue with his edits as well.

His substandard contributions are not limited to the Downward Spiral article. Many of his edits add similar strange, broken English. Many also clearly violate Wikipedia:OVERLINK. Many still are small modifications to sentences purely for the purpose of linking. (Example). Here is another example of the type of edit I'm talking about.

1007D was recently blocked for pure vandalism-related reasons, but was subsequently conditionally unblocked. My issue here is not with his vandalism as that has been dealt with, but with the immense amount of work that he is creating for other editors, and the frightening deterioration of the Downward Spiral article, which he actually believes he's improving.

Frankly, the vast nature of his low-quality edits is disheartening as I cannot imagine how long it would take to fix all of this. I'm not really sure about what to propose be done as I am not sure what measures are available, but my hope is that something akin to a "mass revert" can be done on his changes at least to the Downward Spiral article.

In his defense, he has made some good edits too, in fact most of his edits that don't include actually writing any English are good and helpful. It's just that I think the most insidious type of bad edit, intentional or not, are those edits that introduce minor grammatical errors or original research that most readers/editors will gloss over, but really deteriorate the quality of an article.

Thanks for any help, LuftWaffle0 (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

LuftWaffle0: the above paragraph is a very good issue to raise, and it should be dealt with, but this specific noticeboard isn't the correct forum. May I suggest that you take exactly what you have written above, and raise the issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct which is better designed to deal with it. --Jayron32 03:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, thank you! LuftWaffle0 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Per a suggestion I made at the article's talk page and a request at my talk page, I've reverted the article to that which existed before 1007D first edited the article. Other editors who have been working on the article are encouraged to review the diff and re-add any good material that was deleted in the reversion. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair

Resolved

An editor name The king555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) approached me for help with a version of the Nair page.[95] However, this is a subject I know nothing about and hence I am in no position to know who's "right" or "wrong". Can someone here recommend anything? Thank you. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of probable socking going on at Nair. There have been numerous blocks and there is some off-wiki recruitment. There are two admins involved (BoingsaidZebedee and SpacemanSpiff). The subject has been raised on this board several times. All is actually ok in the article per WP:RS, WP:V etc. The problem is POV pushing as per the Yadav article mentioned above. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If I read your response correctly, there are plenty of eyes on it and it's under control, yes? If so, I'll just ignore the editor's request to restore a version (which is probably something an admin would have to do anyway, and I ain't one.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am involved & so perhaps should not pass a judgement but, yes, there are plenty of eyes on it etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for making legal threats here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking

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 evidently being accused of being a sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/White Cat. I am astonished that my place of residence, an information I did not post anywhere (as far as I can remember) is being revealed. I consider this to be a serious problem as I take special care in not revealing personal information normally. If it isn't posted on my userspace you should have no reason digging such a thing given my past history with Jack Merridew. Jack Merridew was ruled to be stalking ME and was banned from the site for over a year in total with his sockpuppet accounts. His full history can be observed here: User:White Cat/RFAR/graph. That decision was overturned before the term was fully served. If anything I was the victim and now I am being treated like the aggressor. The word astonishment does not do justice to express my disappointment.

Furthermore I find it extremely distasteful that the sockpuppet investigation is labeled under my alias and not of the vandal. I have contributed to this site over half a decade and I would have hoped that would mean something. Furthermore I do not see any plausible evidence presented that would warrant a checkuser intervention (I am unsure if such a check was conducted) or in fact to start an investigation. Why wasn't it even rejected?

I develop artificial intelligence to combat vandalism, I do NOT vandalize wikipedia.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the SPI, you disclosed your nation of residence (as of 2005, anyway) here:[96] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I was living in Belgium back then. Since then I changed my address so many times. I have been to three continents since. Am I the prime suspect of all vandalism from Belgium? -- Cat ^chi? 14:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

What's this about "vandalism"? Where is anyone accusing you of that? 28bytes (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The people on the Sockpuppet investigations page seem to be doing so. I am ill informed since I am unsure whats going on.

Also more importantly per this, an Indonesian IP compatible with the location of Davenbelle/Diyarbakir/Moby Dick/Jack merridew (god he has FAR too many sockpuppet accounts). This guy was "convicted" of stalking me and evidence strongly implies to this end.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• A note that White Cat has been canvassing on IRC and asking people to comment on this thread. Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  No I was answering a question I was asked, you on the other hand have been only hostile. -- Cat ^chi? 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request that White Cat stops accusing me of vandalism when I have done nothing of the kind. --User:VanishedUser99 15:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I accuse no one of anything. I am unhappy that I am accused of vandalism being an otherwise uninvolved party. -- Cat ^chi? 15:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: I have informed VanishedUser99 that vanished users are not allowed to edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

White Cat,

1. You stated that you lived in Belgium. You have no grounds for complaint if someone subsequently draws attention to the fact. Anything you post anywhere on Wikipedia becomes publicly available.
2. Sockpuppet investigations are normally listed under the name of the oldest account involved.
3. A checkuser has indeed been carried out, and concluded that the two accounts were "a possible match to each other".
4. I have found no accusations of vandalism in connection with this case.
5. I do not know whether the other account was a sockpuppet of yours, but there is certainly enough behavioural evidence to justify investigating the question. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
   1. Of course I do, I have not been in Belgium for the past 7 years until this year. I am not the only individual living or was living in Belgium. How come I am singled out and WHY? Is it because this person has a history of stalking me? If so the logic is backwards.
   2. Indeed normally they are. You do not however randomly accuse established editors of sockpuppetry without bothering to talk to them first. Before escalating something to a checkuser check you try talking. Does wonders.
   3. For a checkuser to be conducted there needs to be compelling evidence. The checkuser was conducted improperly in the absence of evidence which is indeed a breach of how checkusers are meant to be conducted.
   4. "Is this an acknowledgment that you also control the White Cat account, and are you vanishing with all your accounts? Amalthea 08:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)" <- you need to be looking harder to see the vandalism accusation. I do not know where the rest of the thread is but at least this like is legible if one actually reads it in full.
   5. I ask you to stop using weasel words and instead demonstrate the connection. Where is this evidence? Where is any proof that even remotely implies me and this other person are related.
   6. I just demonstrated this individual (Jack Merridew) had been possibly stalking me based on the geo location of the ip he was editing from. Care to comment on this.

