Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Geo Swan and AfDs

Hi, AN/I. I'm concerned about the sheer number of deletion nominations that are taking place of material written by User:Geo Swan. Users unfamiliar with the history of this are invited to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, but the gist of it is that Geo Swan is one of our most productive content creators—but many of the things he's written do not comply with Wikipedian norms. I have no objection to Geo Swan's material being nominated for deletion. When one editor nominates more than 60 pieces written by Geo Swan in the same month for deletion, then that's a potential problem because the guy's entire corpus is being destroyed faster than he can defend it. Basically, it takes time to defend stuff at AfD, and Geo Swan isn't being given a chance. In my view this is not fair.

I expressed my concern to the user involved, DBigXray, here. Was that the most diplomatic phrasing ever? Probably not, and I'll take any lumps I've got coming to me for that. What I found was that DBigXray gives a very robust defence and may not have a very thick skin. So I left it there.

What happened then was that in a separate discussion, a deletion review, I saw that the multiple nominations were causing Geo Swan significant distress. See here. As a result of the Deletion Review, the article in question was relisted at AfD, and I expressed the same concerns more forcefully in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed Qasim. You'll see the same pattern, with the robust defence from DBigXray and an accusation from an IP editor that I'm "poisoning the well". Am I?

I hate posting on AN/I and I always try to avoid it. What I would like from this is for editors to agree some kind of cap on how many of Geo Swan's articles can be nominated for deletion all at the same time.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification, The deletion review[1] has been wrongly portrayed above. The article was CSD G7ed by Author Geo Swan while an ongoing AfD was discussing it, Due to CSD G7 the article got quickly deleted, and the ongoing AfD (now moot) had to be closed. But another editor User:Joshuaism unaware that it was author Geo Swan had asked from CSD G7[2] started deletion review with WP:AOBF towards Bushranger for closing the discussion and deleting the article. After the discussion at Deletion review the AfD was reopened again and finally closed as delete--DBigXray 11:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

For further clarity: I did not delete the db-author'd article. I merely closed the AfD as "moot due to G7" as it had already been deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that there should be a special "rule" just regarding articles created by Geo Swan. One option would be to suggest a change to the deletion policy that would limit the number articles created by a specific editor that could be listed simultaneously at AfD. I don't think this is the ideal option, but I think it is better than having a "rule" just regarding articles created by one editor.--Rockfang (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That would probably need a RfC. What I'm looking for at the moment is a specific, immediate remedy.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• You need context to the poisioning the well comment I made. This was in relation to you insisting that loading the AFD with meta discussion on if someone should be allowed to nominate multiple articles must stay within the AFD discussion rather than being discussed on the talk page or somewhere like RFC or here. Your comments were nothing to do with the value of the article or otherwise. No admin should close the discussion based upon such opinions so the only impact could be to sideline the afd from the issue it is supposed to address. That isn't an issue of if the broader subject warrants discussion.
  I'd only see a cap on the number of deletions possible if we are also willing to impose a cap on the number of creations. If someone has created a large number of articles which don't have the sufficient sourcing etc. to stand up on their own but then take a significant time to defend each one, then I don't think we should be encouraging such large creation in the first place. Additionally if only one editor (the original author) is the only person who can or will defend an article at AFD, then there is quite a problem with those articles anyway.
  I#ll also note that you discuss DBigXray as apparently not having a thick skin being an issue, yet the very same thing about Geo Swan you seem to be something we should be sympathetic towards, you can't have it both ways. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it your position that user conduct is irrelevant to AfD closes?—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be relevant? The decision should be made on the merits of the case - on our policies and guidelines. But the main issue for me here is that it appears that most of these articles have BLP issues, and given that, the faster they can be dealt with the better. Normally we might not care about how fast we deal with a large group of articles, but if there are BLP violations, and apparently there are, I'd definitely oppose a cap. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it your position that not using appropriate dispute resolution, instead just declaring in an AFD that there is a user conduct issue, is a constructive way of progressing things? Is it your position that content inappropriate to wikipedia should remain there, based on S Marshall (or any other editors) personal judgement that the person nominating it for deletion is not being "fair"? It is my position that user conduct issues are not the subject matter of AFDs, that's what we have dispute resolution for. Presupposing and judging that there is a user conduct issue is pretty much out of order. Your emotive summary of the matter on the afd "DBigXray is going through systematically destroying Geo Swan's entire corpus..." is not likely to be constructive in determining if the article is "useful" for wikipedia or not. It is unlikely to add any particular light to the discussion, just heat. Certainly if I had listed a set of articles for deletion beliving that I was doing the right thing clearing up BLPs etc, to have someone come to the discussions not comment on the substance of it the articles are valid or not. but instead declare my motivation as being to systematically destroy someone's entire corpus, then I'd certainly be annoyed (and I'd also question with who the user conduct issue lies) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This all seems rather tangential. If you really must continue this discussion, kindly take it to user talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sixty nominations in a month is clearly going to overwhelm both the AfD process and the article's creator. It takes 30 seconds to AfD something with Twinkle and move onto the next, maybe five minutes if done manually—either of which is considerably less time than it takes to make a good case to keep the article. I think a formal cap would be instruction creep, but there really is no good reason for one editor (in good faith and employing common sense) to nominate more than one article by the same author every few days. Perhaps the discussions could be placed on hold somehow until GeoSwan has been allowed sufficient time to respond to the nominations and make the case for the articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• 30 seconds to AfD ? And what about the time that I spend trying to find sources and look about the notability of these BLPs and following WP:BEFORE prior to nominating these article for AFD, I feel in the above comment it has totally been ignored while it should have been taken into consideration. --DBigXray 10:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • DBigXray in the boilerplate nominations you kept placing you routinely asserted you had complied with the advice in WP:BEFORE. I am not going to speculate as to why you would make these assertions even when lots of secondary sources did exist, I will only inform readers that I think you routinely did so.

DBig, in one of your bulk nominations of half a dozen articles you decscribed them as all being about Guantanamo captives, when several of those captives had never been in military custody at all, at Guantanamo, or elsewhere. Rather they had spent years in the CIA's network of secret interrogation camps, that employed waterboarding and other "extended interrogation camps".

I regard this as a really telling mistake, one that demonstrates that, contrary to your claim above, you weren't bothering to read the articles in question prior to nomination, let alone complying with WP:BEFORE.

Ideally, no one participating in an {{afd}} should take the nominator's claim they complied with WP:BEFORE at face value, because nominators are human, thus fallible, some nominators are newbies, or have unconsciously lapsed and let a personal bias taint the nomination. Ideally, everyone participating in an {{afd}} should take a stab at reading the article -- at least to the point of reading beyond the scroll -- if it is a long article. Ideally, every participant should do their own web search, even when the nominator claims they complied with WP:BEFORE.

Unfortunately, one often sees a lynch mob mind-set develop in the deletion fora. In my experience, when that lynch-mob mindset develops, only the fairest minded participants do more than read the nomination itself, before leaving a WP:METOO or WP:IDONTLIKEIT and this is what I believe happened here. Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, per WP:AGF, you should assume that the nominator has attempted to comply with WP:BEFORE. You just shouldn't assume that their Google-fu (or JSTOR-fu, or whatever) is good enough to assure that their WP:BEFORE was adequate. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not too much opinion on the overall conflict, but generally, if someone's Google/Jstor-fu is inadequate to research a topic adequately before starting an afd, they should refrain from starting further afd's until they have upgraded their google/jstor skills, per WP:CIR. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• comment First i have removed 10,000 from the title, this is an attempt to sensationalize this discussion.

1. For the record I have no history of editing or confrontation with Geo Swan anywhere on Wikipedia, and i have no malice against Geo Swan nor with his creations. I have no interest in Geo Swan's contributions whatsoever. I am active at military weapons, ships, History and terrorism related articles. I came across these articles via the categories on terrorism related articles . I have also created BIOs of few militants and militant organizations myself and I have also improved a number of articles on notable Guantanamo prisoners if they agree with the policies "irrespective of who created it" . I nominate articles only when I am fully convinced that they are clear cases of policy violation "irrespective of who created it" . AS the admins have access to deleted pages, they are free to check the deleted pages from my AFDs that I have also nominated several non-notable BIOs and articles created by editors other than Geo Swan if they do not satisfy the guidelines.
2. on Bundling I dont get any special joy in bundling these articles but I have started doing it as I was requested by AFD sorters and AFD contributors to WP:BUNDLE these AfD's for better discussion as single AFDs had to be relisted several times. I accepted that sane advice. Later on few editors protested against bundling and I accepted that and started nominating problematic articles individually.
3. Finally we should always "remember" that it is not me but the community who decides what article to keep and what to delete based on the consensus at AfDs. I am only highlighting that these articles that have problem. Also note that the notability of these articles could not be established even after 6 years and even after extensive search I could not find any sign of notability of the subject and thats when i decide to AfD it, Many other AfD contributors have also tried and came to conclusion that these were poorly sourced WP:BLP articles violating WP:BLPPRIMARY. And ALL of these Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles have either been deleted or redirected.
4. S Marshall above prefers to violate WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person, making false misleading accusations of bad faith. He has never addressed the subjects of the article but only concentrated on making personal attacks on the AFD nominator on these AFDs. S Marshall falsely accused me of making "quite virulent accusations" here on this AFD. I have never made any accusation against MArshall ever, forget about "virulent" or "quite virulent". On the other hand we can see SMarshall had accused me of a Crusade on an AfD which itself is a severe Bad faith accusation on his part to which i left a civil and sane reply on Marshall's talk page[3] to stick to the content and stop doing WP:AOBF. And in reply to that I was threatened by Marshall to be dragged to ANI (Which he has done). From what i See , accusing me of making "quite virulent accusations" is clear case of Lying WP:ABF and WP:AOBF by SMarshall opposite to WP:AGF.

--DBigXray 10:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Your 60+ nominations of articles by the same editor in the same month, is the point you should be addressing here.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am more concerned about these poorly sourced Negative Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles violating WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLP1E as far as I am aware , Biographies of living persons is something that Wikipedia takes very seriously. These articles should have been deleted while WP:NPP but may be it escaped the eyes of new page patrollers as geo swan has Autopatrolled/reviewer rights.
• Also from the comments of Geo Swan on AfD i feel that he is still unaware of policies of WP:BLP or choses to blatantly ignore them, but then it is not something that i should care about. My concern is the Content not the contributor, I have already made my comment. and explained my position as clearly as I can. I have always followed community consensus and here also I will follow what the community decides to do with these problematic WP:BLPs, I dont have anything else to say here, regards--DBigXray 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Was it just coincidence that you nominated all these articles by the same editor, then?—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I know, through AfDs I am pointing out problematic WP:BLPs irrespective of who created it now if Geo Swan has created all the problematic policy violating non notable WP:BLP Articles, then you are Barking up the wrong tree. It is not me but Geo Swan who should make a clarification about it. For the record I have already stated above an i am repeating again, I have also nominated problematic BLPs of other editors and the admins having access to deleted page history can go ahead and check it.
• I will appreciate if you do not attack me on AfDs in future, AfD contributors should not comment if they are unable or unwilling to address the subject of the article but are more concerned in derailing the AfD debate by making ad hominem personal attacks against the fellow editors as you did on AFD here andhere
• Also the fact that S Marshall wrote 10,000 AFDs as the section title in an attempt to sensationalize the discussion clarifies that he is more interested in WP:DRAMA than participating positively on Articles or AFDs. --DBigXray 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Was it a coincidence? An accident? Or are you targetting one particular contributor whose edits have caused you concern?—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please read WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT--DBigXray 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Stop it, the pair of you. The issue here is not (or should not) be why we have all these AfD nominations, but what to do with them and how to give each article a fair hearing and ensure that the author can mount a defence of each one if he is so inclined. Bickering over motives doesn't bring us any closer to resolving that issue. If you don't have anything unambiguously constructive to say, then don't participate in this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, that's only part of the issue. I'm trying to establish whether Geo Swan is being personally targeted—which does matter, HJ Mitchell, and isn't irrelevant at all—and if so why he's being targeted. Sometimes it's legitimate to target one particular editor. If they're a serial copyright violator, for example, then everything they've ever written needs to be investigated. But as a general rule individual editors should not be targeted because of hounding and griefing concerns. 60+ nominations in one month is, prima faciae, damn good evidence of targeting, isn't it. I'd like to start a discussion about whether targeting is justified in all the circumstances, in the light of the RFC/U.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The RfC/U itself targets him. It isn't unreasonable for someone to look at it and come to the conclusion that he created a number of dubious BLPs, is it? And then to decide to do something about those BLPs? Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is that what's happened? I've asked DBigXray, repeatedly, to tell us whether he's targeting Geo Swan or whether this is a coincidence. He won't answer (and accuses me of IDHT among other things because I keep asking). If DBigXray would confirm that he's targeting Geo Swan because of dubious BLPs, then we'd be making some progress here. In any case, the RfC/U does talk about the issue of targeting Geo Swan. I think that what applies to Fram applies to DBigXray as well. Don't you?—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well If you read my above reply again you should be able to understand how I got to these articles but for that one needs to take out the earplugs out of his ears. Everyone else here knows what the real problem is but as we see above Marshall seems to be hellbent on Getting me banned from WP:Terrorism BLPs. Assuming good faith, for you and your understanding I am explaining this one last time. As said above I am active in BLP articles specially terrorism related I have created several BLPs Abdul Rehman Makki, Yasin Bhatkal, Fasih Mahmood, Zabiuddin Ansari, Naamen Meziche, Iqbal Bhatkal, Riyaz Bhatkal, 2010 Bangalore stadium bombing, August_2012_Mansehra_Shia_Massacre, February 2012 Kohistan Shia Massacre and many more. As we know these gentlemen work in organisations that are often interrelated or work in tandem. Obviously I am expected to come across these terrorism related articles, which led me to these BLP violation articles from the categories. I have tried and improved several of these BLPs and I have nominated the non notable WP:BLPPRIMARY violations Irrespective of who has created them . To be honest I am annoyed at these attempts of making imaginary relationships between me and Geo Swan, when there is none, If you dont believe me go and dig into my contributions and bring up a relationship if you are able to find one, until then STFU ! I hope this puts an end to the silly WP:IDHT statements that Marshall is repeatedly stating above, so that we can now concentrate on addressing the Real Problem of these BLP violations.--DBigXray 16:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I take it that you deny that you are personally targeting Geo Swan?—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• (Later) Oh, and I'm not trying to get you banned from anything. I'm doing exactly what I said I was doing: I'm trying to get you to stop nominating very large numbers of Geo Swan's contributions for deletion at the same time. And that's all I'm trying to achieve.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Marshall has no confidence on our WP:AFD process and least confidence on the Afd contributors and Zero confidence on the AfD nominators. Could Marshall explain why he thinks only Geo Swan has to defend these articles ? do you feel all the AfD contributors are morons hell bent on deleting BLPs ? If the articles are notable anyone should be able to prove the notability and defend it at AfD if the consensus has a view that the article is non notable and/or a

BLP violation, then its ought to be deleted. --DBigXray 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• The articles you list are all related to Muslim terrorists in India, DBigXray. What have you done to improve the articles you nominate or that you considered nominating? What edits have you made to save Guantanamo and other American terrorism related detainees?--Joshuaism (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• These are the articles that i started, the list of articles in which i have contributed is pretty long and I am not interested in giving another list of articles so feel free Dig into my contributions on Guantanamo and other terrorism articles and help yourself, regards--DBigXray 17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is an unfair burden to make me prove a negative. It is much easier for you to provide the evidence (if it exists) as you should have a better knowledge of your edits than I do. --Joshuaism (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• SMarshall and DBigXray -- given that this is supposed to be about GeoSwan, could ya'll stop the back and forth?
• I'd like to hear from GeoSwan themself.
• The linked RFC/U recommended a mentor -- did that happen? Nobody Ent 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any indication that it did. As I said, my main concern is the BLP articles, should we be asking for input from BLPN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 11:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• The ease with which an editor can defend his contributions should not be an issue in determining AFD - especially not in cases where a single user mass produces content that is substandard, and which includes blps. The problem is with the article mass creation, not with article mass AFDing. If a user creates a large number of dubious articles then he should expect that he will be implicated in a large number of simultaneous afds. That is how the process works. The alternative is to say that as long as you create enough substandard articles you get a get out of AFD free card. That's not the wikipedia I want to be a part of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

As the guy that submitted the Qasim article for deletion review I feel I should share my concerns.