      -- Cat ^chi? 16:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My question is: Why do we now have two Belgian users who have focused on Jack Merridew (assuming the IP is clearly the vanished user in question, as well as the sock tagging)? To me, that sounds a little too coincidental to believe. –MuZemike 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not Belgian, I travel a lot. I think you got your facts wrong. I do NOT focus on Jack Merridew. Jack Merridew focuses on me as established by ArbCom three times. I have nothing less than a good standing. Also, I will not hesitate to remark on an RFAR or RFC that I am requested to comment on especially if Jack Merridew is involved given the hell he has put me through and the hell he is putting me through. -- Cat ^chi? 17:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to step back and take a breath here. I'm not siding with anyone, but I'm puzzled - some people seem to be going into this under the assumption that White Cat is guilty or has something to hide. Whether or not he does is up to a conclusive CU (may I remind all those present that 'possible' has never meant 'confirmed'), but seriously, White Cat has been editing for years, and there are no previous incidents. Let's have some patience until the CU's done. m.o.p 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I frankly do not see a point of CU check when there is no evidence to begin with. Do edit patterns even match? Why am I being treated this way? I suppose I'd like to know which commune or city the other Belgian IP is from - as in if it matches mine - which is possible 11 million people live here in Belgium so that may as well be inconclusive. Jack Merridew has upset other people beside me, it is exceptionally unfair that I am given the prime suspect treatment given what Jack Merridew has put me through during the past years. It is so not cool. -- Cat ^chi? 17:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because you outright dismiss the evidence above doesn't mean there isn't any. –MuZemike 17:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence to dismiss. If evidence is that obvious, you can link it. -- Cat ^chi? 17:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If commenting on an arbitration clarification as an involved party after being notified count as stalking, everyone here is stalking each other. I want to see diffs comparing me with this other editor that I am supposed to be a sockpuppet of. -- Cat ^chi? 19:01, 29 June 2011 (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.

Bambifan101 is back again...

Resolved

 – not Bambifan but an impersonator playing games. N419BH 20:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The banned user Bambifan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, this time as June1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as evidenced in his recent contributions dating back to June 26. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Might be time to WP:RBI Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Captain Obvious says: "The report I created can be found here". Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 17:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, this is a sock of Franzedward.cha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is unrelated to BF101. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from User:Leatherbud 2

Resolved

 – Blocked by SarekofVulcan. Singularity42 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Here: [97]. Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats from EncyMind

Resolved

 – User indef blocked. —SW— ^speak 01:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I reported this earlier at WP:WQA, but in the intervening time EncyMind has moved on to making legal threats against myself and another editor.

I recently reverted the additions of a great number of unnecessary images from a few articles added by EncyMind, a relatively new contributor. This editor apparently took that to mean that there's some kind of "sexist control of Wikipedia", and that I was part of some group determined to suppress content in articles about female authors, specifically Anne Rice. Her talk page contributions have gotten more passive aggressive, as have her edit summaries. After I removed a completely superfluous quote box (not referenced or mentioned in the text) from Anne Rice today, she reverted it with the following summary - "suspected misogynist vandalism - cockblocker needed". This is completely unacceptable. I warned her for that, but she followed that up with "suspected illiterate misogynist vandalism; cockblocker needed" over a minor formatting change. I think we're into WP:OWN territory her as well.

After leaving the computer for a while, I returned to find that she had continued to call edits I made vandalism, slanderous (for adding a notability tag to an article), in addition to finding this posted to my talk page:"For your own good, cease and desist from vandalizing my work and stalking me. You are not qualified on matters literary or cultural. I am awaiting a call back from Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel. Any further trashing of my work, without knowledge or basis for doing so, will be provided as proof of gender bias in the treatment of female editors and content. Remember, I am a lawyer." A similar note was posted on Tarc's talkpage as well. This seems to be a clear violation of WP:LEGAL. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to look deeply into the content or behavior that led up to this point, but as of now it's definitely in WP:NLT and I have indef'ed accordingly. DMacks (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I saw some of this nonsense brewing on Tarc's page. There are serious WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENCE issues here in addition to the really obvious WP:OWN problem. I predict outrage at the block followed by socking. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

How do I get embroiled in every strange corner of every strange Wiki-storm a'brewing, must be my sunny personality. I've had Anne Rice's page on watch for a long time, occasionally doing a vandal reversion and that's about it. The last few weeks I've noticed some large additions by this EncycMind, and while it seemed a little...I dunno, gushy and fan-ish, like it is either a PR firm or a really, really devoted fan, there was nothing really problematic. But the last few days when met with some objections by others, the gender card was whipped out pretty quickly. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This sort of thing shouldn't be that surprising, considering the recent coverage about our gender gap. Not excusing the behavior (and it's possible, if not probable, that this person is actually a guy anyway...), but it's something of an explanation at least.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Issued User:JamesBWatson a warning about personal attacks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummm...why? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a personal attack there, am I missing something? - SudoGhost™ 23:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's annoying how some editors are so overly sensitive, and utterly incapable of distinguishing criticism from personal attacks. For an admin to misinterpret WP:NPA to such a degree, it is quite alarming, considering hawkeye has the ability to actually block people for personal attacks. —SW— ^confess 23:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit is where Hawkeye7 says he removed a personal attack. I agree the comment is poor, but certainly doesn't rise to the level of requiring immediate third-party editing part of the posted message it without even a "[content deleted]" and increasing the drama. DMacks (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to clean up the mess left by Hawkeye's edits. —SW— ^confess 00:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Ohms law, you say that given the recent gender gap coverage, EncycMind's behavior shouldn't be surprising, then wave it off with a nod to the "girls on the internet are really all dudes" meme? Tarc (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  ...yea, that was probably a bit flippant on my part. Sorry. Still... you know, bad behavior begets bad responses. *shrug*
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Obvious sock?

Resolved

 – indef'ed by LessHeard vanU for block-evasion

• Cibwins2885 (talk · contribs)
• Account created same day as User:Foxhound66 (sock of blocked editor User:Jeneral28) was blocked indefinitely by the Admin HelloAnnyong, now quacking loudly on one of his favourite subject page as well as on his past favourite haunts such as United Nations Development Programme, Toto (band), HMS Edinburgh (D97) and International Monetary Fund. Another dead giveaway is the same tendency to blank/remove comments after receiving them on his talk page as per Foxhound66 and Jeneral28. Patrolling Admin, please help take this to SPI if you feel sufficient ground has been established to take this there instead. Thank you. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap and the International Space Station

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.

---

Over the last few days I have been involved in discussions at Talk:International Space Station, mostly with User:Penyulap, who is a relatively new user. Due to Penyulap's enthusiasm, and desire to further improve the (already featured) article International Space Station, the talk page has filled up with a wide variety of topics that have either received almost no response, or have been off-topic. Penyulap, apparently searching for more feedback, a few days ago started this peer review, and then two days later (before anyone had replied) started this FAR - which, in my opinion, is unjustified and should be closed.