• DBigXray is submitting these AfDs at a rate that is too fast for any single user to review the merits of the articles. DBigXray states that he is performing this due diligence, but I have my doubts as all of his submissions consist of copy/paste boilerplate text, and I have not seen any significant edits on his part to shore up questionably notable detainees.Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• The rate of nomination for deletion is a function of the rate of creation. If the Afd rate is too high, it's an issue of the creation rate. Nobody Ent 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. DBigXray can nominate 17 articles in a week, while GeoSwan did not create all of these articles in the matter of one week. Salim Suliman Al Harbi was created over an entire year after Omar Rajab Amin and GeoSwan and other editors have worked for years at improving these articles. All of this research and time can be wiped out in a matter of days by one "industrious" editor so long as a small but dedicated set of voters support him. Meanwhile the creator is discouraged from canvassing for favorable editors and they likely cannot be found easily after many years anyways. Not everyone can be as vigilant as DBigXRay. --Joshuaism (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Consensus on these nominations seem to only be made by the same editors, Nick-D, RightCowLeftCoast, Anotherclown,The Bushranger, and Vibhijain. With such a small userbase showing an interest in these articles, can we be sure that this is the consensus of the entire wikicommunity, or is it just WP:LOCALCONSENSUS?Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's no such thing as the entire wikicommunity; there are overlapping subcommunities. If those are the only editors currently interested in discussing Afds, that's the subcommittee that decides. (Exceptions would be made if there was evidence of canvassing or the like.). Nobody Ent 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm currently investigating whether Vibhijain is a sock-puppet of DBigXray. Both share an interest in keeping topics related to India and deleting all of these detainees. They also both have an odd habit of striking their votes (along with the entire attached comment) just before the close of an AfD and then voting to match consensus. (Vibhijain's AfD record)Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you should keep you suspicions to yourself until your investigation is over. If you conclude there's a reasonable chance they're the same editors, take to WP:SPI, not here. Nobody Ent 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Done! Thank you for the recommendation! --Joshuaism (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Each of these nominations have a clear redirect target. but many of these editors vote to delete anyway. The Bushranger has recently started voting "Merge and Redirect", but the events surrounding the Qasim article made me worry he was actually acting contrary to his recorded vote. It appears that I was mistaken about that. Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• With such a clear redirect/merge topic, I don't know why any of them get nominated for AfD and it causes me to worry about efforts at censorship and WP:BIAS. Many of these pages include useful references that without archiving may suffer from linkrot, making research of their individual cases difficult in the future if the page histories are not preserved. Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• DBigXray claims he worries about BLP/BLP1E issues, but if that is the case, is he concerned about the lists of detainees as well? Could these lists be targeted on the same grounds? Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• You dont need to be concerned about my concerns and how I address my concerns, as an AfD contributor one should be more concerned about finding the notability of an article rather than making personal attacks and random Bad faith accusations on AfD contributors. As for the concerns on "What if..." There is a community at AfD that is competent enough to address anyone's genuine concerns on the articles.--DBigXray 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see comments on each of these individual issues I've brought up. I understand that it may be necessary to break up my long comment to facilitate this. Please feel free to interupt me between each bulletpoint as it will probably make for better readability. Thanks! --Joshuaism (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Question Would Joshuaism also Like to be blocked (if he is proved wrong at SPI) per WP:BOOMERANG for the shocking display of Bad faith you have shown above ?
• Also you need to inform Vibhijain that you are implicating him and taking his name in this ANI case.--DBigXray 17:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for allowing me to at least contact Vibhijain. It looks like you've already contacted everyone else mentioned. Thanks! --Joshuaism (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if you are taking names of editors at ANI you are supposed to inform them yourself, Informing editors who are being discussed here is not Canvassing and your linking to WP:CANVAS above is yet another WP:AOBF towards fellow editors

What about my question above ? The Bad Faith shown above is extremely shocking, I think I have already said enough for any sane mind to get a clue, ill take a break --DBigXray 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I make my accusations against you in good faith. I seriously think there are issues with your AfD history and am not trying to discourage good faith edits by actual editors. But this appears to be a crusade on your part and even well meaning edits can be detrimental when editors do not examine the consequences of their actions and the biases at work in their behavior that work to the detriment of Wikipedia and it's community. --Joshuaism (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's a contradiction in terms.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well you have already given a demonstration of your good faith by filing a Bad faith frivolous SPI against me and Vibhijain at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray All the best --DBigXray 19:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And you have given a demonstration of your good faith at your talk page (archived). --Joshuaism (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• First you said I am a sock of Vibhijain then you said I am related to Nangparbat If you dont want to see/identify the disruptive misdeeds of this banned sock, then there is nothing much we can do about it.--DBigXray 00:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of any of the rest of this, you've successfully caused at least one editor to add the Guantanamo BLPs to the "list of Wikipeida things I won't touch with a 10-foot (3.0 m) pole." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The Bad Faith SPI initiated against me by Joshuaism has been deleted as Blatant disruption. --DBigXray 11:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

(od, without reading the above) I've commented on quite a few of these AfDs, and I think that they're fine. Geo Swan shouldn't have created these articles in the first place and hasn't cleaned them up despite the serious concerns which were raised in the RfC over a year ago (despite being a very active editor in that period), so their deletion is long-overdue. I'd note that almost all of the nominations are being closed as 'delete', with most comments being posted as part of these discussions relating to BLP concerns. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• I second what Nick-D is saying above. I had come across the GeoSwan Guantanamo-related articles before and I think the sheer number of these articles still sitting in mainspace (usually for years) represents a significant problem. These articles typically rely on a combination of primary sources (Guantanamo trial transcripts) and occasional few brief mentions in the newsmedia - almost always a far cry from satisfying WP:GNG or any other relevant notability requirement. The primary responsibility to do the necessary clean up lies with GeoSwan here. But since that is not happening, anyone else who tries, even to a small degree, to do the needed clean-up, deserves considerable credit. Redirecting some of these articles may be a possibility but in many cases even that is not the right solution and a straight delete is more appropriate. Redirecting is meant as a navigation tool for likely search terms - but many of the article titles in question are too obscure to plausibly qualify as likely search terms. Given the length of time most of these articles have been sitting in mainspace, I do not think there is anything unfair about the situation where a large batch of them gets AfDed at the same time. Nsk92 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I have been notified that I have been mentioned in this ANI, and one editor who is accusing another editor of misconduct have brought me up due to my AfD comments on a group of War on Terror related BLPs. First let me say that I am an active (off and on since 2009) editor within the sphere of military history, as such I have the Military DELSORT on my watch list, as well as other DELSORTs that relate to my participation in other WikiProjects and interests. I do not always make a statement in each AfD, however when I do I do research whether the subject in question meet the applicable notability guidelines, and see if the subject meets anything set forth in WP:DEL-REASON. In this case of these group of articles, I found them through one of those DELSORTs on my watch list, and have rendered my opinion (which other editors may or may not share) after looking for reliable sources that meet the criteria set forth in the applicable notability guidelines. I don't see anything wrong with my actions in this regard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I must disagree with Nsk92 and NickD here. I think it is well established that trying to delete too many articles of the same type at the same times is abusive. It is easily possible to nominate more articles in a short time than can possibly be dealt with, and this gives an unfair direction to the process in favor of deletion, because no one can possibly do the amount of research to defend the articles that would be required in that time. I am not neutral in this matter, however, as I have repeatedly defended these articles when I thought it would do any good. I have only stopped, quite frankly , because I have gotten exhausted by the process of trying to combat what I think is the prejudice against them. anyone who pushes an issue at WP strongly enough can prevail over other editors with a less fervent devotion, and I think this is what has happened here. I think I'm pretty persistent, but i do not really have the fortitude to continue on the losing side forever. There are others here who are willing to keep at something till they eventually win, and they will be able to defeat me. In this case, the opposition has been a succession of editors over many years trying to destroy these articles, and that can be especially difficult for a reasonable person to combat. (I am not saying it is concerted action--just that a number of different people have had very strong feelings against these articles quite independently.) I think Geo is pretty tough minded also, possibly more than I am. The two of us are not enough, and our opponents have by and large succeeded. It happens elsewhere in WP, and if i couldn't live with that i would have left long ago. I've had frequent occasion to explain that to other people with valid complaints that are not going to be satisfied. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• If the articles are adequately sourced in the first place, shouldn't they be snow keeps? Nobody Ent 09:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am arguing they would be keeps if it were possible during the AfD to work on them to meet the objects, but at this speed of nomination it is not possible. I am also arguing, as I have in the past, that they would be keeps were there not a strong specific interest in trying to delete articles on this particular topic. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• The problem with that is to try and rule to limit the amount AFDable becomes a positive discrimination the other way, better an editor creates a lower quantity and hopefully higher quality such that defence is either easy or not required than create a whole ruck which are "questionable" then collapse under the weight of defending/fixing them. i.e. I don't think you can see the problem as one sided. Also I thought wikipedia was supposed to work by consensus without specific examples it's hard to judge but what you describe is to a certain degree indistinguishable from that, if you find yourself constantly fighting a large number of editors with different view, at what point do you think that actually the consensus is against you? It's the classic edit warrior who believes that it's everyone else who hasn't wrong and they are one of the minority which is righteous. To be clear here I'm not suggesting DGG is an edit warrior, merely drawing a parallel - it's always a question of perspective and the suggestion that we legislate against an apparent consensus to protect those who know the truth shouldn't be entertained. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• As those regularly here know very well, I have from the start consistently argued for keeping articles when the reason for deletion is affected by religious or political or similar considerations (such as small political parties or religious groups or other unpopular positions) . Those are general areas where often the community, or that part of it which chooses to participate, can, like any other group of people on such issues, make it impossible for reason to prevail. I deliberately to try to counter this by an active effort for broad inclusion where these considerations might be a factor. That in many cases the inclination is in fact my own political or religious or philosophical view is irrelevant to my consistency in opposing making decisions influenced consciously or unconsciously by such considerations. As I do this regardless of the particular politics or religion or other standpoint, I don't see how this makes me a zealot for anything but free expression for minorities and the unpopular. Nor do I think I am consistently found arguing in general at WP against a large majority. Often at XfD I am, because I am willing to do so, and express views regardless of the degree of opposition--most editors try to avoid that. I have had the satisfaction over the years of seeing some but not all of these positions become the accepted consensus, because I and a few others are willing to stand up for unpopular positions and take a long term view of it. Sometimes I do not succeed, but i succeed often enough to keep going. Anyone who thinks WP does not sometimes exhibit some religious or political or philosophical prejudice is either not paying attention, or blindly following any majority. DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't have the time to read the whole discussion, but I saw some false sock-puppetry allegations on me. From my side, one is free to ask a checkuser if these allegations are true. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also I must point out that almost all of these problematic BLPs were created en masse in 2006, Even After 6-7 years their notability is not established. Even if you take 6 more years the situation will still remain the same, The only source where you find a mention is Primary sources, or at best a passing mention of name in news. As we can see from the RFC also, the problem with these BLP violations has been raised several times, and the author was asked to do something about it. But fact is the author cannot conjure up reliable secondary sources for few of these non-notable biographies to prove the notabilty, as a result not much has been done and the situation remains the same even now. --DBigXray 12:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• One is free to make a WP:CHECKUSER request against Vibhijain but do not be surprised to be openly mocked by his coterie of friends and then have the request deleted (not closed!) by a friendly admin. --Joshuaism (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between closing and deleting an SPI page.An SPI case page is usually archived if there is some evidence to prove the point..and if any CU/Patrolling Admin/Clerk makes some comments on it.In the recent SPI page started by you yesterday, you were reporting a well established editor who has been an administrator in over four wikis.Morever, you haven't produced any diffs or any sort of evidence whatsoever..leave the behavioral match!.If you wish to still pursue a RFCU on DBigXray and Vibhijain...make sure you get enough evidences to prove it...not behavior matches! Thanks TheStrikeΣagle 16:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Like a number of others, I am strongly opposed to GeoSwan getting any more of a free ride than any other editor. Not only is there no requirement that an AfD ought to be held up until such time as the article creator chimes in, hundreds of editors chime in at AfD, surely enough opinions to get the job done. If an AfDed article of his is worthy of defense, then someone will defend it. Ravenswing 12:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• No, wait, that's not what I said. I never asked for special treatment for Geo Swan. If someone came along and nominated 60+ articles that you, or anyone else, had written in the same month, then I would be here saying exactly the same thing. This is what HJ Mitchell said earlier: More than sixty XfDs in the same month is bound to overwhelm both the user and the AfD system. It's abuse of process. Whether aimed at Geo Swan or not.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's "abusive" to file lots of AfDs? Truly? Are you alleging that these are bad faith nominations? Are the nominations purely on specious grounds? Is there, in fact, anything wrong with these AfDs among the hundred-plus filed every day other than that the articles were created by a single editor? Sorry, I'm not seeing it, and I'm certainly not seeing any reason to fling the "abuse" slur. Ravenswing 08:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• To answer those questions in the order that you raise them:

  (1) Yes. To file 60+ XfDs on one user in rapid succession is an abuse of process.

  (2) No. Whatever DBigXray might think or allege, I have never accused him of bad faith. I presume he is doing this in a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia. Nevertheless good faith actions can be unreasonable.

  (3) Yes. There is something wrong with filing so many AfDs at once, which is that it'll overwhelm and demoralise the relatively prolific content contributor who started them all, and also put pressure on our XfD process which is, nowadays, so ill-attended that it mostly consists of discussions that have been relisted for extra input. We get discussions nowadays that have been relisted twice and still nobody independent's had anything to say. Frankly, XfD was already creaking under the strain of Wikipedia's steady decline in active editor numbers, even before this.

  I see this issue as analagous to the old X-Y relations disputes we used to have in 2009, except that the Guantanmo BLPs do have sources and aren't just a massive case of WP:KITTENS. But the X-Y relations thing was stupid. We dealt with it stupidly. We repeated what was essentially the same discussion hundreds and hundreds of times, because we couldn't find a better process. Let's learn. If this user wants to target the Guantanamo Bay-related BLPs as a class (which is clearly what he wants to do) then we can come up with better ways of doing it than all these XfDs all at the same time. That might mean inventing an ad hoc process or just using an RFC, for example.—S Marshall T/C 09:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Geo Swan here

First, I need to make a very serious correction -- I dispute I created a large number of articles that don't comply with the wikipedias standards.

Rather I created a large number of articles that measured up to the standards at the time they were created, that, for one reason or another haven't been updated or rewritten so they meet the more stringent standards current today.

I am on record, and I will repeat here today, I agree that all articles that don't meet the standards of today, and can't be updated or rewritten to meet those standards should be merged or redirected.

The first Guantanamo related article I started was that of Murat Kurnaz. Its original state falls very short of today's standard this is not evidence that I am serial creator of non-compliant articles, rather it shows how our standards have evolved. The Murat Kurnaz article has been updated and rewritten, so I think most people would agree it meets today's standards.

Why haven't I made sure every article on a Guantanamo captive I started was updated or rewritten, to meet today's standards, or that it was merged or redirected, if that wasn't possible? Short answer -- wikistalkers. Long answer, its complicated.

As others have reported, DBigXray has accused me of personally attacking them, in multiple comments, when all I thought I was doing was sharing what he had written to me. So, let me state that it is not my intention to attack his character, or try to read his mind as to his motives.

Having said that, DBigXray, in trying to defend the high volume of the {{afd}}s on articles I have created has made statements which are just not supported by his contribution history.

He claimed he encountered me and my contributions "at random". In fact our first interaction was in June of this year, in the 2nd and 3rd {{Tfd}} for Template:Kashmir separatist movement. I thought it was a problematice {{Tfd}} for a number of reasons, like that the nominator had been edit warring and using inflammatory language in his or her edit summaries.

Here is a comment I made, where I said it looked like those favoring deletion did not seem to have been prepared to try collegial discussion, prior to claiming the template was hopelessly biased.

In his reply he claimed that if I looked at the templates revision history I would see those who favored deletion had tried discussion.

I did look at the revision history, and tried to explain how "discussions" of controversial topics that take place in edit summaries are triggers for edit warring, as the other party has to partially or fully revert you, to reply, and that it is far better to have a discussion that can be read later by third parties, on the relevant talk page.

Was what I saw in this discussion a small group of pro-India nationalists, trying to win their way in this template, without regard to the wikipedia's policies?

I just checked DBigXray's four edits to that template. His edits in the template itself seemed reasonable, and not instances of edit warring. But his comments in the {{tfd}} were defending the blatant edit warring of the nominator, who has a long history of being blocked for edit warring.

DBigXray's first nomination of an article I started was June 15, less than a week after that Tfd closed.

DBigXray has claimed he has shown no animosity towards me, and has not been harrassing me. This also not supported by his record. (See User talk:Geo Swan#Participating in Deletion discussion) In those first few {{afd}} DBigXray told me that I was knowingly violating policy, and was in a conflict of interest, because I had not explicitly noted that I was the contributor who started the articles in question.

An uninvolved third party came along, and explained to DBigXray, that I was not in a conflict of interest, and wasn't violating any policy -- but not before DBigXray's demands became extremely unpleasant.

With regard to DBigXray's original point -- they wanted the articles to be redirected to the articles on captives of their nationality. On July 11th, 12th and 13th I redirected 300 articles to the articles on the captives of their nationality, with an edit summary of "redirect as per User:Geo Swan/Redirecting Guantanamo captives articles to the list articles on their nationalities".

In that note I explained that I thought some of those articles could be updated to meet the current standards. But, if so, they would require multiple hours each. I said I would seek opinions from others, prior to turning any of them back from a redirect to an article. Geo Swan (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Geo Swan for finally making a comment on the discussion about the articles, but rather than addressing the content and lack of notability that needs to be explained you choose again to point the fingers at the Nominator, Please note that your opinions/accusations with out proof have no relevance. As for the change in policy, I am not familiar with the old policies but i believe there cannot be a dramatic change between the BLP policies of then and now. WP:GNG is something that needs to be satisfied anyhow. May be at the time of creation it was thought that more sources will be added as newer sources come, out, but we should accept the fact that many of these were examples of WP:BLP1E and I am not sure how waiting for more time will get you more sources.
• Also I should point that Geo Swan had declared about the benefits of making a Fake show of good faith while harboring bad faith. I hope the admins will see how non-related things are being connect with imaginary explanations. Connecting the template discussion with Guantanamo articles that too after so many days is something I would call as ridiculous. I have never targeted Geo Swan in my AFDs, but Geo Swan has made slant remarks of bad faith at both the nominator and the contributor. Even in his above comment we see the same has been done. What I see here is a case of, "when there is no way to prove a BLP violating articles notability through fair means then go around making bad faith accusations against the Nominator and implicate him however you can." and a few great examples of this have been presented above in the thread.
• I am not going to make any more comment on the WP:AOBF above and below, I believe I have already said more than enough about my stand and I leave it for the admins to decide--DBigXray 13:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• You ask us to assume good faith of you a lot, I notice. You're targeting one particular user, aren't you? With 60+ AfDs in the same month aimed at the same person, it's completely obvious that that's what you're doing.—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• I dispute I counseled "faking good faith". I think a fair-minded reading of my comment is that I counseled continuing to struggle to give the appearance one was still assuming good faith, when one felt one's correspondent had shown bad faith, because: (1) in spite of a heated suspicions, they might merit the assumption of good faith after all; (2) continuing to show the appearance of good faith, in the face of what seems like bad faith, can make your correspondent return to good faith behavior. I didn't say, but I could have added, it is better for the project overall, when at least one party to a discussion can continue to show good faith, than to have all parties ignore WP:AGF. Geo Swan (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Replies and comments from other users

• Anyone who nominates this stuff should be given a barnstar. At this point, Geo Swan should be topic-banned from any military/War on Terror/Guantanamo-related article. We've been cleaning up his mess for, what, a year now? Either we're sifting through dozens and dozens of primary-sourced prisoner BLPs at AfD or addressing the junk still leftover in userspace via MfD. Enough is enough. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The barnstar of wiping an entire topic off of Wikipedia? I don't think I've stumbled across that one yet. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• as you say, if one is determining on not having articles on an issue, a good course is to prohibit their proponents from even speaking up. I said above why I will defend unpopular positions, and this suggestion is an illustration of what will happen if at least some people do not do so. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  Similarly if one is determined on having articles on an issue, a good course is to prohibit proponents of that from even speaking up, by (say) trying to limit their ability to have deletion discussions on them, or by persistently badgering them about their motives - all of which can be witnessed above. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would encourage Mr. Swan to start a website with the prisoner bios. I think this is valuable material that needs to be "out there," even if WP might not be the place for it. Ironically, such a website of scholarly bios might provide the basis at some future date, when more is published by others, for a restoration of these biographies to WP in a form compliant with current BLP standards. I also would like to add that I think Tarc's tone is out of line and unbecoming. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - First of all, I have no idea where assuming good faith has gone and went, as a colleague of mine would say. I completely agree that, when Geo Swan started his mini-project on detainees, it was certainly within the parameters of normal editing for general notability. Some people need to give him a bit of slack. Well, as we know, consensus can change around here, and in this case, I see that it has. Even I, often accused of inclusionism, have moderated my practices and idea(l)s, as documented in April 2011 and May 2011. In fact, I detected a growing consensus in the spring of 2011 of a tightening of the outcomes of debates at AfD. We also saw that ion the massive clean-up of unreferenced BLPs a while back. So I think you can't blame Geo for being upset that the Project is changing around those issues. It is particularly cruel to post 60 AfDs, which overwhelms the deletion process -- especially when so many North American Users are on vacation! Geo has been a perfectly fine editor, and remains so. I would not topic-ban him in such circumstances, and like DGG, I defend his right to a minority viewpoint. Geo's work has, on the whole, been of great benefit to the Project, and it would be awful to lose another useful User. On the other hand, we really need to construct a more specific guideline or to clarify written consensus that we have been merging the merely or barely notable BLPs on detainees into groups of articles - such as Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay -- leaving individual articles only for those detainees who are most clearly notable. I hope this comment is helpful for the discussion. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Here is a diff in which two editors tried to talk to DBigXray, and he/she removed the discussion with the word "badgering".  The issue which Geo Swan was trying to address is relevant to this entire discussion, because the diff shows that DBigXray removed material from an article seven minutes before bringing it to AfD.  This is a situation which makes it easy to read consensus from the mind of the nominator, which is that the deletion nomination was insufficient on its own merits and needed help.  The deletion discussion for Habib Noor stipulates that there was reliable primary material, but there was no WP:BEFORE analysis as to what to do with the reliable material as per WP:ATD alternatives to deletion.  Each argument in the AfD discussion is consistent with a merge result, and the most efficient way to have brought feedback into this system was for an administrator to have closed the discussion as WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion, WP:NPASR, early on July 2.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• And here we have another WP:AOBF, You are not able to see the content removed yet you assume that it was obviously my cardinal sin to do that, with complete disregrard to WP:AGF. The content was a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY& WP:COATRACK and had been removed by several other editors in past also but Geo Swan (for whatever reasons) had reverted the problematic content back into the article. --DBigXray 23:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Just a note that the diff where "...DBigXray removed material from an article seven minutes before bringing it to AfD." had no bearing whatsoever on the subject's notability, being general material about the tribunal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why the material was removed.  And it doesn't change that the nominator saw the article as something to be edited, not as something that would soon disappear.  However, I have redacted three words that are not helpful.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I know that I have started to edit an article, removing badly sourced material, unsourced promotional stuff, whatever, and only then realised that the problem was simply that the subject of the article wasn't notable anyway and then took it to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and mileage may vary and people are not perfect; but such truisms are not helpful or relevant; for example, you wouldn't have re-thought your position and had the article at AfD seven minutes later, would you?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor OpenFuture: The argument here is that it's hard to defend many articles being sent to AfD. Instead it should somehow be hard to keep Wikipedia policies in place regarding articles, and that you should be able to "override" WP:N etc by creating many articles at once. That of course doesn't make any sense. The problem here is the assumption that it is hard to "defend" articles. This is false, articles does not need defending at all, and you need to spend zero time defending them. Several editors take a look at the AfD and if the article has merit, then it stays. The article creator needs to put no time on defending the article at all.

What takes time is not defending articles, but creating good articles that can survive an AfD. If Geo Swan is creating articles at such a high speed that he does not have time to make the articles good enough for Wikipedia, then he should slow down the article creation, and instead put his time and effort into making the articles good enough that they survive an AfD or even better, don't get AfD'd at all.

As such there can be no limit to how many of an editors articles get an AfD per month or day or hour or year. If the editor creates good articles that fulfill basic Wikipeda requirements, then this is simply not an issue. If he get's 60 articles AfD'd per month, then he needs to slow down article creation and concentrate more on quality and less no quantity. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Yes, of course, if that was what was happening you'd be right. But what is happening is years of work are being attacked by a couple of users in a very short time frame. The same thing happened a few years ago, and one of those two users later tried the same tactic on me. (The other is banned.) And I can tell you that it is not fun seeing someone combing through your contributions for things to revert, delete or report. Geo Swann has been very open about his work, and very amenable to making changes, merging articles and other improvements, and for this he should be commended. Asking the "deletionists" to behave colligially is a good idea, and should be responded to positively. Rich Farmbrough, 06:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
    

• From an editor who has had nothing to do with any of these articles: That many AfD nominations that quickly for articles (apparently) in those conditions is absurd and, further, disruptive. I would love to see a proposal to prevent DBig from nominating absolutely anything to AfD for a time, but I won't suggest it here. After all, the damage has already been done. When created, these articles passed the standards of the time. --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental problem of Wikipedia

At the core, good faith supports all the positions expressed above. A fundamental problem of Wikipedia is the incoherence between Notability and Verifiably. The former says articles can exist if the subject is notable, even if entirely unsourced; the latter says unsourced material can be removed. But you just know that turning a totally unsourced article into the blank page (per V) is going to bring the wrath of WP upon you (Pointy!) (because of N). Likewise burden says the writer should be sourcing the stuff, whereas before says that noticing an article might not be encyclopedic suddenly makes the noticer responsible for fixing it. Nobody Ent 22:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

wp:BEFORE does not make the person who notices that an article "might not be encyclopedic" responsible for fixing that article. Before doesn't even kick in unless you decide not to fix an article but to delete it instead. If you doubt whether the subject of an article is notable then we have tags for that and if you consider that a fact or even a whole article needs sources then we have tags for that as well. Only if information is contentious or blatantly wrong does it need to be summarily removed, and in such circumstances there is no obligation on the remover to check first to see if it can be sourced. Most of the time Notability and Verifiability work well together, they only start to seem incoherent if you take an overly deletionist attitude and especially if you treat verifiable as the same as verified. ϢereSpielChequers 08:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Which essentially invalidates WP:BURDEN's alleged You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Because sticking a tag changes an unsourced article or section into an unsourced article or section with a four year old tag on it. Nobody Ent 16:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Checking for reliable sources doesn't really take that long. Google News, Google books and Google Scholar, and if you can't find anything there, then I think an AfD is acceptable. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that a topic can be notable (WP:GNG isn't the only guideline) when insufficient sources exist. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD

I'd propose that DBigXray be asked by the community to nominate no more than 2 or 3 articles week by Geo Swan. Issues of socking, ABF, etc. aside, there is no rush to get these removed (and if BLPN feels that in fact there _is_ a hugely pressing need to remove articles that have been 6 years we could redirect them I suppose).

• Support as proposer. There is certainly debate about bad faith, BEFORE, socking and notability. But no one seems to disagree with the notion that high-speed AfDs make it difficult to fix these articles before they get deleted (which I think we'd agree is optimal if they are fixable). Hobit (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - - I believe that this is a reasonable proposal that I might even consider supporting. But AfD is not clean-up and I believe that there are few detainee articles that require deletion as nearly all of these articles have a good merge/redirect candidate list. Has anyone considered nominating these articles at Proposed mergers? It will allow DBigXray to address his concerns while giving Geo Swan and other interested users time to fix keep-worthy articles as well as transfer usable references and information into articles that they will eventually redirect to. They currently have a backlog of 3 months, and so long as these nominations are limited to two or three a week, these detainees and detainee lists should be workable without being overwhelming. Limiting nominations to three a week would also limit any disruptions caused by False consensus or local consensus and without the threat of deletion, my worries about censorship would be alieved. So long as no other users are nominating detainee articles this should be workable. Thoughts?--Joshuaism (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Nope. Speed limits do not address problems of "bad faith, BEFORE, socking and notability". This is just another attempt to stymie the AfD process through the introduction of arbitrary barriers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm with Chris; if these nominations are on specious grounds, if they are poorly executed, if the subjects are discussed in significant detail by multiple reliable sources, as the GNG enjoins, then there are grounds for speed limits. I am, however, unalterably opposed to the AfD process being changed to suit a single editor's convenience. If the articles pass policy muster, there will be people defending them at AfD, as is always the case. If they do not pass policy muster, then any one editor's presence is irrelevant. Ravenswing 08:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support On the 14th Aug BigXray notified GeoSwan of eight AFDs and MFDs in under an hour, including two in one minute. Slowing down would give DBigXray more time to properly look for sources, and take some of the heat out of the situation. ϢereSpielChequers 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Chris and Ravenswing explain it well. Should he slow down the rate of his nominations out of courtesy? Perhaps. Should he be forced to slow down through sanctions? No. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Chris,Raven and BushRanger.Enforcing sanctions on a user who creates legit AfDs' only to reduce the work load(back log) of AfD process seems ridiculous. TheStrikeΣagle 09:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Look at the RfC linked to in S Marshall's opening statement. Geo Swan was (or should have been) aware of the problems with his articles after some 200 or so were deleted through AfD and the like. When left alone after the RfC ended, he basically did nothing to correct the problems with his articles. The problem is not the speed of the current AfDs, the problem is the existence of these articles for many, many years, and the reluctance of Geo Swan to clean up his articles and his userspace. The desired outcome of the RfC was "User:Geo Swan voluntarily refrains from creating anymore BLP-related articles (broadly construed) in the mainspace or in userspace until both his existing articles in the mainspace and in the userspace are checked and made fully compliant with BLP (and other policies) or deleted." Geo Swan still does not understand or accept that his view on sourcing (reliability and independence), notability (and the fact that it is not inherited), and BLP is different from the generally accepted Wikipedia norms. I don't only oppose this actual proposal, but would prefer this counter-proposal: Topic ban Geo Swan from all BLP related articles and from all Guantanamo related articles. Fram (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing something, the 134,000 hits argument was made by a different editor. Kanguole 10:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, struck out the comment for now (reading too many AfDs and mixing things from one with another). Will look for a better example. Fram (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Striking out doesn't work as I would like it, have removed the comment now instead. Fram (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and support Fram's counter-proposal above. Nsk92 (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the mad rush of AfDs have overwhelmed the system. As Joshuaism points out, much of this can be done through the ordinary merger and editing processes. Furthermore, as Wier Spiel Chequers notes, we need to take out time for non-urgent deletions. I also strongly urge editors please do not censor minority viewpoints by way of topic ban; it will not only create further hassle/discord/incivility, but will do great harm to the Project by driving out productive editors. Bearian (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What "minority viewpoint"? Do you mean content-related, or policy-related? When someone has created hundreds of articles over years and years that need deleting, most of them for WP:BLP1E reasons, but continues to maintain that they should be kept, then there comes a point that one has to conclude that he is so far out of sync with our policies that some other way to enforce these policies should be found. A topic ban (from article space only perhaps) is one way of addressing this. A mentor was also suggested as a possible solution in the RfC, but I don't believe that the message of the RfC has had any effect, apart from me staying away from Geo Swan for a year. Not really the result most people at that RfC saw as the most urgent or necessary... Fram (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Errr ... exactly how "overwhelmed?" Are you seriously asserting that a process which receives between 70 and 120 AfDs a day is "overwhelmed" by sixty AfDs filed over the course of two months? This is absurd hyperbole at the level best. Ravenswing 12:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the system is overwhelmed too. Many people only follow AfDs in areas they care about. That there are 100s of others isn't relevant if many are showing up in the same area at the same time. And the cut-and-paste nature of many of the votes and nominations implies that even those responding are overwhelmed (or at least not looking case-by-case very well). Also, a bit of AGF would help here. You may disagree with people, but it helps avoid terms like absurd hyperbole and the use of scare quotes just because you disagree with something... Hobit (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • AGF is not a suicide pact. If you want to be treated seriously, don't make bogus arguments and use them to try to enact sanctions on editors to push your ideological agenda. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Weird, because all I'm doing is pushing for content to have a fair shot at being fixed before being deleted. I'm not pursuing ideological goals (or I don't think I am, not sure if you mean wiki-goals of trying to keep articles that can be fixed to meet our guidelines (true) or wider geo-political ideological goals (false)). I'd not considered this a saction before but clearly it is. I'd be quite happy with just agreeing that in general we should limit the number of AfDs to some reasonable count when a single author is involved if that removes that concern. The problem I'm having is that you seem to be seeing motivations which just aren't there (or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your statements). I feel I've proposed something fairly reasonable. I don't mind losing the debate (ok, well a little) but the ABF coming from you all is just odd and seems to be really overkill. I'm not quite sure where all the heat is coming from, but the rage some of you appear feel for this issue seems to be coloring your view. Thre are valid views on the other side the debate. Please acknowledge that and move on. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Weird, because all the Oppose advocates are doing is rejecting the notion that AfD needs to be changed because some people (heaven knows why) finds an average of one extra AfD a day to be an onerous imposition. As far as a "fair shot" goes, some of these articles have been hanging fire for years. If neither GeoSwan nor his supporters have sought to bring these articles up to notability standards, nor seem to find the time to do so in the week an AfD usually lasts (as opposed, for instance, to discussing the matter at length here), I can't see why they ought to be given special consideration ... especially since the community, by and large, feel that they do not satisfy notability guidelines. (After all, if you believe that the subjects are notable, what prevents you from recreating any article for which you've done the research after the fact?)