Since I am broadly in favour of encouraging new users as much as possible, I attempted to address my concerns directly with Penyulap at this talk page discussion, including the FAR, and the needlessly long talk page posts.. but the discussion quickly turned against me, and the whole situation has reached an incivility level that I'm not comfortable with. An example of this bizarre situation is Penyulap's continued aggressive demands that I either rewrite the lead of the ISS article [98], and that I should point to some of the "errors" in it [99], even though I have said several times that I don't think there's anything wrong with the lead (see this diff, which was the start of my involvement). Penyulap is now seeking adoption from other uses, and in doing so has called me a villain and a troll ([100], and [101]), which I feel is unjustified (but maybe villains don't know they're villains?). Anyway, it's clearly time that I back away from this situation, as I am having similar feelings to what User:Ckatz obviously felt towards Penyulap during this declined arbitration requested.

If someone has the time, the page Talk:International Space Station is in need of a clean up (most of the discussion should probably just be archived), and the FAR of the ISS article should probably be closed (see also this discussion); I now feel helpless to do anything about it, due to Penyulap's unpredictable and aggressive behaviour. Sorry if this is the wrong venue to bring these concerns, but I feel like I need some help. Mlm42 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sadly the user has sought adoption not for the purposes of expanding their skills on Wiki, but to have an experienced user back them up in the dispute. See their talk page. --Blackmane (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I right they were trying to organise some sort of long term ranked pair poll to decide what english variant to use in the article despite the fact this isn't supported by engvar in any way (or any policy really although I know a poll was used for one of the Ireland naming disputes after consensus was reached to decide it that way) and no one had even asked to change the variant? If so hopefully whoever adopts them will be able to help even if approached for the wrong reason. Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. This has been a problem in the past with this page (see this 2009 RfC that resulted in no consensus), but the recent discussion was triggered by my edit to restore British spelling after somebody recently changed it.. I still haven't checked who made the initial change, but nobody has spoken up on the talk page. Mlm42 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Mlm42 (who has been civil and helpful beyond the reach of most editors). I recently tried to slow down some of the NOTFORUM violations on the talk page, and I used some fairly blunt language. However I failed as can be seen by Penyulap's reaction on my talk. It would be crazy to waste time with an RFC or whatever—all that's needed is for an uninvolved admin to convince Penyulap that someone who has made 282 edits to an article talk page in four months needs to throttle back: each future message should be on a specific and actionable proposal. If an admin had community support to enforce that for a week (i.e. revert non-compliant messages), the problem would be very quickly resolved. Unfortunately, that procedure would be rather unusual, and the alternative of relying on a mentor will probably be the loss of an editor after an enormous amount of time has been wasted because the current situation is not sustainable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Guys ! I'm penyulap ! I disagree with the comment that I 'sought adoption not for the purposes of expanding their skills on Wiki, but to have an experienced user back them up in the dispute' this is false. I sought adoption because I am a new user and I do not know how to deal with situations like these any better than I am coping now. It's more appropriate to say something like (and I'll try to make it negative) 'This user sought adoption just so he'd have more skill in dealing with these issues in accordance to wiki standards' actually, it still doesn't look negative enough, sorry. I will happily ask, implore, or request strongly that an adopter does not back me up on any dispute. I will make that clear to them in my next message to them. I ask you, or anyone else in future to ignore any 'backing me up' comments my adopter(s) may make (although as a postscript thought, that may actually be impolite, maybe 'insincere comments' or 'biased comments' is better).

'long term ranked pair poll to decide' ( The poll made it clear, and please assist me with suggestion on how i can make it more clear, that the polls purpose is not to call for, or ask for, change to the article, and that the poll is not to call for, or ask for, change to the editors contribution styles. ) the reason I inserted that was to try to find out who the target audience for the article is. For example, articles written in spanish are targeted at spanish language readers. The American civil war article targets speakers of the american dialect of english. Alt descriptions target visually impared readers. For the ISS, I'm unable to use the page view tools to tell me where the readers of the article are, currently I can offer no useful comment in regards to the demographic in any future discussion of ENG:VAR, because I do not know, these discussions come up regularly on the talkpage, and I would like to offer an informed comment. The Wikiproject group listing gives only a small indication, plus the Japanese interest can be downplayed as I asked here for the article to be included in WikiProject Japan, which it was. Can you help me to find a better way to judge the demographic for the article. I want something to add to other things I take into consideration like Mlm42's comment Nobody here has objected to British English. and this as well as this, and weigh each up on it's merits.

I would like to point out that Mlm42 is a member of WikiProject spaceflight, which I was invited to join by the article's major contributor, Colds7ream, whose invitation I accepted. As a member of Spaceflight I do deal with Mlm42 differently to the way I would deal with a newbie, if you look at my contribs, scroll over adoption requests and look at any comments I put on userpages, you'll get a fair idea. I feel flattered when I read things like ' Thank you very much for your encouragements, it makes it all worth while. :) TheAnarcat (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC) ' on the article talkpage. I wish more people on the talkpage would encourage new users this way.

However, Mlm42 either feigns ignorance deliberately I believe, or has an obvious hidden agenda. I can't very well tell another spaceflight wikiproject member to scroll to the bottom of the ISS page, find a big blue banner thing saying space stations and then click on that whee little bit where it says 'show' now can I ? It would insult his intelligence and mine also. He should do his own bloody homework. I have enough to do.

If you look at all his discussions on the talkpage, if you have time, and on my userpage, again if you have time, and look for any actual contribution to the spaceflight program he has made, (I'd love links to that) I had a hard time finding anything he's done that's positive, I've been left with a distinct feeling that he is simply a OWN ENG:VAR in sheeps clothing and I'd like to see any fresh perspective on this.

Whilst he hinders me by trying to STOP my 3 day old active discussion with GW, which is going very well I feel, even though not even 1/3 has been discussed, and jumps on a poll after just 7 hours with useful comments I've mention already and calls for it to be closed, and in my opinion his behavior scares away new editors( and in my opinion it's deliberate), his behavior does a great deal for me personally, I find it charming as a great source of comic relief. He does help me practice putting in Diffs, which is very useful for my future as a guiding editor to others, he does help me open complaints which I don't know how or where to open myself, being new and all, and not actually wanting to know how, or be skilled in this area. I think for me personally I'm undecided as to whether I'd like him to go away or stay. If asked I'd say I'm firmly undecided, and point out it's not my place to say. Two clowns are better than one. I do need to reduce my use of words like that, and say 'two editors who provide me with amusement' are better than one.