            That aside, for someone urging AGF and opposed to terms you don't like, you are quite quick yourself to put words in the mouths of others and impugn "heat" and "rage" to those you oppose. Why is that? Ravenswing 05:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

            • You are right, I shouldn't have used those words. I couldn't see any other explanation, but AGF says I should assume one exists. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose there's no reason to stop these perfectly valid AfDs (almost all are closed as delete), and as Fram notes Geo Swan has been given heaps of time to fix up this mess involving BLPs he created but has failed to do so. A topic ban for Geo Swan as proposed by Fram has a lot of merit (especially as he's still been creating highly questionable articles on Guantanamo-related topics in recent months), but that should be considered as an entirely separate process. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, for the moment. We should create some kind of task group or sub-process that can take all these articles together as a class. Spamming AfD with them all and watching the same users copy/paste the same !votes into all these different discussions is inefficient and impracticable.—S Marshall T/C 11:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there some other means of deleting these articles other than at AfD? Were such a task force to conclude that the articles did not pass muster, would they not have to go to AfD all the same? Would not, in fact, those AfDs have to be considered piecemeal, because bundling a mass amount would never be acceptable? In short, no change ... other than creating another bureaucratic layer, which is what I would call "inefficient and impracticable." Ravenswing 12:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• If I've read DBigXray's point #2 up-thread accurately, then originally DBigXray created multiple noms only to be told that this was unworkable and that they needed to be nominated individually. Catch-22. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• The task group would presumably pop everything within scope into an unindexed space such as the incubator, then merge everything that can be merged, redirect everything that can be redirected, and whatever residue is left over could be removed with CSD G6 or G7.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - No reason for special treatment, nor reason to stop valid AfDs. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Chris Nobody Ent 16:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Getting these god-awful embarrassments off the project needs to be encouraged, not tied up with wiki-red tape. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as I think I've made clear above. If we have a load of articles that need AfDs, then we get a load of AfDs. It's not the fault of the nominator that these articles exist. We need to consider Fram's proposal also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Chris nails it. It would be helpful if DBig voluntarily slowed down by half or more, just out of a sense of fairness, to allow others the opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff here, but imposing it is a non-starter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• SupportThese AfDs are an abuse of process, and unfair to sensible consideration of the articles. I don't see why a pause is a non-starter--I think it's elemental fairness. No afds conducted at this frequency can be valid--only fair treatment with time for work and consideration makes a valid AfD. I note the hostility against Geo for his work on this topic. There seems to be an animus here which I find hard to justify on either political or personal grounds. If it is on political grounds, I think it would be motivated primarily by a desire to avoid articles on the topic, regardless of possible ways to rescue them; the attempt to enact a topic ban would then be downright suppression of ideas which are temporarily unpopular or uncomfortable, and shows a total incomprehension or disagreement with the concept of an objective encyclopedia. There's another so-called encyclopedia that does in fact work that way; it should serve as a warning against any similar tendencies here. If it is personal, then it is necessary for those with this sort of feeling to stay away from anything involving Geo. Who they are is obvious enough without naming them. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow. Deletionists = Conservapedia. Well, that's me told. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ambivalent as to practicality, but endorse the spirit of the suggestion. I don't have any great desire to see most of these articles kept on Wikipedia, and I suspect I would agree with most of DB's nominations on a case by case basis, but I agree that the current approach isn't working out. Nominating dozens at once, which effectively overwhelms the ability to individually defend them regardless of quality, is problematic. A topic ban as initially suggested is definitely not suitable, but bear in mind that deliberately limiting the rate of deletion doesn't work out very well either.

If the material is in fact inappropriate for Wikipedia, we would want to remove it sooner rather than later - saying "you can't delete that this month, there's too many AfDs already" is definitely undesirable. We could try grouping AfDs into a joint nomination, but especially where BLPs are involved it doesn't work very effectively - the variation between one case and another usually derails the discussion, and ends up with them all relisted individually to get a better discussion. (I believe there has been at least one bulk-AfD in the past with this topic.) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose as being in direct opposition to fundamental Wikipedia values and policies. See my longer comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose First my decision on AfD Solely depends on the notability and its adherence to the wikipedia policies and my WP:BEFORE not becuase an XYZ user had created it. The proposal wants me to check the article creator first which is simply ridiculous and will give a wrong message and set a wrong precedent, one should be more concerned about the content rather than the contributer. Its the over-emphasis on contributer that creates so much WP:Drama DBigXray 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram. The problem is the person who creates the articles after than they can defend them, not the person nominating for deletion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If articles aren't encyclopedic need to go to AfD we shouldn't be forcing people to hold back. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with comment It seems to me that placing an arbitrary restriction on a user is a very slippery slope indeed. Any user should have the right to attempt to improve Wikipedia. However, it seems to me that a blitzkreig style nomination to AfD is problematic. Therefore, why not make it so that the creator or a significant contributor to an article, in combination with an established and known non-sock puppet user, can delay an AfD or the closure of an AfD upon request. Therefore, if a user needs more time to defend or improve his work, he can get it within reason. 67.0.130.248 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the most logical proposal I can currently see here. Also strongly against Fram's proposal as illogical given the facts in evidence (specifically article age). --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No special treatment for Guantanamo captives

I don't think the Guantanamo articles should get "special treatment", nor do I think my contributions should get "special treatment".

With regard to {{blp1e}} whether some of these articles are instances of it, and whether I have ignored or don't understand it -- what constitutes an "event" is a highly subjective judgement. As someone noted above the participants in these {{afd}}s who favour deletion are disproportionately contributors who have self identified as military experts. And, those who self-identify as military experts don't recognize that when captives were charged before unprecedented Guantanamo "military commissions" were no longer individual known only for one event. The self-identified military experts don't recognize that when independent third parties report captives were arrested, tried, convicted or acquitted after they were repatriated to their home countries were no longer known for one event.

That other contributor above suggested that the opinions of the self-identified military experts represented a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, an overall minority view, and might not reflect a project wide view.

Those who disagree with covering Guantanamo captives expressed a lot of impatience here. Hundreds of hours have been spent on {{afd}} for these individuals.

I am going to propose a topic-specific notability guideline -- but not to get special treatment for Guantanamo captives. We have topic-specific notability guidelines WP:POLITICIANs, and WP:CRIMINALs. Those who self-identify as military experts want us to have a topic-specific notability rule for WP:SOLDIERs.

I am not proposing a topic specific notability rule for Guantanamo captives, but rather for everyone captive who is held in some kind of extrajudicial detention. Bowe Bergdahl is also held in a kind of extrajudicial detention. If he had never been captured he would be no more notable than the less notable Guantanamo captives. That female South American politician Íngrid Betancourt who was held by guerillas for half a dozen years, then freed in a daring rescue was also held in a kind of extrajudicial detention. Waterborne Iranian guards captured a small boat with a half dozen Royal Navy ratings, a few years ago, they too were held in a kind of extrajudicial detention. Íngrid Betancourt was just one of about fifty political captives the guerillas were holding. I would see the topic-specific notability rules for extrajudicial captives applying to all of those fifty.

I suggest that adopting topic specific notability rules here would avoid anyone thinking {{afd}} closures were instance of mere WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and could be specific as to what should or shouldn't class an individual as someone known solely for one event.

Here I suggest some topic specific notability criteria for extrajudicial captives, for comment. Geo Swan (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP is a tricky business at WP, as you know. I'd suggest you start a site called guantanamowatch.org or some such to make sure that biographical information is not lost to those searching for it — and as a reminder of ongoing American human rights abuses with respect to the Bush-Obama regime's illegal detention program there. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a start, although currently too targeted towards Guantanamo detainees at the moment. There are some very good ideas in here regarding having a book written about them (surprisingly not already a part of WP:ANYBIO), being tried in a military commission (should probably be broadened to anything described as a kangaroo court), being named on a most wanted list, multiple incarcerations by different countries, and compensation. Have there been any notability guidelines proposed for POWs, Political prisoners, Prisoners of conscience, or just prisoners (other than criminals) in general? --Joshuaism (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't set up special notability categories for living people who are considered to be the victims of injustice by editors as you're basically proposing here. To be frank Geo Swan, you seem to be trying to use Wikipedia to further some kind of campaign against the Guantanamo Bay regime. The notability criteria you propose are hopelessly biased and fundamentally inconsistent with WP:BLP (for instance, you suggest that detainees become notable if the US Government labels them a "recidivist" as (in part) "This meme has been strongly challenged by legal scholars and human rights, who found, when one looks closely at the named individuals, it seems that for some of them all they had to do to get listed as "recidivists" was to agree to be interviewed about conditions in the camp."). Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait... Nick-D, are you saying that people who are declared recidivists, terrorists, and/or enemies of the state by the US government are not notable? --Joshuaism (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What's being said here is that they are not made notable simply by being declared those things. Being declared a recidivist, terrorist, and/or enemy of the state =/= automatic notability. They still need to pass WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPEOPLE, and/or whichever other guideline is relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear. It is a staple of people attempting to save non-notable articles to hotly declare, "But X makes them notable!" No, meeting the requirements of the GNG and the pertinent subordinate notability criteria is what makes them "notable," as Wikipedia defines the term. So far, WP:USAHATESHIM is not a valid notability criterion. Ravenswing 05:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong! I'm saying that the initial capture and release is a separate incident from the declaration of recidivism. If there are reliable third party sources that report on these two separate events then the suspected terrorist is not a WP:BLP1E and the remoteness in time between the two events show continued interest and coverage.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that even if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply WP:GNG does. Appearing on a "list of people we don't like" doesn't confer squat. (Also note that if it did it would, ironically, make Wikipedia's systemic bias situation worse...or do we start assuming that Soviet Enemies of the State are notable? What about India's? Ecuador's? Grand Fenwick's?) Note also that "continued interest and coverage" =/= "significant coverage". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention China. And Singapore. And this list has a number of enemies of various states. Not all of those listed were imprisoned, many are of unquestionable notability, but others could be ripe cadidates for AfD if they were scrubbed as hard as these detainee articles have been. Would you recommend a strait down the list mass AfD of these articles? I would not. It would be more helpful to have a guideline to point to when we encounter non-notable imprisoned activists and freedom fighters. --Joshuaism (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"When we encounter non-notable imprisoned activists and freedom fighters" - we need to do the same thing we do with any non-notable person who has an article - delete the article, Q.E.D.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting concept you have there. So how many separate sources do you think it takes to meet GNG for a detainee? Because your history on BLP AfD's shows you hold detainees to a higher standard than voice actors(AfD - 0 sources), footballers(AfD - BLP1E), African government officials(AfD - 4 tangential mentions), and um... random people tangentially related to JFK?(AfD - BLP0E). These were all from the past two months while you've been happily voting to delete and merge Guantanamo detainees for failing GNG and BLP1E. I could not find one single detainee that you have voted to keep. How much continued coverage and how many secondary events will it take for you to consider any of them as notable?

But at least you have shown consistency when it comes to deleting local political nominees. It would appear that you hold these secondary guidelines for WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NFOOTY, and WP:POLITICIAN in higher regard than GNG. Is this why you oppose a guideline for prisoners?--Joshuaism (talk) 04:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In cases where there is not a list to be merged to, I err on the side of keep. When there is a list to be merged to, I err on the side of merging. In those cases, as far as I know, there is no list or other article to merge-and-redirect to, which there is for detainees and political candidates. If there was a m+r target I had been aware of for those, that would have been my !vote, as there was not (that I was/am aware of), I !voted to WP:PRESERVE. As for "how much continued coverage/secondary events" - if they get arrested for something else, or become outspoken public figures, by all means; otherwise let's respect their privacy after their traumatic experience. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

exactly--Guerillero | My Talk 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. These mass AfDs are tenditious. We should work together to hash out a guideline that will separate the wheat from the chaff in these detainee articles and will prevent contentious AfDs.--Joshuaism (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

...you seem to have completely missed the point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Did you follow the links? I think you are looking at 500 Watt sarcasm. I'll admit I'm not sure what direction it's pointing or if it's directed at us all. Hobit (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it can be said with certainty that it is pointing squarely and only in Geo Swan's direction. Hundreds if not thousands of stubs on Guantanamo detainees and relates articles over several years, which btw are also being exported to other wikis such as wikialpha and guantanmo.wikia.com. This is an editor on a clear-cut agenda here. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bushranger. I don't see Wikipedia as a Zero-sum game.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment in regards to new notability essay. Anyone can write an essay; additionally it has been my experience that getting a new notability essay passed is very difficult. Also, the weight an essay receives is determined by the weight given to it by the community. The reason why certain essays, such as WP:SOLDIER carry weight is because of how it came to be, and has evolved, and it's continued use and support.

Therefore, if one wishes to create an essay regarding notability of terrorist I suggest that WP:TERRORISM is the best place to find a group of editors interested in the subject, create a WikiProject consensus on what above and beyond WP:GNG would be considered notability within the scope of the project, and host the notability essay in a subpage of that wikiproject. As with SOLDIER, GNG comes first as it is the paramount notability guideline that all others spring from.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And if I saw the editors who participated in these AfD's at WP:TERRORISM (members list) I would move this discussion there. Clearly the community that is commenting right here is the one that should participate in shaping this guideline. It should be something we can all hold each other accountable to.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't solely about Guantanamo captives though. Take an article like Jeffrey Groharing, which was prodded back in 2008 by an editor wholly separate from the RfC or the current AfDs (as far as I am aware). It has the same problems, i.e. a total lack of notability (hidden in part by the inclusion of pure trivia like "finished 1048 out of 9629 in a Marine Corps marathon"), and the counter-arguments are again cases of what Geo Swan thinks is notable, not what RS have found notable, like "I'd like to ask nominator, how many other lawyers can he name who have acknowledged withholding exculpatory evidence?". Or things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagram detainees' uniforms or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starbucks at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which makes for interesting reading. Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold (2nd nomination) and the accompanying DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July 8. Fram (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Jeffrey Groharing ia one of the worst articles I've ever seen. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We all know that you have an involved history with Geo Swan, Fram. Please do not try to bias this discussion by pointing out other problematic articles by Geo Swan. Wikipedia has no deadline and WP:OTHERSTUFF can be addressed at another time. This section was created to discuss the possibility of setting a guideline for the notability of Guantanamo detainees and other prisoners. Geo Swan also created the article for Bowe Bergdahl and look at how it has blossomed! While, Bergdahl does not meet the standard for WP:SOLDIER, I doubt anyone would propose an AfD on that article now, even with its such humble beginnings. Perhaps that same magic can be worked on some of these detainee articles Geo Swan has made. But no one will be willing to put in the work if there is little certainty that the article will be preserved. Let's establish which one's are candidates for notability by creating this guideline. --Joshuaism (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That reasoning is backwards. If they put in the work, the article will be preserved. Therefore, claiming that no-one will be prepared to put in the work if there is a risk the article is deleted is not true. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan

The proposal (made informally above, more formal here as a separate section) is to indefinitely topic-ban Geo Swan from all BLP-related articles and from all Guantanamo-related articles, in article space and in the userspaces. He would be allowed to comment on talk pages, in AfDs, and so on.

The reason for this proposed topic ban is that he is the only editor I am aware of who has had hundreds of articles on these sensitive topics deleted through AfDs and Prods, has had an RfC on the same topic, and is after more than five years still doing the same things and still arguing in favor of these articles, ignoring policies, guidelines and consensus, preferring to create a new guideline to be able to keep most of these articles. He has had ample time to clean up his act and clean up his many still existing articles (main space and user space), but instead it comes down to other people to find the problems and get them removed. After the RfC, he continued creating BLPs and Guantanamo related articles of very dubious notability, e.g. Camp Five Echo, Hamidullah Khan (Bagram captive), Ehsanullah Ehsan (Taliban spokesman) or the already deleted David Conn (judge). An article like Mansour Nasser al Bihani would not fall under the ban, but whether it should have been created is rather dubious as well. User:Geo Swan/tm was created as a copy-paste move of Tariq Mahmood (detainee) at the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Mahmood (detainee), and kept around since then, in violation of WP:STALEDRAFT.

There is also something like User:Geo Swan/Abdul Razik, one of the many abandoned articles in his user space, which seems to be a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME.

WP:TLDR version: Because too many of his creations are problematic (at least with regards to notability, and often also for WP:BLP reasons), because he should by now be well aware of the consensus that many of his articles shouldn't have been created and that many of his userspace pages should long ago have been deleted (cf. the many successful AfDs and MfDs), and because he continues to create and edit articles and userspace pages with the same problems anyway, I propose the above topic ban. Fram (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support: if BLP is really a serious policy, it needs to be dealt with seriously. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Does it need to be this strong? Would simply banning the creation of new articles on the subjects in question suffice? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps. The wider topic ban would also prevent edits like this one (see the rest of the history and the talk page discussion for what was wrong with it), but I agree that preventing the creation of such pages is the main argument for the topic ban. Fram (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Are you serious??? So many of Geo Swan's articles have been deleted (some too soon) only because there was a change in the Wikipediet temperament about the depth of this subject. Before that, many of these articles had been there for years -- and I've seen someone on C-SPAN praise Wikipedia for its GTMO coverage. It's not his fault that the sensitivities here have changed toward deletionism. And what are you going to do when those sensitivities swing back again? -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Quite aside from that Wikipedia's ongoing trend over the last several years has been to tighten notability standards - something at which opponents looking for a cheap slur wave the "deletionism" flag - not to yoyo back and forth, I daresay that should sentiments change and GeoSwan wants to revisit the issue, he can raise the issue and seek relief. Ravenswing 14:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- I obviously oppose this topic ban. I am not really familiar with the wikipedia's precedents for imposing topic-ban -- but surely it should be triggered by a record of terrible judgment or terrible bad faith?

I've listed all the BLP articles I started since the 2011 discussion here. I suggest there that a topic ban on starting BLPs should be based on looking at the record of BLP articles started since the 2011 discussion. My challengers seem to be claiming that I have ignored those discussions, and created new articles that use the kinds of references that are no longer considered satisfactory. I don't think my record shows that.

My note has a subsection -- does the record of BLP articles I created merit a topic-ban? I encourage anyone considering weighing in here to look at a handful of those articles and reach their own conclusion as to whether I genuinely show a pattern of starting articles. Geo Swan (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have noted at the talk page there that at least six of those pages are not BLPs. And you haven't included pages in your userspace either, like the now deleted User:Geo Swan/tm. Fram (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support On the basis of his statements and the problematic nature of the articles he's created since the RfC, Geo Swan is continuing to use Wikipedia to push his personal views, regardless of core policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't use a sledgehammer where a nutcracker will suffice.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: I agree that a strictly construed topic ban against creating such articles is merited, given GeoSwan's ongoing fervor in pushing articles which plainly fail of notability under current standards. I don't see that a ban against editing such articles is warranted; such should be reserved for persistent vandalism or edit warring, sins of which GeoSwan has not been guilty. Ravenswing 14:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It might make sense to issue a ban on creating articles of this sort directly in mainspace, while leaving it OK to edit existing articles, and also OK to submit proposed new articles through WP:AFC for approval/import by other editors if the articles meet standards. On general principles, I do like the idea of leaving AFC available as a filter, in cases of good faith but excessively enthusiastic article creation, where there's still reasonable likelihood of something of merit coming out of it. I'm neutral on the suggestion in this specific case for now, since I haven't (so far) examined the disputed editing enough to be sure it's the right thing. Note: This is revised from a !vote to a comment. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Yet another self-destructive wikilynching 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Holding something against a user for something created years ago doesn't even stand up at RFA applicants, but to honestly try and topic ban a user for something that was made back in 2011 should meet with a procedural close as the window on such matters has long since expired. Considering that the proposer of the current topic ban has a history of being involved in the matter, the opportunities for such things presented themselves long ago. A storm in a teacup perhaps, but these AFDs and much of the content already deleted or removed cannot be personally verified by a majority of users and the issues within do absolutely nothing to address the changing culture of Wikipedian's interpretation of notability guidelines. The matter is unfair to GeoSwan, regardless of a years old RFC, to address the concerns. A new RFC should be done, and from the events after THAT RfC bear reason to topic-ban, only THEN should such a proposal be brought forth. AGF still stands and much of this dispute falls under disruptive editing. GeoSwan should be given considerable time and leeway to address the matters in a formal setting and context that is not ArbCom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am "holding something against a user" for creating similar things over years and years, right until now. I have left Geo Swan alone after the RfC, to make sure that any continuation of the problems wouldn't be caused by or blamed on me. This was requested by a number of people at the RfC. The result of this is not only that the problematic pages have stayed on Wikipedia for much longer (and have been joined by a few new ones), but also that aapparently any resolution I'm trying to find now is impossible because "Considering that the proposer of the current topic ban has a history of being involved in the matter, the opportunities for such things presented themselves long ago." Nothing has changed since the old RfC apart from me staying away from him for over a year, so there is no reason at all to request a new RfC. He has had all the time anyone could reasonably need, giving him even more time before any action is taken is not productive. Why did I need to point out two examples of problematic pages in his userspace, one from right before the RfC, one from afterwards? Didn't the RfC and the countless MfDs send a clear enough message about what is acceptable and what isn't? Fram (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • As you say, the afc did not change things. The appropriate response to that is for you to stay away from him indefinitely. To the extent there is a case to be made, you are too involved to make it. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as an unnecessary wrecking ball. Might be willing to support a topic ban on creation outside of AfC. This, however, is ridiculous. We would do better to limit the number of GeoSwan's articles that can be deleted in a given time period. Absolutely absurd and not in any way called for. --Nouniquenames (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to refer to Arbcom

We're stuck. We've already been to RFC/U stage, and AN/I isn't solving this.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth more consideration.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth dropping altogether. -Nouniquenames (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What issues should be referred? I agree that it's the next logical step if further dispute resolution is needed, but the AfD process is working well at the moment in relation to these articles, and there is was little support above for the proposal that the nominations slow down, so ArbCom probably wouldn't accept a case on that basis. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• The issues that I see are:- (1) Is Geo Swan being singled out and targeted? Assume that there is no evidence the many AfD nominations are retaliatory or vindictive. (2) If so, is it a problem that he's being singled out and targeted? Are any actions necessary to protect him? (3) Noting that there's very significant overlap between those who participated in the RFC/U and those who participated in the AN/I thread, are the AN/I thread's (lack of) conclusions reliable?

  I also have two related questions which would probably be outside the case's formal remit, but per curiam, opinions would be welcome: (4) is it possible to overuse the AfD process by making many repeated nominations in a short period? If so, how can we identify overuse? and (5) Should prolific content contributors enjoy any special rights or protection in the AfD process, or is it the inalienable right of all users to AfD material they consider unencyclopaedic?—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• 1-4 I'm not sure of, but I'll comment on (5) and say absolutely not - that would be another version of the whole "vested contributor" thing that makes some editors 'more equal than others' and 'above the law'. If "anyone can edit" - which WMF has defended come hell, high water, or even editor consensus - then "anyone can delete", and creating a special caste of "AfD-proof" editors - which would be the inevitable result, regardless of good-faith intent - isn't something Wikipedia ever needs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Slippery slope arguments are a kind of informal fallacy. I'm not proposing to create a caste of AfD-proof editors. My opinion is merely that one person shouldn't have more than, say, ten pages created by another person at XfD simultaneously provided the creating editor is a good faith editor in good standing (i.e. not a known sockpuppet or under investigation for copyright violations or whatever).

  It's true that this means that if someone was a prolific content creator, it wouldn't be possible to eradicate their entire corpus at once. To that extent our most productive editors, provided they're in good faith, would enjoy some measure of protection. That seems right to me because the purpose of all Wikipedia processes is to help productive editors in good standing to get on with what they do best, and to protect them from vandalism and excessive amounts of bureaucracy.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I completely understand you're not proposing that; I don't doubt your good faith in the least, don't worry. It's just that, unfortunatly, from my observations on Wikipeida behavior that would be what such a measure would, inevitably, turn into - in perception, if not in fact, an in a way the former would be even more toxic than the latter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• My concern is that if it's okay to play this AfD-bombing game with Geo Swan, then it might very well be okay to play it with others. I mean, let's imagine someone vexatiously or retributively nominated everything ever written by S Marshall at AfD; I could defend one, two, or three articles. I couldn't defend sixty. In the circumstances I'd simply quit Wikipedia in disgust. Letting people XfD very large amounts of material simultaneously is an invitation to hounding and griefers.—S Marshall T/C 06:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK, let's imagine someone started nominated everything written by User:S Marshall, at the rate of 2 per day. Even if they skip the GAs, after the snow keep of Agriculture in the United Kingdom and Badger culling in the United Kingdom, and the strong consensus for keep for Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 and Antje Boetius, all without any need for defence from you, someone will be here at ANI asking that the nominator be banned from AfD, and it will be unanimously carried (if they haven't been blocked already). That is not the situation here. It's about the content, not the numbers, and that applies both in creation and deletion. Kanguole 11:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• As Kanguole said, WP:POINTy AfDs get sniffed out in a hurry and result in speedy closes - this has actually happened at AfD a couple of times in the past year. They get detected and dealt with under the current process just fine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, when you have 200 or 300 articles you created deleted afterwards, one can wonder whether they still are "in good standing" or whether creating articles really is "what they do best". AfDs (and MfDs) are not "vandalism" and not "excessive amounts of bureaucracy", they are in some cases the only way to get rid of massive amounts of sub-par or non-policy compliant articles. He was given the chance to go through his articles and clean them up (delete or redirect the problematic ones, improve the other ones with better sourcing and so on), but he didn't. He still wanted to keep things like the Starbuck's at Guantanamo article, wasting time on "excessive burocracy" instead of just G7 deleting it. Perhaps, instead of giving extra protection, we should create a process that after let's say 50 successful AfDs of anyone's articles, a CCI-like process is started to check all their articles instead? Fram (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already brought your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habib Noor.  This one AfD deleted four articles where the nomination does not analyze the WP:ATD alternatives to deletion, and the nomination and every argument is 100% consistent with a merge.  Likewise, current community consensus is to merge, not delete; so if it is really true that there are 200 to 300 Guantanamo AfD deletions, the fact that they were deleted seems to mean that the community now needs to run 200-300 AfD discussions through DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just becasue consensus changed doesn't mean past AfDs need to be DRV'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We are here to build an encyclopedia.  How are we going to restore these articles if not through DRV?  Unscintillating (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

By writing fresh content based on the reliable sources and inserting it in the articles that the articles deleted under the old consensus would have been merged to under the new consensus? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no purpose to writing "fresh" articles here.  Please restore the relevant deletions to the incubator so that they can be merged.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, you misunderstand me. I'm not referring to writing new articles. I'm saying to write new paragraphs in the merge targets that the previously-deleted articles redirect to. And I honestly have no idea how the incubator works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Incubator is described at WP:AI. I think the idea is just to get the old material back so that it can be reworked into the redirect targets. Userfying it would work as well as incubation in this case. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 07:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Going to Arbcom would also give Fram the opportunity to express his grievances. But I see little appetite for the idea.—S Marshall T/C 06:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that unfortunately it may be time to involve arbcom. This is esssentially a behavioral issue, or possibly several behavioral issues, and as such is within their perview. Previous attempts at dispute resolution, including this one, have failed to resolve the situation. Dropping it, like permanantly dropping it by all involved parties, or taking it to arbcom seem the only remaining alternatives. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If by "dropping it" you mean that people like me don't interfere one way or another, and simultaneously that people (not me if you like) are allowed to continue to nominate articles for AfD (or MfD) like they are doing now when they feel it is needed, then I have no problem to drop this. I would much prefer if this could continue the way it was before this ANI discussion, without involvement from me and without any special rules protecting Geo Swan or his articles beyond what is applied to all other editors. Fram (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be the outcome of the discussions above: there's clearly no consensus for the proposals that a) the AfDs slow down b) that Geo Swan be topic banned or c) Geo Swan's suggested special notability criteria. As such, there isn't really much to take to ArbCom (who are likely to reject a case as the community appears to have sorted out the above proposals), and things can keep on going as they were before. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again we are stuck.  I think that the reason this needs to go to Arbcom is because the administrators are disempowered.  Multiple opportunities have existed for individual admins to intervene.  DBigXray left no ambiguity regarding his/her WP:INCIVILITY, no diffs are needed.  Yet we are still one admin short of the number of administrators needed to respond to this issue.  Next, it only needed one administrator in early July to see that DBigXray was not analyzing the WP:ATD in nominations, and to issue procedural closure WP:NPASR for correction.  Next, it appears that we have 65 to 300 deletions that need to be restored so that they can be merged because we are here to build an encyclopedia and this is current consensus.  Yet no administrator has so far picked up the slack given one administrator's declination or inability to start the process.  There is something disempowering the administrators that is stopping the improvement of the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not just inability. I would not consider myself able to do it, because I've been involved in a good many of the discussions. What I do see is a great reluctance of most people to get involved with articles or debates on this general subject--it must overall be a matter of general embarrassment to anyone sympathetic with the need of the US to defend itself to see it defending itself in this manner. I speak on the basis of my own feelings--I consider it much too upsetting a topic for me to actively help geo with these articles, though I have consistently defended his right to work on them. For after all, that is the best solution: adding sources. I consider the claims of BLP 1E as misconceived, and an attempt to avoid serious work on them by rejecting even the possibility of sourcing--I cannot see how people do not realize that they are already regarded individually as martyrs--very wrongly in some cases, not unreasonably in others, and that this will be of continuing historical importance. Especially do I see the frequent argument of DO NO HARM as absurd beyond reason--as if anything WP could do could harm them more than they have already been harmed. If we truly care about lessening harm, we would cover them in detail. When BLP is used opposite to its purpose, then it warrants examination of why we let it happen. I apologize for going back to the actual issues underlying this, instead of an immediate solution, but I think only by doing so can we clarify the situation. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Could someone look at some of the articles mentioned in DBigXray's post of 16:52, 18 August 2012, and check whether they appear neutral? Are we seeing some kind of POV dispute between DBigXray and Geo Swan, playing out at AfD? Maybe there should be an interaction ban, which would stop these AfD's. Here in this thread, per Unscintillating's comment, I'm finding DBigXray's approach to be unhelpfully aggressive, if that matters. I'm also not understanding what the problem is with userfying or incubating the deleted Geo Swan articles. Is there a list of them somewhere? 69.228.170.132 (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to allow Geo Swan To slow down the AfD process

I believe that if Geo Swan is intent on improving an article that was nominated for AfD so that it meets all guidelines that it was nominated for, then he should be able to do so. The common user, when faced with a single or a couple AfD's on articles that he created, can try to improve the article(s) to meet wikipedia's standards.