The other editor who makes me think I'm a teacher reading a book out to the class "And thundering into the castle upon horseback the knight leapt from his steed at the entrance steps as though his feet had never touched the ground, his flowing cloak mimicked an eagle flying above the horse and banking through the heavy open doors, at once to the kings court chamber, as an old count dropped his papers and all heads turned to the knight, he lifted his visor and declared in his stern military command 'Trolls have attacked the northern garrison' " and then johnny interrupts "oh Oh, thats me thats me !!!!" and the class is like 'oh shut up', well the other editor or rather, administrator who makes me think of that, even though I am so totally growing to love him, after first being upset by his actions, is Ckatz. He's a corker, I hope he takes that in a good way, I'm certain he will tell me if he doesn't, he keeps a very careful watch over me, which I am grateful for, I mean I don't know any other editors who have their own personal administrator, well to me, Ckatz is like the International Space Station's Doctor Smith, like in lost in space. He's just fantastic, he causes me the most immense joy every time he says anything at all. Mlm42 is kind of new to me, and he is a hinderance to me and others,(they both are) and it would help if someone would fix all his problems, I don't have the time or inclination to, as I'm too busy and/or can't be bothered. I'm guessing if he just keeps at it, there'll be two of them, but there can be only one Ckatz I'm afraid. There was only one Doctor Smith, and there is no prospect of these two battling for supremacy in the foreseeable future. Well, time will tell.

Their hindrance is unfortunate though, as there is a 15 wikiproject wide FAR to help improve the article, and my own works are passing through surprisingly well. But I'm unable to Update the lead properly to match the article, as I am unable to even discuss a new draft on the talkpage with constructive editors. I've just got 'two editors who provide me with amusement' but offer no, and never have, new material or relevant comments, they just croak out 'prose' and 'don't like it' to everything I do, whereas other editors give me help that I incorporate.

I am going to make sure I don't use the word 'Troll' as often when remarking about a small minority of users within the community, as he seems to get very excited every time I say it, and that's a problem, I don't mean to offend him. If he can point out to me where I have made any unfair comments that were specifically about him, (I'm sure he will find them, if there area any, but it would be nice if he'd point them out directly) I'd be really thankful, because I'd like to change them immediately. I'll look for ways seasoned editors in the community speak about this on wiki, so I too can avoid these problems in the same way. Suggestions are appreciated. Penyulap _talk 04:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Houston, we have a problem.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

..Indeed.. needless to say, this is the kind of post that prompted me to come here for help (though this one is especially long and nasty). Mlm42 (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict with ohmslaw)

Hello Johnuniq, thank you for your input. I do wonder, what you think a talkpage is actually for ? I've made less contributions to the talkpage than I have made to the article itself. My contributions are currently being reviewed by a FAR of experts from 15 projects. Do you think my editing of the article should stop as well ? I'll ignore what you think on that point actually, it's rhetorical with the FAR. But you'd like me to not use the talkpage as I continue to edit the article, well, I can't see that as a workable solution at all. I'm not seeing any suggestion that makes sense here. Actually, whatever that restriction thingy is you mention, I'd suggest that you, Mlm42 and Ckatz(but not so much, he's loveable and less harmful) should have whatever that thing is applied to you guys for at least the length of the FAR and PR so people who have something constructive to offer can get on with the job. I haven't seen ANY of you three suggest ANYTHING about the ISS itself at all. Your all in my opinion using PROSE, ENG:VAR and "I DON'T LIKE IT" for WP:OWN trying to elect yourselves as middlemen for the Lead of the article. I say STFU if you have nothing whatsoever to improve the article and get out of the way of the people who do. (whats a better way to say some thing factually useful in a shorter acronym ?). Right now there are errors in the lead, which none of you lot can find, and I won't pass them through editors who have nothing to offer, I can't see the point of assisting self elected middlemen to OWN the Lead and ENG:VAR., trying to stop my discussing material with real contributing editors and new editors to this article.Penyulap _talk 05:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohms law, I'd send them for a box of amps and a left-handed spanner if they worked for me, but check out how much I love Ckatz, it's here Penyulap _talk 05:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment These comments by Penyulap, his unhelpful and overly personalised talk page comments and the misjudged RfAr show a fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia operates and how to interact with other editors. If there is no sign of a change in approach, it seems counterproductive to allow Penyulap to edit the ISS article or its talk page. Mathsci (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you be willing to guide me on how I can better conduct myself, so I may avoid these problems in the future ? I still would like to contribute, but I don't like, and never have liked, these abrasive conflicts with other unhelpful editors on the talkpage. Penyulap _talk 06:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

as a new editor of 4 months it's particularly hard for me to avoid being drawn and baited by these editors. Penyulap _talk 06:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the rfar was a bad idea, It was triggered in part because of the large slabs of the article I'd already done, combined with worry brought on by the unrelenting criticism of Mlm42 and Ckatz, making me doubt my own abilities, causing concern over what I had already done. Penyulap _talk 06:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it extremely offensive to suggest that my editing of the article itself is counterproductive. Penyulap _talk 06:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

These editors are experienced, polite and patient. Yet the way you address them in your edits on the article talk page is provocative and unhelpful, e.g. [102]. Edits of that kind are counterproductive. Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. It's obvious that Penyulap means very well, and I admire his dedication. But it's equally obvious to me that he badly needs to take a break from this article. With respect, he's let it get much too far under his skin, and has lost crucial perspective in the process. ( For example, we all need to remember that whatever we write now, any article we contribute to will likely be in some very different form in five years, with much of our work undone, replaced, or simply discarded. ) I'll apologize in advance if the suggestion seems irritating to him, but I think that taking a voluntary break of at least a month would be a smart move at this point.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I agree. "List of ISS spacewalks hasn't been updated since March", said Danger winkingly. Danger (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Further comment. I tried posting this from my phone but got edit conflicted and gave up on what I was going to write. Getting dragged through AN/I, aka drama central, is tough enough for veteran editors, let alone a newbie who just sees him/herself being piled upon. I was going to say something similar to what Ohiostandard said above. In fact, I was going to further propose that in good faith, we close this incident for the time being and let Penyulap receive some instruction from Danger about "wikilife". I'd also like to say to Penyulap that my comment with regards to your request for adoption is based on my reading of Danger's talk page. Most of us who read that would come to the same conclusion as me. Danger's response also mirrored that. However, I'm happy that you'll prove me wrong in what you said above. There have been many editors who have had rocky starts but gone on to be productive members here, they just need some time and advice to find their feet. --Blackmane (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Penyulap, you asked above for guidance about what you can do. I've suggested on the article talk page that you focus on a very specific task: specifying an error in the lead of the article and suggesting an improvement. Why don't you try that? This is the way we do things on WP, and if you can demonstrate the ability to work like this you will be welcomed with open arms! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine kim, after considering some advice that is private as well as public, I'll fix a few very easy obvious errors that anyone who reads the blooming page would find in the lead, and then I'll take a break from the article for a while. It's in good healthy shape, except the cost section I wrote has no refs at all, but it doesn't matter, nobody can delete it as it passes FA as is, it just needs the homework done, which no-one will do by the way, they'll spend 50 hours baiting me and zero hours on the article. But I'm sorry, I should no let this worry me. It will easily last a while without attention. And I'll learn to ignore MathSci's insult, as I'm sure it's just sloppy carelessness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Penyulap (talk • contribs)

• Additional comment Penyulap still seems not to understand the problems with his edits, e.g. the diff provided above. Interacting with good faith editors using sarcastic and taunting commentary is unhelpful: "I shall take your excellent advice, we all should, and If I may offer some in return to thank you, possibly you might read something space related ? not necessarily as long and boring as the ISS page, but give it a go, please, because I do, I really do, look forward to the day that you'll use this talkpage for discussing anything at all to do with the ISS itself, I really do look forward to that day, just any little fact, a little poppet of trivia, anything at all, maybe just 'its shiny' or 'it's big' I'll welcome it with open arms, I shall embrace it and welcome it into existance with the pride of a doctor delivering a baby, I really will." Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

mathsci, enough please, when Dame Edna Everage is channeling through me like that, and I'm thinking Ckatz is Doctor smith from lost in space, I know it's getting too much, I've been under a lot of pressure, I'm not used to this trauma, the whole episode felt like getting mauled by rottweilers. now I'm sorry to say, I must leave you all, I fixed up like 3 or 4 major errors in the lead as Kim Dent-Brown had asked me for one. and I'm going to take a good break from these people. I need it. REALLY. Maybe I'll be back in a month, or three, or I have no idea. I'll try to keep in touch on my talkpage at least. Thanks to the nice people. stuff you to the rest. Lolz. Penyulap _talk 11:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The above post is not encouraging. Penyulap's latest set of unilateral edits to the article,[103] in particular the lede, seem to be WP:OR, unsupported by the sources—his own personal opinion. It was suggested that he discuss any proposed changes on the talk page beforehand, but he has chosen not to do so. Nor did he discuss these edits with any of his proposed mentors. At this stage, it might be that a topic ban from the article and its talk page for one month is the right way forward. Mathsci (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, uncollegial, uncivil, generally immature. Given his single minded interest in the ISS, a topic ban would amount to pretty much a full ban. While we're at it, lots of WP:IDHT and baiting. Would it be tossing good faith out the window now if I said that he's pretty much a net negative to the project at this point? --Blackmane (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my final edits in response to what I thought was a request to do so from the people here was in any way ill-conceived. it's not OR, it's currency, i think the requester said, it's all actually in the article, and on the assembly of the space station article too. I'm not making any further edits to the page whether I am asked to do so or not for at least several months. blackmane is correct topic=full. Penyulap _talk 13:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I had been under the impression that my use of the talkpage was a problem, so I had not used it, even if it had been suggested, this was misjudged in retrospect. I hereby refuse to use the talkpage and article page for at least one month. Regardless of whether it appears to me to be a request to do so or not. I hereby refuse to edit the article in any way for more than a month, at least. probably several. Penyulap _talk 13:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The diff referred to by Mathsci, my last and final edits to the page, has currency edit, as explained, also has a mention of skylab which I had deleted. That deletion was a deletion of my own work, not another editors, that entire section was my own work, I expected the skylab mention may be offtopic, and I'd save another editor the trouble. Penyulap _talk 13:38, 30 June 2011 (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.

Bluerules

At Heat (1995 film), Bluerules (talk · contribs) was blocked earlier this month for edit warring. The issue was the number of names in the infobox's "Starring" field, and Bluerules thinks there should be 11 names. There was a discussion on the talk page where everyone else agreed that three names was sufficient for this field. However, tonight, Bluerules said on the talk page here, "You still haven't proved me wrong. I've made the stronger argument here. Report me to admits all you want, it won't help your case." He went ahead and added the names against consensus, which indicates to me a willingness to continue edit warring. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've weighed in here - let's find a nice way to settle this. m.o.p 06:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute to me. Exactly what kind of administrator action are you looking for? N^oformation ^Talk 07:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bluerules is picking up where he left off in terms of edit warring. It's a matter of his behavior; he is using confrontational edits to try to win a content dispute, already having been blocked for it once. The content dispute is only tangential. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Erik's statement - he has already been blocked once for edit-warring within the article, and has been warned multiple times in article talk and userpage talk against violating WP:CONSENSUS, as well as had similar issues of disruptive editing in other articles. His edit summaries undoing the reversions to disruptions have been categorically dismissive ("so what?"), and his foundation of argument in the talk pages to support his minority (read: 1 person) consensus are to "prove him wrong". He has taken every opportunity to ignore or otherwise circumvent WP policies, practices and procedures and has had multiple requests and warnings from multiple users to quit doing such. He appears to be on a crusade to change and/or circumvent WP policy by doing it one article at a time. His edits lack of adhering are purely disruptive in nature, and the complaint filed here is on that merit and not the merit of the edit content. Srobak (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Meh. This isn't in need of immediate administrative attention. If it continues, take it to WP:ANEW. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

78.40.232.4

Resolved

78.40.232.4 is still being disruptive, despite his two year block, which was given on March 14th. For example: [104]. Mathonius (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked for the IP. Syrthiss (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

legal threat

Here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...damn, I hate secure links, but yes ... obvious legal threat, but I can't quickly get there (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No coffee yet? ;) Here is another way.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 13:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This IP appears to be globally blocked. TNXMan 13:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion policy/process

I'm not sure if this is the write place to report this but i need a second opinion of actions taken by user User:LibStar by putting up deletion of these articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperLeague Apocalypse 2006. Its not the first time this user has taken actions against kickboxing articles by simply saying "nothing in gnews". I'm part of Martial arts and Kickboxing project and have been in wiki for 5 years and have about 10,000+ edits solely on those subjects. Our sport is not a major sport and doesn't get as much coverage in mass media like soccer, basketball etc. We have a few hard working editors form all over the world creating well sourced material up to the point that in more than two years of work Wikipedia has become a major source of information all combined in one of all kickboxing related information on athletes from Thailand to France as well as various events not widely covered in English mass media. For the respect of my fellow editors and the hard work they've put in our project, my question is - Is it ok by wikipedia standards to one editor without any knowledge of the subject to say these are "minor events" and because of "nothing in gnews" list all for deletion without notifying any Projects related to the subject as well as people involved with creating the pages in question? Any help much appreciated.Thx.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In a word: Yes.