However, when faced with a large number of such AfD nominated articles, it is almost impossible to defend your work in the allotted time. What I propose is that:

1. The article is resolved according to a normal AfD if Geo Swan does not post asking for this extension.
2. The article is still resolved according to AfD if Geo Swan's post is not seconded by an established user in good standing.
3. If such a request is seconded, but improvements and/of a thorough defense have not been made in the allotted time, and the result of the AfD is otherwise delete, then the article is deleted, BUT the AfD discussion remains open until the granted period of extension has passed,or until Geo Swan or another user has made the required changes to the article or the creator of or a significant contributor to the article has posted a thorough defense of the article. A copy of the original (deleted) article will be in the AfD discussion during this time.
4. At the end of this period of extension, an admin reviews the AfD discussion, and either closes the AfD discussion if no or insufficient defense/changes were made, and reopens the discussion if the changes/defence substantially changed the argument.
5. This resource is only available if a large number of articles by the same author are simultaneously nominated.
6. This is unavailable for speedy delete nominations, which likely seek to resolve a legal issue rather than a content one. This prevents a libellous unsourced BLP from hanging around on Wikipedia.

Note: I am a relatively new and inexperienced editor in wikipedia, so if this looks insane, it probably is.

Tazerdadog (talk) 05:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

With all respect, I think that you misunderstand the problem here. Most of these articles are being deleted as the individual's only claim to notability is that they are one of the hundreds of people to have been held in Guantanamo Bay and gone through its associated legal system(s). As such, they are being deleted per WP:BLP1E, and no amount of 'improvements' to the article can get around this fundamental notability issue. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Notability (people) "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate."  Ordinary editing includes merges and redirects, and merges and redirects are considered to be improvements to the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• User:Tazerdadog, thank you for your interest in these {{afd}}. You may be a newcomer, but I think you put your finger right on one of the key difficulties of DBigXray's 100 {{Xfd}}. Two minutes prior to nominating Hozaifa Parhat for deletion DBigXray excised over 17 kilobytes of material, with the justification "per WP:BLPPRIMARY". That 17K of material contained over a dozen perfectly valid third party references that there is no question were secondary sources anyone but DBigXray would consider WP:Reliable sources.

  If you meant to suggest that we are all volunteers here, working on articles in our spare time, and that no one should be expected to try to respond to dozens of {{xfd}} at the same time I wholeheartedly agree.

  On July 11th I went on record in User:Geo Swan/Redirecting Guantanamo captives articles to the list articles on their nationalities with plans to redirect all Guantanamo articles that I thought did not measure up to our current standards. I then redirected over 300 articles, as documented in here. I said I would look at these articles, one at a time. I said when I thought I had prepared a new draft that I thought would meet today's standards I would seek the opinion of trusted senior contributors, and would only turn the article from a redirect back to an article, if they concurred.

  I thought this was a perfectly reasonable compromise. Geo Swan (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• User:Nick-D Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that every single one of Geo swan's articles should be deleted per WP:BLP1E, and that these articles cannot be saved. I believe that this compromise is still a good idea. Geo Swan would develop a sense of why the articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia in this case, and the whole situation would be defused in an uncontroversial manner. However, if any of the articles can be improved to the point where they no longer are candidates for deletion under WP:BLP1E, then Geo Swan should have the time and opportunity to do so.

Tazerdadog (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• This situation is a little bit unusual, but my general advice (maybe not a good idea in this specific case) to someone trying frantically to save an article before an afd deadline is that they should just save a copy of the content offline or in userspace, let the deletion close, and continue to improve the saved copy at their leisure. Then once the saved copy is up to standards, they can recreate the article. It's generally no big deal if a low-interest article is temporarily offline. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is good general advice, however Geo's working notes in user-space have also been attacked in the past, he has been denied refunds by one of the admins who have gone for his pages, and of course the advantage of on-wiki notes is the linkage, particularly in this very complex but specialist field, of which Geo is probably one of the worlds top ten experts. The advantage of allowing Geo to change them redirects, is that the putative problem is solved. The fact hat he has already dealt with hundreds of them shows that it can work. No one else need then worry about makin AfDs etc etc, and if, perchance, someone other than Geo wants to recreate the article, the work that has been doen to date isn't thrown away. It seems a good solution, my only quibble is that even so we are loosing a lot of useful information, due to muddled thinking about BLP. Rich Farmbrough, 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC).
    

This is probably not the right place to dump these articles, but the incubator at least deserves a look...Tazerdadog (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Metalvayne

On and off for the last year or so, I, along other editors, have been warning User:Metalvayne for his disruptive editing. Since being blocked for edit warring about a year ago, his main offense has been the unsourced changing of music genre without explanation, and/or if challenged, he continues to change it back, citing his personal, unfounded views on genre, thinking that they come first over the view of reliable sources. His talk page, User talk:Metalvayne, documents the many occurrences of warnings over this.

Up until now, I was content with just cleaning up his messes or arguing with him on discussion pages, as he usually concedes to consensus. However, recently, his genre tinkering has crossed the line into [homophobic vandalism, which he later, after a warning, just laughed off as "a little prank".

It's clear he's not taking any of the warnings on his talk page seriously, so I wanted to come here to see what else could be warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 12:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, for the record, to understand the mindset of this editor, this was his reaction to being reported here. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,guys,I don't know what is Sergecross's actual problem with me but he's up against me since the very beginning in example a few months back I removed a dead link/source from this article & added a source from Nuclearblast's official site but Sergecross reverted it without even properly inspecting.Nuclear Blast is the band's label for further info.Another similar case can be found here,again without even properly observing.And as far as my contributions are concerned in AiC article regarding the inclusion of Sludge metal in the self titled album,well,I do believe they played Sludge metal and Blues fused Stoner rock in the album,not only me,I know a tons of fans who identify the album as a Sludge metal album.Don't believe me,just join Encyclopaedia Metallum and find out yourself/yourselves,well I'm a member there as well.And I'v always wanted to contribute to wiki as much as I can since the beginning,I'v created article on Darkwater (band) & did various minor contributions. Metalvayne (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And,hey Sergecross,Backtable is actually a nice guy,I'v had a brief conversation with him on last.fm a few months back & I'm extremely satisfied with his thoughts,guys like you give wikipedia a bad name.That's why members of Encyclopaedia Metallum get chance to talk crap about wiki all the time. Metalvayne (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted a number of his Metalvayne's edit without checking the sources he removed, because he did not leave edit summaries for why he removed the information to begin with. Typically, I tend to revert 10 bad edits he's made without explanation, and occassionally have 1 that he legitimately removed, but he didn't explain why. Once he explains in his next revert, I no longer challenge it. Crisis averted. He's been informed many times about using edit summaries, and continues to not use them much of the time anyways. As far as the genre stuff, that's not the place to discuss this. (Although, on that topic, see this discussion on genre to see more of his logic that doesn't comply to Wikipedia standards, not to mention he proceeds to insults other editors - his defense being that he was high.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As an experienced wikipedian you should notice these stuffs about defunct & invalid sources.It's not like that you can't come across the changes that are being made to a particular article,you can always view the previous version of it,so pay attention to these things instead of complaining about leaving edit summaries.And one more thing,answer honestly,are you a fan of Alice in Chains?Do you even legally own a single record of them? Metalvayne (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a handful of minor errors that ultimately trace back to you not leaving edit summaries, and were quickly resolved. But the topic here is you, not me. (By all means, if you'd like to open up an ANI on me, go for it. And good luck.) But how do you explain all the issues I've brought up above, and reconcile them with Wikipedia policy? That's the thing to discuss here. (Not "fanship status" of bands.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Editors' personal opinions are are forbidden, so it does not matter who owns what or who has even heard the artist or not (as Sergecross73 correctly notes about fanship being irrelevant). I urge Metalvayne to strike the patter part of his above comment, as it may also come across as suggesting a fellow editor might be engaging in illegal copying as the alternative. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And as you've brought upon the issue of 'insulting',well,if you call that insulting,I don't really have to say anything but to laugh out loud.But I admit,it was a bit harsh to some extent. Metalvayne (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This goes well beyond this particular user, there are hordes of IPs that engage in genre twaddling all the time. The problem is that a lot of this stuff was PR-invented back in the day. They didn't want their new product to just be say "techno" so it became "darkwave synth". I was a DJ and a music director from about 1991-96 at an indie radio station, the PR guys used to put stickers on the jewel case with what terms and descriptors they wanted us to push. Sludge metal isn't a genre, neither is "blues-infused stoner rock". They are just colorful descriptors of the sound, not the genre. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tarc,If Sludge metal & Stoner rock aren't subgenres then,why are there featured articles on both? Sludge metal Stoner rock Apparently Sludge,Grunge & Stoner are sibling genres,grunge being the mainstream exposure in the early 90's. Metalvayne (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As already stated, my particular argument isn't that it doesn't exist, it's that you can't even find any reliable sources that support using them to label the bands you chose to label them with. (Or you just change genre's without source or explanation.) And then you argue about it for, stop for a bit, and then start at it again, like you're checking to see if people are still watching the article pages. (Or, conversely, start at a new band page that no one's watching...)

Additionally, now it's moved into vandalism with you homophobic remarks, when you've been around long enough to know better...Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? didn't understand a single word from the statement written above,too much brackets I say? Metalvayne (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't seem to understand, or willing to learn, Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources to prove that certain bands are certain genre. Instead of using reliable sources, you resort to "Well, I think this sounds like so and so" or talk about how many LastFM users called it a genre. It doesn't seem to matter how many warnings you receive, and now it's escalating, with nonsense like your homophobic commentary. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

About the homophobic vandalism,it won't happen again,it was just I was so p***** off by listening to that modern core band's music during a jamming session(as a friend said to listen) I did a silly childish error. Metalvayne (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a terrible excuse for an offensive thing you did on purpose. Sergecross73 msg me 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well,you don't know me personally,I'm known for being an honest guy,it's not an excuse,believe it or else chuck it. Metalvayne (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't know you personally, all we know is how you come across on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you're "known for being an honest guy" elsewhere - all we know (and all that matters) are your actions here. Also, please indent your comments. I've taken the liberty of indenting above - please do it yourself in the future, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you came across the article for an "emocore/shit band" who "make such horrible music that makes me want to puke" and in your mind this means that they make homosexual music? The problem here is not that you're being honest, the problem is that you use bigoted language to equate a sexual orientation with shit that makes you want to puke. I suggest that you may not have the maturity nor enough respect for your fellow editors to be editing here (and this isn't a matter of a childish mistake; I don't accidentally refer to music I don't like as "nigger music," you know, because it's not part of my vocabulary). This isn't even yet considering the genre warring, on which based on your considerable history of WP:IDHT I would suggest a topic ban at the very least. Sædon^talk 23:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since I have dealt with this editor in the past, my input may be of some use. Metalvayne does have a history of regular genre warring, and I have called him out on it in the past, as corroborated by the fact that I had posted several warnings on his talk page. Metalvayne mentioned here that he had a conversation with me on last.fm; this is true, and it did end up amicable. Ever since then, I had not really encountered him, since he hasn't, for a while, edited pages on my watchlist. Although there was no contact between us since the last.fm conversation, I have recently wondered if he is still up to the genre editing.

Anyways, I guess there was that homophobic edit on Dead by April, which was quite needless. As well, he is still performing genre changes to Alice in Chains and related pages, which is rather distracting. I think it is worth pointing out that back in September 2011, Metalvayne got blocked for 24 hours for his participation in a scuffle relating to the page for Opeth.

For people that honestly edit and maintain music articles, genre warring is a quite bothersome and ignominious practice that distracts from the true goal of Wikipedia: to be a neutral, verifiable, and accurate (et cetera) encyclopedia. People performing genre editing in such large amounts make too much of a scene around themselves, and this type of sideshow ultimately does not benefit Wikipedia. I, personally, hate genre warring and have spent too much time removing it from Wikipedia, when I could instead be adding useful information to this website. On the music articles, there is a surprisingly significant amount of it happening; right now, I am dealing with an genre warrior who might be a sockpuppet, which is unrelated to this case. I won't go into detail about what music is and what it represents, but music is not meant for someone to assign silly genre names to and pigeonhole into a label that they themselves like best; when done to excess or in an otherwise inappropriate manner, this type of practice exploits the targeted music, as well as the people who create said music. When performed on Wikipedia, I would also say that practitioners of this activity exploit Wikipedia too. I'm sick of it, and I am appalled at how much it happens; it is an extremely inappropriate way to show how someone is a fan, or at least interested, in the music.

Metalvayne has a history of questionable editing, as well as acrimonious relations with other Wikipedians, and has in recent history resorted to even lower standards, enough for his behavior to be pointed out on this noticeboard. Obviously he has created some controversy by his methods and practices here, and some of said practices breach civility guidelines. Actions beckon consequences, and giving this person a pile of warnings have proven not to get through to him. I agree with Saedon that a topic ban or a block may be necessary; the genre warring, by itself, is just too much and has gone on for way too long. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey,Backtable since you've drag up the issue of blocking on Opeth,I'd like to remind you that the other user,Gunmetalangel whom I was challenging got blocked for 24 hours as well.Oh and I just found that he's been blocked indefinitely from editing,so think about that,whether I was helping by reverting peculiar edits by a user like him or not.And as far as the homophobic vandalism is concerned I'v said that it was a rash & foolish act of desperation,& I'v apologised for that.Furthermore,I'd like to add that,I'll continue my observations on Alice in Chains & similar cases as I like their music & none of them were vandalised through my contributions,so,I'll keep on contesting if I see something wrong is going on.And one more thing,what does the 'almighty' Sergecross73 do while this kind of absurd editing take place? Metalvayne (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Metalvayne: Oh my, I did not know that Gunmetal Angel was blocked permanently, and that it had been over a month since that happened. Since I was not involved with the situation where Gunmetal Angel got blocked, I will not state here any opinion or further observation of mine on that event and the ensuing judgement. Anyways, I looked at the history of Would?, and you removed the "(And or the greatest song ever written.)" text a little bit over an hour after it was initially posted on the page. Thank you for removing that unencyclopedic text; removing it in such relatively short time was a good thing to do to the page. There are a few reasons why the allegedly almighty Sergecross73 did not get there before you did. 1: It is nearly inpossible for an individual to be on Wikipedia 24 hours per day. At any given time, a regular Wikipedia user may have other concerns or preoccupations possibly having to do with "real life" circumstances. 2: I see that Segecross73 has never edited the Would? page once, so he may not be concerned with that single page nor have it on his/her watchlist. 3: Nobody can be everywhere on Wikipedia, and missing out on activity on some pages a user doesn't usually visit does not make the user at fault for not reverting immediately. They may be elsewhere on Wikipedia, or have other preoccupations a la reason 1. 4: You got there first, and took care of it; good job.

To any interested party: I'll post in this thread if necessary, but I'm content with what I have posted as of now, so I might not need to. Also, I have a night's rest coming up, so I'll be out for the next several hours. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As Backtable has said, I can hardly be blamed for not cleaning up vandalism on a page I've never edited, that was only there for about an hour anyways. And regardless of GunMetal Angel being blocked or banned or whatever, it doesn't change the fact that Metalvayne was rightfully blocked for edit warring in that instance. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban?

So, two users now have suggested a topic ban regarding Metalvayne and music genre. I strongly support that as well, so that's three people. I'm familiar with the concept, but have never been part of the process of gathering concensus or enacting it, so I was wondering how do we go about doing this? Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

First the ban proposal needs to be formulated. Exactly what is proposed to be banned? Editing band pages? Just changing genres? Solo performers? If all band page edits, does it also include band talk pages? Is the ban to be widely or narrowly construed? Etc.

Once you have decided exactly what you want to propose (s)he be banned from doing, you propose the ban here on AN/I or on AN. If on AN, it could be a new topic. If here, it could easily enough be a new sub-topic of this current discussion. AN has the benefit of having slower archiving, making it less likely the proposal might archive off without resolution. Here has the advantage of already having the above discussion. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I already have an idea for what it should be, so I'll just start it below in a new subsection for now. Thank you for your guidance. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

I propose that User:Metalvayne be topic-banned from editing/changing genre in any musician or band related articles. I don't care if he still edits band/musician articles in general, as long as he does not touch anything related to genre/musical influences/musical styles etc.

The problem is that he doesn't seem to understand, or be willing to learn, Wikipedia's standard for reliable sources to prove that certain bands are certain genre. Instead of using reliable sources, he resorts to "his subjective, personal observations" or talks about unreliable, unverifiable generalities like "everyone knows this" or "according to people at a given fansite...". Half the time, he offers no rationale at all, removing reliably sourced info without any sort of comment on his edit summary. He frequently makes genre changes that are against prior consensus, as well. It doesn't seem to matter how many warnings he receives, he just starts up the same antics and another article. (See his talk page for the many warning he's received on all of this.)

And now it's only getting, worse, like with the incident that inspired this trip to ANI - This innappropriate homophobic vandalism to a band's genre. At this time, I just don't think he's ready to be editing this sort of content on Wikipedia.

• Support - Per my proposal. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead,I don't care if I get blocked from making certain changes,but I'll keep observing my desired fields and if I see something wrong is going on,for instance like this IP has vandalised Alice in Chains & several other articles as you can see within few days & you didn't pay any attention,& I know you won't pay attention because you're always after me.Furthermore,you haven't warned the user but I did,not only me but many other like TYelliotdid & as a result he has been blocked from editing.So,as I was saying if I see something wrong is going on & you're being idle,I won't hesitate to open up an ANI on you. Metalvayne (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open up an ANI on me, but things like not catching every instance of vandalism related to Alice in Chains is neither against policy, or my responisibility. Thank you though, for demonstrating that you have no defense, and that even you don't object to the topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Based on a long history of WP:IDHT regarding unsourced change. Also recommend a mentor to help with the other issues. Sædon^talk 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to bring upon an issue from Limp Bizkit like in here the involved IP has made a change in the genre without providing source & explanation.Two days have passed but Sergecross73 didn't bother to look up to the matter,but,in case if I was the guy instead of the respective IP then,no doubt till now I would've received tons of warnings on my talk page.Thus,this is as clear as daylight that,he's always after my contributions. Metalvayne (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't on my watchlist, and I don't especially have active interest in the article. I cannot fix, monitor, or be held responsible for all of the project's shortcomings. Meanwhile, as said before, there's no policy against me going around and fixing things you're knowingly doing wrong. (Which again, you don't even try to defend, but rather, you try to wrongfully drag me down with you.) Sergecross73 msg me 19:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHEM Sædon^talk 19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Considering this user's history with genre warring and needless tampering with the infobox's genre slot, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. Wikipedia really does not need as much genre tampering as it has. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 20:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Metalvayne has posted notices on his user page and user talk page that he has reitred. This was effective shortly after 6:00 UTC. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I don't want it to be overkill, but can we continue on with the process here anyways? He's always been the type of editor that edits for a few weeks, then leaves a few weeks, coming and going like that. I'd rather not have it where he un-retires in 2 weeks, starts up again, and then I'd have to dig up all of this again. Seems like there'd be no problem with being both retired and topic-banned. (If that is in fact the consensus we gather here.) Sergecross73 msg me 11:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon for people to announce retirements to evade scrutiny. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that retirement and topic banning should not have to be mutually exclusive, and that it is better to take care of something now than give the benefit of the doubt just to find out the person ends up still performing the activity he was criticized for. I see that since I posted my support of the idea, that two others have joined in supporting the ban as well, which is good for the consensus. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Genre-fiddling without good reason and time sunk into researching relevant sources (then citing them) is a complete waste of time and causes clean-up work for others. There are countless other ways Metalvayne can contribute without them wading into this area, better a topic ban now than escalating blocks in the future. Someoneanother 19:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - clearly needed; no need to let the Ten Minute Retirement let him escape scrutiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I'm not convinced that the retirement is real, or that this goes far enough after the homophobic vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, this is the first time I've really gone as far as pushing for topic bans and whatnot, so by all means, if you would like to suggest further avenues, I'd be open to that as well. Also, I'm contemplating going to SPI as well. I can't help but notice that User:Tehgayzpart3 and User:PriestOFmehico both came around the time of his "retirement" and have been going around vandalizing this ANI, my User Page, and a number of articles related to band articles I tend to watch over with crude and homophobic comments... Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There would appear to be grounds for an SPI there. And for what it's worth I support a topic ban here, user is beyond good faith, even without the vandalism. Яehevkor ✉ 16:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that user PriestOFmehico visited this ANI, and that and the account's other edits did raise my suspicions of possible sockpuppeting. The two accounts in question have been indefinitely blocked, and I'm not against such a block for Metalvayne, either. Because if those two accounts belong to Metalvayne, then he should quite certainly know better than resort to such puerility. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I implied this in the previous post, I would like to blatantly state that a sockpuppet investigation against Metalvayne is totally warranted. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, looking over the edits of those 2 accounts, just about all edits were on articles related to this ANI case, articles I indicate I work on on my User Page, or articles related to band's he's argued to in regards to genre in the past (ie Nickelback and Chad Kroeger. So I've opened up an SPI at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Metalvayne

I'm going to be rather busy in most of the next 36 hours or so, so if anyone notices anything, I'd appreciate it if you presented it here, and/or kept this all from being prematurely archived. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - based on a history of WP:IDLT regarding unsourced changes. Genre-fiddling and needless tampering with the infobox's genre slots are a waste of time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: At around 14:11 UTC, Metalvayne posted a public comment on my last.fm page stating the following:

“ Since you're here,I'd like to clear that,I'm not returning to wikipedia as I'm

pretty much occupied with a lot of things including a demo in the process of our band & I've had enough of that shit & never was quite able to contribute as the way I wanted anyway & tell Segecross that,he can do whatever he wishes with my account.I may create a new account if I intend in near future,but that's quite unlikely,anyway,cheers.

”

[sic]

I won't try to sensationalize this, but I think it's important that I post here about this comment; however, this comment and the other three sent to me several months ago have been deleted from public view, and I guess he blocked me from contacting him via last.fm. That's all I have to say about that. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 04:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the throwing-toys-out-of-the-pram retirement and related issues, there seems to be support for the topic ban, could an admin kindly make it official before it idles off the board? Cheers! Яehevkor ✉ 18:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for keeping the topic from being archived. I would like to see it be official that he be topic banned, but I don't want to finish off the discussion quite yet until the results from the SPI are back. If he was responsible for those two vandalism accounts, I think he should be indefinitely blocked, which would also affect how things would go down if he does in fact create new accounts like he says he says he may in Backtable's message... Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, Sergecross. Anyways, there does appear to be a consensus to topic ban Metalvayne, and it has had basically no opposition, not even from Metalvayne himself. Therefore, I would also hope that an administartor can enforce the topic ban before this thread gets archived. As well, I agree that this discussion should be at the surface here until around the time that the sockpuppet investigation closes and is determined. I plan on giving my input toward the sockpuppet investigation sometime in the near future, which will include commentary concerning Metalvayne's last.fm message to me. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Final thoughts to Admin

• Regarding Topic Ban - The results were 8 to 0 in regards to supporting Metalvayne being banned from editing any band's genre/musical styles/influences etc. (Not even Metalvayne himself objected.)
• Regarding SPI - The report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Metalvayne shows that the two accounts that were indefinitely blocked for vandalism were "Likely and for all extents and purposes, Confirmed" sockpuppets. In fact, it even found up with a third user, who is not currently blocked. And wouldn't you know, that user is off at an article arguing about a band's genre.
• Closing thoughts - At the very least there is clear consensus for a topic ban, though after creating two sockpuppet accounts that were indef blocked due to vandalism, and then starting a third account to do the same things he was brought to ANI for to begin with, he still shows no signs of stopping, and I believe it would be warranted to indefinitely block him. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(Update: His third SP was indef blocked, and Metalvayne was blocked for 48 hours, but just on the grounds of his SPI antics, not regarding anything here, FYI.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making a separate section for commentary, since the process of gathering a consensus is not really active anymore. Anyways, what Metalvayne has done on Wikipedia, with this genre feuding and the sockpuppeting, is not only an inconvenience, but is also unethical. I was going to supply some commentary to the sockpuppet case, but it got closed before I could; I didn't expect it to be closed that soon, but I'm cool with that. Anyways, it is very convincing that Rippermadness and Metavayne are the same person. Not only did Rippermadness bicker about genres, but also edited the Alice in Chains page, which Metalvayne passionately did. Also, Rippermadness has a quite similar writing style to that of Metalvayne, such as favoring commas over spaces in some areas. Rippermadness definitely equals Metalvayne. Metalvayne has sickeningly exploited Wikipedia. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:JohnMannV

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

---

Im bringing this here because of concerns re this editor. He was blocked twice in December 2011[4] for making ethnic insults on page Talk:Tuples in association football. He has began this again in lesser form making accusations against Scottish Editors.[5] He believes all scottish editors are against him and that we wish to promote Celtic, this is not true in any form. There have been multiple discussions since December 2011 that have established consensus, he has been asked to discuss this as no consensus to include but keeps reverting.[6][7][8][9]. He also deleted all content of the talk page where discussion took place previously.[10]. He is acting it seems like he feels he owns the page, insults or accusations against other editors because of there nationality is inappropriate. Im not happy at these threats including giving me 24 hours to prove he deleted material see here.[11]Blethering Scot 18:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another ANI was in December 2011 but will need to find links. These are his first edits since his short block in December 2011.[12]Blethering Scot 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This one.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks i was kind of struggling to work out how to find it.Blethering Scot 18:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems several admins suggested if he revived his previous editing practices after his block then further action should be taken. The fact he is edit-warring, and making rascist comments shows he is not acting in a good manner. Adam4267 (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note for the previous blocking admin so they may review this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not as familiar with Wikipedia as Blethering Scot (formerly Edinburgh Wanderer), is it not pertinent to point out (in a non-derogatory manner) that the same group of editors that support giving greater prominence to a Scottish football club at the expense of other clubs, happen to be Scottish? The "deletion of discussions" mentioned by Blethering Scot was my reply to him in this section. If that deleted any discussions, then it was purely accidental and I apologize. It is also no coincidence that the same individuals that are displaying a bias in favor of Celtic F.C. already happen to be listed on this ANI page above [13] regarding the same exact Celtic F.C. club I am referring to. To make a very long story short, when the article in question was originally about "tuples", the same group of Scotsmen tried to argue that F.C. Barcelona's "sextuple" was not notable by continuing to stretch the burden of proof even after I provided evidence from FIFA itself and at least 5 reputable news sources referring to it as such. Once a consensus was finally reached to fully detail F.C. Barcelona's sextuple as a notable accomplishment and they didn't get their way, they moved the goal posts yet again and changed the title of the article to specifically specify "season" so as to "legitimize" their later removal of 90% of the section regarding F.C. Barcelona's sextuple, and thus give greater prominence to Celtic F.C.'s quintuple. Yet the controversy regarding whether F.C. Barcelona's sextuple of interdependent victories can be considered as "one season" was never fully resolved, yet this same group of editors took it upon themselves to move forward with their biased definition in order to diminish the accomplishments of F.C. Barcelona and give more prominence to their Celtic F.C. club. Throughout the entire discussion, they have acted as if they were above the world governing body of the sport (FIFA) and several reputable news sources. I kindly insist that everyone read the following talk sections in full for the complete evidence of the travesty that has transpired in this article:

• 'Sextuple'
• Barcelona Inaccuracies
• Questioning whether 'yearly' achievements should be in the article
• Stop diminishing the "unprecedened" and "record-breaking" "sextuple" of F.C. Barcelona in order to increase the prominence of Celtic F.C.'s quintuple

I understand my manner of speaking may be rough around the edges, but it is completely unfair to be always ganged up on by the same group of editors, especially when I have been one of the very few editors to always provide several citations from highly-reputable sources to back up all the facts I stated in the talk page of that article. I simply could not sit idly by and watch a concerted effort to instill obvious bias in a Wikipedia article. JohnMannV (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you read any of the discussions. There are editors from all over involved in those discussions. You haven't take part in any of them. Your first edits after block was to pursue the same course of actions that you did previously. Edit warring and nationalistic insults. It was decided that the notable achievement is a season not a year. It was decided to mention barcelonas achievement but not give undue weight as they hadn't achieved the season only a year. Read the discussions in fact I clearly asked you to discuss however you ignored made insults and edit warred. I don't believe inexperience is an excuse here. Blethering Scot 19:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please point out where I made nationalistic insults. That is a false accusation. Pointing out the fact that the users that are ganging up on you are all from the same country is not an insult, so please stop creating straw man arguments to detract from the issue at hand. Furthermore, if it was decided to "mention barcelonas achievement but not give undue weight", then why did you state "Ive changed the wording slightly. Article is looking really good thanks to Kahkonen" (emphasis mine) at 16:20 on 24 December 2011 (UTC) referring to this specific version by you at 16:18 on 24 December 2011 (UTC) that gives much greater prominence to F.C. Barcelona compared to the version from yesterday that had slipped under the radar until I saw it today? JohnMannV (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record User:Edinburgh Wanderer and User:Blethering Scot are the same account. It was renamed by a beaurocrat. Blethering Scot 19:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

re " is it not pertinent to point out (in a non-derogatory manner) that the same group of editors that support giving greater prominence to a Scottish football club at the expense of other clubs, happen to be Scottish?" quite simply, and quite emphatically NO it is not pertinent. editors of any and all sorts are to be judged simply on the basis of their edits. period. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, but then how does one address the issue of biased editing by a concerted group of individuals sharing the same interest/agenda? JohnMannV (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