Using slightly more words: I do see how this nomination could be read as harsh or unwarrented, particularly if you're closely affiliated with the subject matter. But to answer your question... First off, "Projects" do not in any way WP:OWN the articles that they believe they cover, and there's no requirement to notify them. Secondly, while the verbage was a bit light-on, "nothing in gnews" is not far from "does not conform to the Wikipedia verification staqndards. Finally, while this looks like a good place to ask th question, there's no adminstrative action required thus not really suited for Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'd suggest that next time you pick a senior editor you trust and ask them personally.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Irony alert: LibStar (talk · contribs) had not been notified of this discussion, I have now done so - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know any senior editors. but thanks Mr. Brenneman. I don't get the concept of this guy Libstar massively deleting pages whatever he feels like. Its just discouraging on editors who actually work on material that in one day it'll all be in deletion by Libstar coz he can't get any hits on gnews.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A) there's really no such thing as "senior editors". B) User:LibStar, nor any other user, can actually delete articles. First, only someone who has been given administrator privileges can actually delete anything. Second, no one would get away with simply running around and deleting stuff unilaterally. You know where the Articles for deletion page is at obviously, so we expect you and anyone else with an interest in that article to go to that page and explain the reasons why it shouldn't be deleted. After about 7 days passes an administrator will come along and read everything, and then make a decision about the article. Don't get discouraged.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If Libstar doesn’t leave a message to the person whose page it is then there is every possibility that the person whose page it is won’t get the chance to voice their opinion and it could get deleted as a result – contacting may not be an official rule but c’mon it’s downright disrespectful and rude and this is obviously not an isolated incidence as other people are having similar issues to myself. I can’t see how someone can go around nominating things for deletion in this manner and get away with it time after time. I would be far happier if the person involved had contacted me first. Thanks. jsmith006 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2011

Loose language on my part, I meant senior as in "older in years" or "of earlier appointment or admission." As much time as I spend begging for people to not give adminstrators special status, I'd hate for that misunderstanding to, err, stand. Thanks for pointing that out, O. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't delete articles, I merely nominate them, then they need WP:CONSENSUS to delete. because a lot of WP:EFFORT went into it is not a reason for keeping. I don't see how this needs admin intervention. regards LibStar (talk) 06:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If a small subset of wikipedians get together to concentrate on one subject, and then set their own notability benchmark which is in some cases much lower than the GNG (for instance: sports subjects deemed notable due to competition at a certain level even though there are no independent sources at all, or no coverage other than an entry on a list), then that's bound to cause some friction. If an entire field suffers from a shortage of substantial independent coverage, then maybe the solution is to have fewer placeholder stubs in that field, rather than lowering wikipedia's standards. bobrayner (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Those situations call for the employment of a large mallet with "WP:CONLIMITED" stencilled onto the side. Genre-specific notability guidelines are solely there to clarify the level at which notability through the GNG can be presumed in genre-specific terms. They are absolutely not modifiers of the GNG. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying "Wikipedia has become a major source of information" amounts to saying that the subjects lack substantial coverage elsewhere, which indicates that the subjects lack notability. That is a reason for deletion. Wikipedia does not exist to provide a place for the devotees of a subject with little coverage to get such coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It does not amount to say that. What i ment was here in wiki the information is all linked together, the events, records, bios etc. I'm not here to get coverage, the emphasis has been combining the information from variety of sources. Muaythai/K -1/kickboxing is widely covered in japanese, thai, french, russian media but not as much in english compare to MMA. You are not gonna find a source from New York Times. Reliable sources are provided form major martial arts related websites but according to some members here these are still no good because they are not third party and I'm not sure whats the rules are adding a source from different language media.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

not with respect to these particular items, which will be dealt with by their own merits depending on whether good sources are found, I strongly dispute Chris's claim that the GNG is the only standard of notability, and the special rules just presumptions of it. The very GNG guideline says it is the normal standard we use, & we may adopt whatever other standards the general consensus wishes to do in any particular area or type of article, and we may exceed the GNG requirements or have other requirements altogether. But in any case Chris and I & everyone here are certainly going to be in agreement about the basic policy requirement for WP:V, for demonstrating the information through reliable sources,as appropriate to the type of information needed-—and, with particularly strict WP:V requirements for biographies of living people. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the frustration that arises in many of these AFD debates. Editors in favour of a contentious article pick and choose the least onerous bar to jump over. So a bakery with a dozen employees may be fleshed up with pie shop trade directory entries, notices of opening hours, references to a failed takeover by another PieMaker, obituaries that mention the deceased bought one of Joe's Pies each weekend for the last 20 years, and references to the architecture of neighbourhood. John lilburne (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's important to make a distinction between is and ought. No doubt the precise relationship & applicability of different notability standards is noted on the policy page (I'd argue it's not unambiguous enough), but in practice an AfD of of some piemaker who passes the GNG but fails WP:NPIEMAKER, or vice versa, can easily attract loud disagreement between two groups who both feel that The Rules Are On Their Side. Even when available sources may be as minimal as a name being mentioned once in a database / directory / press release. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And my feeling is, and always has been, that treating the GNG as the ultimate arbiter resolves this perfectly. If you have a pie shop which fails WP:NPIEMAKER (perhaps it only makes 4999 pies a week and not 5000) then it still gets an article if people can find good enough sources: conversely, while WP:NPIEMAKER can presume notability at a given level of pie production, an AfD on it should result in deletion after seven days if our hard-working editors are unable to actually find any reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the above tangent, you folks may find this page an enlightening and salient read on the subject. --Jayron32 15:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just a note with regard to the "without notifying any Projects related to the subject" aspect in the initial post: if project members have the subject articles on their watchlists, they will be able to see when deletion tags have been added per WP:AFD, WP:PROD, etc. – Athaenara ✉ 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

  There's also Wikipedia:Article Alerts.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite. The whole point of WikiProjects is that they're msupposed to be watching the pages under their purview, not that other people have to go begging permission to work on them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for topic ban for User:Tony1 from all FA-related pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed, per Wehwalt's request below. 28bytes (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

---

I am requesting that Tony1 be restricted from all FA related pages under WP:BATTLE. To summarize, as revenge for my objecting to his edits for the TFA blurb for July 1, John A. Macdonald, he went directly from the discussion to the FAC for one of my articles and opposed, having just used insulting language towards me. Using animus as a reason for opposing is a danger to consensus, and I ask that he be topic banned until he's willing to be more civil about things.

As editors may be aware, User:Tony1 recently requested a RFC on how late the TFA blurb should be available for all users to edit, as it is protected at some point before main page day. I opposed the RFC courteously and certainly innocuously, as I expressed that I was open to changing my position. To spare a lengthy series of diffs, I'll just post that the thread is here and anyone who cares to can check my talk page history to make sure I didn't change anything. As can be seen, I was nothing if not civil.

This morning, I found that Tony1 had made major changes to the TFA for July 1, an article for which I received FA credit, though certainly I don't own it and don't own the blurb. However, I felt that the edits did not improve the blurb and in fact omitted important information from the lede. Over the course of two edits, made within four minutes of each other, I reverted some of what Tony had done and accepted a point he had made, here. He almost immediately reverted. I informed him here I was starting a discussion on the talk page of Raul456, the Featured Article Director, that discussion thread is [105] and I think it speaks for itself; he suggests I take lessons in writing English. That's fine, I don't take offense easily. Tony made his insulting comment at 1304, and had he left it that, I would have ignored the matter. At 1417, he left a lengthy oppose at the FAC for my article Indian Head eagle (and I say my article not out of ownership, but as a shorthand way of noting I nommed it at FAC, though I did write all of the content, but for minor corrections by other editors), and that diff is here. I noted the fact on Raul's talk page (see thread supplied above) and Tony responded, among other things, that "which neatly parallel your objections to non-admins' participation in the blurb copy-editing process", in other words, my oppose at the RFC.

Consensus is a difficult thing, we want it to be based on people judging the matter at hand, without allowing their personal biases, prejudices, and hatreds to interfere. Sometimes that's not possible. However, to oppose in that manner, while you are engaged in a dispute in which you have, well, made pretty strong statements about the other person and their abilities to write English, well, given that an oppose is virtually a veto, it's just not on. I should add that Tony has not commented on any of my FACs in about a year (to my recollection, anyway, I will if necessary go through all my FACs and get an exact figure, but that is my best recollection. It beggars belief that Tony1 just happened to do so. It's a clear violation of WP:BATTLE to my mind. We can't run this place on consensus if people are opposing based on hate.

I have looked at my edits. I see nothing even provocative, let alone rude. I am not immune from getting angry, and I've been known to get into arguments. But that wasn't so in this case. I encouraged discussion and I tried to assuage him. I did not get personal. I did not even revert a second time, since it is my personal policy to limit myself to 1RR against autoconfirmed, and 2RR against IPs. However, to the extent that my articles add something to the project, it's obviously not encouraging me to write more based on knowing that an oppose not based on merit, but in malice, awaits at FAC. I try to assume good faith only, but what Tony has said in his edits, and the timing of same, makes that assumption untenable.

I have notified Tony with the conventional template, and have also left a link at WT:FAC. If he is not willing to revert his objectionable actions, I ask that he be topic banned from all FA-related pages, and all article and talk pages of articles for which I have received FA credit, or which I am developing (the FA articles are here; the articles under development are here. Alternatively, an interaction ban of similar effect would be fine. I would have no problem with it being lifted on Tony's word that he'll behave.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Crap, I was hoping the two of you could work things out before anything like this ended up happening. All of you guys involved in this (which I've been seeing from afar) are (very) experiences editors... can't y'all just break things off for a bit, cool off, and then get together and work out your issues?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, if he withdraws the oppose. I've asked the TFA delegate, Dabomb87, to pull the article and not run it main page, which will terminate that dispute. I'll disengage, but so must he.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose a topic ban. It is using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. At a minimum, would ask you to wait until a few FAs get failed unfairly or the like. Yeah...he made a pointy oppose. And yeah...he got too exercised about you disagreeing with him or being an admin or whatever. Still. Nuclear bomb and mouse. Plus, it would really be better to have Tony MORE in FAs. Plus Sandy is a cool cat and can disaggregate a personality-driven oppose (and not that it should matter, probably likes you better). If we are going to (and based on talk with 'bacon sounds like we will) allow people like 56skidoo troppo fellow to chip in, then I would not kick Tony out. Plus, his comments were actually good prose upgrades. (Not that this is the key thing...I think we should spend WAY more time on comprehensiveness, allocation of article by section, and STRUCTURE, as these hit the reader much more than whether you misuse an and versus but or the like.) I know it is hard, W-man, and you do soooo freeking much. And you are clearly one of the smartest and most gentlemanly characters here. But would ask you to turn the other cheek, one more time, and pull the ANI.

Both of you cats are incredible verbalists, have done great things for the Wiki, and are friendly to newbies. This whole thing is a shame. It is funny, how the Internet runs on fumes of drama and conflict, and dominanance games. Hope you guys can both disengage from each other, find things to enjoy on the site and to contribute to.TCO (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The validity of his points is not the issue, though few actually are, most, as in the TFA issue (now pulled), are issues of preference. He'd say it that way if he were writing the article. Well, he is not, and I made valid choices in the text. Wait for a few FAs to fail? So that takes us four or five months down the line. And it isn't just that. I just lost the opportunity to have some of my words on the seventh most popular website in the world, about a historic man on his country's national holiday. I just pulled my nomination of Landis for August 3. I'm inhibited from nominating articles to have the blurbs hacked by Tony. I am uncertain that your course of action would be productive. Certainly, I'd probably lose interest and spend my time leaving trollish comments on the Yahoo! boards.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I had been looking at a few of the threads and pages related to this, and was going to agree with Ohms law and TCO that you two should try and work things out, but it looks like that may not be possible. I do think that asking for a topic ban from FA and withdrawing that article from TFA and withdrawing another nomination, is an over-reaction. If you raise your concerns about Tony's editing of TFA blurbs, they will gain traction eventually if Tony doesn't limit himself to copyediting and continues to over-reach himself (I say this while agreeing that he made several valid points over the TFA blurb in question, while going too far on other matters for that blurb). I am more concerned, however, with the wording with which Tony1 entered a review at the FAC you have currently running. Tony1 could have entered a civil review with constructive comments and a regretful oppose, with no mention of the previous disputes you have been having. However, he didn't do this. He explicitly said this:

"Oppose'—1a, MoS, referencing. And this is the editor who has publicly pushed to make it impossible for anyone but admins to copy-edit FA blurbs that appear on the main page. So here's a wp:pointy review to scrutinise the work of this admin. He has also just complained to Raul that it's somehow wrong to improve the language and formatting of a blurb because this will make it more different from the opening of the corresponding FA. He would object, thus, to any attempt to improve the text of this lead insofar as it appeared as a blurb on the main page. I'm not an admin, so maybe I don't have the status to suggest improvements here.

This steps over several lines, as it: (i) explicitly admits to a violation of WP:POINT; (ii) unnecessarily personalizes the issue by raising things unrelated to the FAC; (iii) displays a chip on his shoulder about admins vs non-admins (a long-running dispute that needn't have been raised there but is corrosive every time it is unnecessarily raised); (iv) paints himself as a downtrodden non-admin. This seems to be an overspill from the other comments that Tony has made elsewhere (see WT:DYK). I don't think a topic ban from FA or a non-interaction restriction is needed (or would even gain consensus), but I do think some action of some kind is needed. For now, I will ask Tony on his talk page to remove his preamble (which I quoted above) that has personalized the FAC (and is off-topic there), thus only leaving the actual reviewing comments (which may or may not be valid). Possibly a regular at FAC will step in and do this anyway, but I want to give Tony the chance to withdraw those comments himself. Whether more than this is needed depends on what others say here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, Carcharoth, I have a bit of a problem with letting the oppose stand, just trimmed of its most hateful words. This is using Wikipedia as a battleground in its purest form. What are you saying? Maybe I should have joined some cliques while I had the chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think the entire statement should be left alone, and not redacted or sanitized in any way. The oppose only serves to reflect badly on Tony, and it certainly shouldn't hold up the final FA promotion in any way. I can't imagine anyone reading the vitriol Tony wrote and thinking of it as a valid oppose; so it does the FA nomination itself no harm. What it does do is stand as a clear testament to Tony's interpersonal communication skills. If he felt that saying what he said was appropriate, why should we not leave it to remind everyone of the kind of person Tony is. --Jayron32 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) On reflection I realised (while leaving the note at Tony's talk page) that you (Wehwalt) are right (and Jayron as well in regards to not sanitizing it). So (before I saw what Jayron wrote) I also asked him (Tony) to withdraw the review/oppose (as there are others just as capable of doing copyediting reviews who will have seen what he said). While we wait for a response from him, or from others, will you consider my comment that you (Wehwalt) may be over-reacting slightly here with your various withdrawals? Your argument will have more force if it is not accompanied by those unilateral withdrawals on your part that do nothing but raise the tension. Why not wait and see what others and Tony have to say? Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

{[ec}} Oh, asking Tony to remove it himself is quite appropriate. People make mistakes, and if Tony realizes he made a mistake, he should be allowed and encouraged to correct and atone for it. However, insofar as he is willing to stand by what he wrote, who are we to deny him that pleasure, especially since, as I noted, it does no harm to anyone EXCEPT Tony. If its important for him for that statement to be associated with him, he should reap the rewards of such a stand. If he realizes he made a clear mistake in leaving it, and feals remorse over doing so, we should allow him to remove the statement with dignity as well. It should be up to Tony how he wants the Wikipedia community to regard him. --Jayron32 03:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If, and only if, the blurb was restored to the version approved by Raul, I have no objection to the July 1 article running. The other nomination is for August 3, that needn't concern us right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a second... Let me admit right up front that I'm (extremely) sympathetic to Tony's position. Look guys, editing main page blurbs is limited to admins (well... sorta), which right now effectively means that you have to be part of that club in order to touch anything on the main page. That reality may be necessary, but we should all be willing to admit that it's a crap piece of reality that we have to deal with. Since Tony has decided to speak up about it, from my perspective he's been character assassinated just for broaching the topic! As a side effect of that he's lashing out on a FAC... and we're considering "some action of some kind"? I agree that it really doesn't do the FA any harm... which is part of the reason that "some action of some kind" seems a bit crazy, to me. Characterizing this as some sort of character flaw, a fundamental failure on Tony's interpersonal communication skills, well that's just downright mean-spirited. I cry foul. :(
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

His position on the whole "protect the blurb" issue is unimportant at this point. I have no opinion on that matter, and will not for any time in the forseeable future. I do have an opinion on voluntarily and willfully pushing the "save page" button when shit like what is quoted above is sitting in the edit Window. As I stated, I have no idea how Tony feels now about his statements. If he knows he screwed up, he should feel free to remove his own comments and be allowed to retain his dignity. People who can admit their mistakes and be willing to learn from them are the best kinds of people in the world; we all screw up, it is what we do after screwing up that reveals what our character really is. If he feels that what he did is still, currently, a justifiable action under any circumstances, well, that says a lot about him too. --Jayron32 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

He struck his comments (rather than removing them). I've left another note on his talk page and that is all I can do for now as I have to go do something else. Hopefully things will calm down at some point (for the record, I also agree with Tony that it should be easier for non-admins to edit main page blurbs in advance of them appearing there). Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• The consensus above seems to be that you are both overreacting and being childish with these tits-for-tat, and I would agree. The manifestations of this animosity are damaging to both your standings. You should stop bashing each other on ANI and FAC as if this was some Punch and Judy show. It seems that there is some mincing of the issues, but this all boils down to personal style; none of the issues seems fundamental to the substance. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I agree.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• I don't contribute here at ANI, but I do lurk from time to time, and this complaint caught my eye. I've proposed a bit of a solution to at least part of what precipitated this blowup over at WT:MP. LHM 04:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Without reading too closely, I can say that i have first hand knowledge of Wehwalt's overexaggerated dramatics in terms of editorial conflict. I also know that Tony1 can be moody and tends to review at times based on his mood rather than content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  Wehwalt = fairly typical author. Tony1 = fairly typical editor. This isn't too difficult to understand, really. It's certainly not unusual, or completely unexpected (even though it's never happened between these two specifically, that I'm aware of). Frankly, this is almost too cliche to be taken at face value.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I've actually found Wehwalt to be one of the more level-headed editors here, TTT. Requesting something like this is rather uncommon for him, AFAIK. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Surprise oppose At one time Tony always opposed my articles (since he was usually the only opposer, none failed), and any request for help was treated with contemptuous sarcasm. However, he is a serious good faith contributor, and I get the impression, perhaps wrongly, that he is less difficult than he used to be. I have lots of respect for Wehwalt, and understand his frustration, but I'm reluctant to go down this road yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I will confess to feeling let down. I have done nothing to provoke this, yet some blame me for bringing this complaint here, calling it tit for tat. Does anyone care to offer a solution other than tit for tat? --Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your disappointment in the Oppose and the behavior, but this was not the appropriate venue for addressing this matter. I have never supported banning anyone from FAC, I'm quite capable of weighing the validity of an Oppose without external dramatics or intervention, I have observed Tony1's tendency of late to overreach and am aware of the issue, and I suggest that there is nothing whatsoever to be decided here by ANI. The appropriate DR venue for the matter of Tony's behavior would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tony1 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well, let's leave it at that then. If anyone is interested in starting such a thing, and needs a second person to certify, let me know. Honestly, (looks up column of text), I'm not holding my breath. Would someone like to close this? I need to bandage the other cheek.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In the relative scheme of things, Tony1 has done other things at FAC that concern me more than this instance, although again I do understand it's upsetting to you. Should the behavior continue, you may find your co-certifier of an RFC closer than you think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll recover eventually. What choice do I have?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is the decision that John A. Macdonald won't be on the main page for July 1 (Canada Day)? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2011 (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.