After discussing on the talk page, if the issue remains, you can bring POV concerns to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. When bringing an issue such as this up at the neutral point of view noticeboard, would it be pertinent to mention then that the biased editing is coming from the same group of individuals who happen to be from the country the football club in question is also from? Because I would imagine that would be pretty pertinent information in order to establish context (e.g. motive) in order for the POV issue to be better understood by editors who were not involved in the discussion. JohnMannV (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor who actually lessened the weight on the article as far as I'm aware wasn't Scottish. This isn't a content dispute nor is it one of neutral pov as clearly by giving undue weight to a team who didn't actually achieve what the article about is a pov. It's also rather presumptive that all Scottish editors support Celtic or to be honest care about that achievement. I don't. Blethering Scot 20:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. Look at my | talk page, when we had these long discussion back in December, I was ganged up on by Adam4267, Chris Cunningham, and you, and only you 3. What do all 3 of you have in common? You are all from Scotland. Where is Celtic F.C. from? Scotland. Sorry, but I do not believe in coincidences. JohnMannV (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

re slipping under the radar it didn't. That was the new consensus.Blethering Scot 22:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So rather than stopping your nationalistic accusations you continue. So you edit war, have a massive pov, make nationalistic accusations shows serious signs of ownership to an article and continues at an ANI about their actions. Utterly ridiculous. For the record im a Hearts fan as the picture that randomly appears on my userpage of Tynecastle will show you[14]. You cant accept that since last December other editors from outwith Scotland which is hardly the point have also discussed and come together with a WP:Consensus. Are you going to accuse Pretty Green who just reverted you of being Scottish, when all they have done is go back to the consensus of the article.Blethering Scot 22:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up Peter Green, who is not Scottish, and has specifically |said he doesn't see "any harm" in reverting back to the December version I reverted to. Furthermore, you are 100% guilty of your accusations against me. Specifically: "edit war", "massive pov", and "shows serious signs of ownership". Why else would you have such an issue with reverting back to a version you yourself said was "looking really good". You're the one being inconsistent here, not me. JohnMannV (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As Chris's name has been brought up i've notified him. [15].Blethering Scot 23:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As usual, he has called his "friends" to come support him. I don't have any friends on Wikipedia, so I guess that puts me at a disadvantage. JohnMannV (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another accusation. I Suggest you read the header of this page. Which states you must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You mentioned Chris not me. Also its widely known around these parts that me and chris are not friends so thats actually rather funny.Blethering Scot 00:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And your clearly mis quotting Peter Green he states Whether or not we list the trophies is, for me, a moot point: I'd rather not do it, but if it makes people happy then I don't see any harm. He also says before that As far as I can see, the best option with dealing this is two acknowledge Barcelona's achievement, but also to note that it is not 'six trophies in a season'. That is what the current status is and i can tell you that it was him that actually reduced the weight of that section in the first place not me or any other Scottish or Celtic supporting editors as you call us falsely. Also where was i making any unfounded accusations, edit war you broke WP:3RR edit war, masive pov pushing against consensus to promote a club, you are the only one doing that. Ownership you cannot accept or read the discussions that show there is a WP:Consensus and insist the version you want is the correct one again showing ownership, i dont make unfounded accusations and i especially dont make accusations at users because of there nationality. You were blocked for the exact same thing in December and returned with your first edit doing the same thing not good.Blethering Scot 00:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, did you just openly admit that a single person (Peter Green) is responsible for reducing the weight of a section that was defined by consensus (a consensus that included you, Chris Cunningham, myself and several others)? This is the smoking gun. There is nothing more to say. It shouldn't even have been a discussion to revert what one individual changed, back to the version by consensus, yet the same group of individuals that agreed with me back in December fights me today on this very issue. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe this situation. JohnMannV (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No im disproving your point that its only Scottish editors who disagreed with you. There was consensus and he reduced the weight.Blethering Scot 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the new "consensus" you keep bringing up that "coincidentally" occurred after I was gone and after the original consensus had been reached (a consensus that included you, Chris Cunningham, myself and several others). I want to fully investigate and dissect it. Considering you haven't linked to it yet and it seems to be your only argument (albeit a very weak one), my gut feeling tells me I won't have much difficulty picking holes in it. I also highly doubt that new "consensus" was as robust and multilateral as the one you, Chris Cunningham, myself, and several others reached back in December. JohnMannV (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User whose contributions relate almost exclusively to one argument on one article is twice blocked for issues related to said dispute, returns seven months later to pursue the same thing again. Furthermore, this time the editors he's chosen to identify as the opposing bloc are explicitly identified as Celtic F.C-supporting editors. This is nationalist edit warring, certainly, but not on behalf of that disparate group of editors who don't see JohnMannV's side of the argument (almost none of whom support Celtic; the two admins who blocked him aren't even British). Open and shut. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely ridiculous that you would state publicly at an ANI "but not on behalf of that disparate group of editors who don't see JohnMannV's side of the argument" (emphasis mine) when on 22 December 2011 you yourself said on the talk page of the article in question (and I quote): "Nevertheless, if sources refer to Barcelona's success as a sextuple (and they do) then we have to consider it as such: however, rather than macking about with adding the words "or year" to the article title we can simply add a footnote explaining the situation. So remarkably I'm actually in the same boat as JohnMannV et al on this particular issue". To use your words, open and shut. JohnMannV (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of further discussions have taken place and decided not to give undue weight to the achievement that actually isnt covered by the article is not understood, we acknowledge the fact they did it in a year, adding all the trophies in list order gives undue weight over the clubs who did. Chris may still have that view and can discuss on the talk page like you clearly should of done. Showing edits before the current WP:consensus was reached is irrelevant. You were asked to discuss very clearly by me instead you ignored and decided to edit war. You had the chance to discuss and attempt to change that consensus instead you went down this route thats lead us here. There are correct ways of going about things and there are wrong this is most certainly wrong. Blethering Scot 00:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice this tag-teaming between the same group of individuals, both of whom have changed their stories since December yet back each other up under pressure. This is what I had to deal with in December and what I'm having to deal with now. It is preposterous when you consider they both agreed with me back in December, and the moment I looked away, the section in question completely changed, and when I went to revert it to what we had all agreed on, they started an edit-war with me, and then have the audacity to accuse me of starting this incident. Thankfully, all the evidence backing my claims are in plain view for everyone to see on the article's talk page. JohnMannV (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What tag teaming and most of all, further discussion took place you can plainly see other editors are now involved in the article and that the consensus has changed. There isnt a change of story only a change of consensus. And you hardly looked away for nearly nine months and then returned edit warring and attacking other editors and i hardly agreed with you when you were making Nationalistic attacks against me and other editors for which you were blocked for.Blethering Scot 16:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully your attacks and edit warring by reverting four times against consensus is very plain to see. Its you that does not wish to follow the consensus that has developed and properly discuss which you were asked to do. If you had done so we wouldn't be here. You cannot justify the attacks nor why your behaviour is unchanged after nearly nine months. Coming back after a block and making the same edits that got you blocked in the first place is not on. The article has developed as consensus has changed its you not the article or other editors thats the main issue here. The article can be rediscussed if the other editors agree to change the consensus no problem but its your attacks and edit warring that are the issue here.Blethering Scot 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Look how you conveniently dodge the issue once again and have completely ignored my specific request above for you to provide a link to the "consensus" you claim has changed since December. Please provide a link to the new "consensus" you keep bringing up that "coincidentally" occurred after I was gone and after the original consensus had been reached (a consensus that included you, Chris Cunningham, myself and several others). I want to fully investigate and dissect it. Considering you haven't linked to it yet and it seems to be your only argument (albeit a very weak one), my gut feeling tells me I won't have much difficulty picking holes in it. I also highly doubt that new "consensus" was as robust and multilateral as the one you, Chris Cunningham, myself, and several others reached back in December. Let's see it. JohnMannV (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Listen i dont agree with you in anyway and i certainly never agreed with you in December i rasied the ANI about you then because you were making personal attack against me and other users based on their nationality. You are doing it again. Have you read the talk page and looked at other discussions that have taken place, none of which involved you, they are more recent and shows the current consensus. The only reason you got like that then and now is because your only thing you want to do is promote Barcelona. The article is about teams that have won competitions in a season, it has been the case since December that we added teams who had not done this in a season but make sure its clear the didnt actually make the achievement. More recently it was decided that yes they should be mentioned but by listing all cups put them on the same level as ones who had completed the achievement in footballing terms and thus added to much weight to it. The cups were removed and the club still mentioned which meant there was no pov and no height to a non achievement. You don't want to read discussions and cant accept that consensus can change, Wikipedia does not have to stick to something it agreed the consensus can evolve over time. It was stated at ANI and by admins on there pages at the time that if you came back pushing the same pov and making nationalistic attacks further action would be taken, you have shown by being away for nearly nine months without an edit and returning and exhibiting the same behaviour is that you have no intention in editing wikipedia in a civil an supportive manor. You stated the moment i looked away, well what have you been doing in nine months since then. If you want to discuss the content fine put pushing a pov without looking at established consensus and edit warring whilst a discussion is taking place wont get you anywhere. This is the edit that reduced the weight [16] we would have been happy to discuss again but you attacked us and edit warred which isn't likely to lead to a positive discussion. All the consensus was that it should be mentioned that hasnt changed just the weight given to it. Blethering Scot 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Let the record show that after being asked twice to produce a link to the new "consensus" he claims was formed after the December consensus, Blethering Scot has failed to do so on both occasions. I can only surmise that the reason for that is because there was no new "consensus". It was just the same group of Celtic F.C.-supporters who waited until the discussions had died down on the talk page in order to slip under the radar and diminish the accomplishments of one club in favour of the club they personally support. They used those of us with opposing views as mere pawns, first agreeing with us on a consensus to make us think the matter was resolved, only to wait for us to look way in order to re-submit their biased version under the radar. Let the record also show that when Blethering Scot stated above that "i certainly never agreed with you in December", it is a 100% lie. On 24 December 2011 at 16:20, Blethering Scot (before conveniently changing his username from Edinburgh Wanderer) stated: "Ive changed the wording slightly. Article is looking really good thanks to Kahkonen" (emphasis mine) referring to this specific version edited by him 2 minutes earlier at 16:18 on 24 December 2011 (UTC). Notice the amount of detail under the "Sextuple" section that he himself found to look "really good". He is now attempting to rewrite history and change his story to support his group's sly attempt to promote their club under the radar. He has been inconsistent from the very beginning, he has lied, and he rarely supports anything he says, even when specifically requested to do so. I, on the other hand, have stuck to verifiable and supported facts from the very beginning (linking to them where appropriate), which is why I stand on firmer ground and simply cannot let this same group of individuals -- that already appear in a different section of this ANI for a very similar matter -- continue to manipulate the public with their obvious bias. JohnMannV (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on for too long know, we have been waiting for the original blocking admins to comment and with the lack of that other admins need to decide what to do here as the only ones to comment are involved.Blethering Scot 00:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that he realizes he has no argument left and is unable to provide any evidence of the "new consensus" he claims legitimizes his and his groups biased editing, Blethering Scot is desperately trying to have action taken against me to silence the opposition, even though he knows that The Red Pen of Doom has already clarified to me above that the Talk page of an article is not the place to point out biased editing by groups of individuals from the same country, which I then acknowledged. So this is no longer about trying to silence me, this is now about the biased editing that has been going on in the article in question since at least last year by Blethering Scot and his well-coordinated group, the lies he has stated in this very ANI, and his sly attempts to silence opposing views. Blethering Scot, I will not back down until all these matters are addressed by an Admin. You and your group are going to be exposed and you are not going to continue to get away with this travesty. This will not stand. JohnMannV (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well im not disappering until action is taken either. You are disruptive and nationalistic attacks will not work here. TheRedPenOfDoom quite clearly told you that nationalistic attacks were not on. I dont need to provide you with any evidence you can read when you choose to, your claims of people wishing to promote celtic or ganging up on you because we are Scottish is frankly laughable. Well co-ordinated is another attack you have no evidence that we co-ordinate anything and that is laughable for instance me and Chris hate each others guts 90% of the time and having an item on our watch-list is hardly co-ordinating. If you wanted to discuss with the civil multi national editors on the talk page we wouldn't have a problem. We have a problem because you attack everyone and cant actually discuss anything civilly. I put it quite frankly that the project does not benifit in having you on the it. Editors who cannot work for the greater good of the encyclopeida should not by editing here. Are there any editors that you have not deliberately misquoted that actually agree with you at this current time, you tried to misquote Pretty green and as you did that and the evidence provided showing he reduced the weight after the discussion proved that wrong. Also you deliberately attempted to delete the previous discussions, there was no way of doing that other than intentionally which given the way you were acting is pretty clear.Blethering Scot 18:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Virtually every sentence in that was an attack on me, he has no evidence of anything yet he continues to attack me and other editors based on nationality. Take a look at the block log and his editing history this clearly shows a single purpose account with the intention to disrupt and promote a pov of Barcelona, he accuses everyone who disagrees with him of something. Anyone who comes back straight of a block with the same actions as before as was stated before should have further action taken against them. Even the breaking of WP:3RR is usually a blocking offence, its pretty clear there is a major issue here so why are the admins not only shying away from action but actually even properly advising on this. Admins whould think that what would happen if someone attacked you or fellow editors based on their nationality would you accept it, would you be willing to work with them. Also if you see someone with a single purpose account that was blocked and made the same edits on return what would you do. This is a simple open and shut case of a disruptive editor making nationalistic attacks. Im highly disappointed that no action or major comment has been made here, we are 48 hours into something that should have been resolved quickly. Blethering Scot 18:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Still desperate. Still trying to silence the opposition. Still lying. Stop bringing up blocks from last year that were imposed on your behalf. The Admins are not here to service your personal agenda. Unlike you, I've backed up every single iota of what I've said with links to the specific sections. You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that supports your biased POV in the article in question, and now you have the audacity to blame the Admins for not being complicit in your silencing of the opposition so that you and your group can continue to manipulate the public with your completely biased and unsupported POV. You, sir, are a disgrace to Wikipedia. JohnMannV (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This gets better, your getting desperate now aren't you. They were imposed because you made nationalistic attack thats the reason, your not going to get anywhere because you are truly and utterly wrong you have nobody supporting your opinion and are truly depserate now by inceasing attack against me in the hope i will back of and i wont. You, sir, are a disgrace to Wikipedia is another desperate attack by you, wish you luck with that because i am going nowhere.Blethering Scot 17:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The comment: before conveniently changing his username from User:Edinburgh Wanderer. What convenience its the exact same account, also there are links from the old username to this one which is not required of a user being renamed by a Wikipedia:Bureaucrats however mine is. Your digging at straws to hide your actions is not in your favour. Blethering Scot 21:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive left another message on the last blocking admins page[17] as was already done asking them to comment one way or another, given thats what were waiting for thought a reminder would do no harm.Blethering Scot 17:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What is it you want? An RFC/U? A block? Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What I want is an admin to look at the previous block and what it was for. Look at the first edits upon his return and see that the same attacks based on nationally are still present. Virtually every reply here contains some sort of attack against users. The promoting of Barcelona, the attacks and only edits on one article make this look clearly like a single purpose account. It's the attacks that are the issue he was asked to discuss instead made attacks. Other admins replied but they are involved so it only Berean sorry if spelt wrong and you that could look at all the text and backround and advise. My personal opinion is no editor should be subject to sustained attacks especially because of their nationality. Blethering Scot 17:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Does User:Shrike have sufficient competence in the English language to be a worthwhile contributor?

As recently discussed in another AN/I thread, [18] there appear to be serious grounds to doubt whether User:Shrike has sufficient grasp of the English language to be a useful contributor. Shrike has just replaced a statement that "There is consensus among Jewish and Christian scholars that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status", with "Big part of Jewish and Christian scholars agree that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status". [19]. Even before the edit, the text was grammatically poor, but this is just plain garbage. Note to that this is in relation to a contentious article, where a clear understanding of what sources say is a prerequisite - it isn't just Shrike's writing that appears to be the problem, but also an inability (evident from discussions on the talk page) to be able to read English at the level required. Can I ask uninvolved contributors to address this matter, not in relation to any content disputes (this is a contentious subject, but that is another issue, and if it is to be discussed, it should be addressed separately), but with regard to whether, per WP:COMPETENCE, it may be in the best interests of Wikipedia to prevent Shrike from editing articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked other editor to help to c/e the article before that I am not the first not the last wiki editor that does grammar mistake.But what is clear that User:AndyTheGrump use it as pretext to remove editor that oppose him in this contentious issue instead fixing the grammar error like other user did [20] he goes to WP:AN/I I think it clearly showsWP:BATTLE behavior.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, you do a lot of good for Wikipedia, but you should be selective with your edits. I speak a good amount of your native language of Hebrew and carry on a conversation, but I can make only the most basic edits to an article on the Hebrew Wikipedia. You should only make edits that you are reasonably sure can be understood by everyone. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit was concerning the words "Big part of Jewish and Christian scholars" instead of "A large part of Jewish and Christian scholars." Mistakes happen all the time in regards to grammar, we have plenty of editors here from every country, and I've seen far far worse mistakes, but it's silly to file a report everytime someone writes, "And she told, "we won"" (one example of something I saw). These types of mistakes can be easily fixed, instead of requesting that an editor who can make contributions to Wikipedia get banned for making a silly grammar mistake that can - and was - easily fixed. This is too overblown. --Activism1234 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234, are you suggesting that you think "A large part of Jewish and Christian scholars..." is proper English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we don't all need an 800 on the English SATs to edit Wikipedia, and suggesting that the way it's written makes the sentence perfectly clear and a large number of editors won't even notice any grammar mistake, if there is one, and that certainly doesn't disrupt the page, and anyone who does feel there is a grammar mistake can freely change that mistake. I'm furthermore suggesting that regional dialects do differ from editor to editor based on the region or country, and it would be inappropriate to ban an editor for writing "color" instead of "colour." Similar things would be putting a period before a quotation mark, which doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, and which can be easily rectified without getting so upset over it. Lastly, I'm suggesting that an editor like Shrike with over 5000 edits on Wikipedia who has been contributing since 2006 should not be banned due to a grammar mistake that doesn't distort the meaning of the sentence and that can be easily rectified instead of going to ANI over this. --Activism1234 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another example would be the article 2012 Gaziantep bombing. Consider this sentence, "Bombs that were exploded through remote-control system were planted in a low truck near Karşıyaka police station in Şehitkamil district that is one of the most crowded areas of the city." Will we go and ban the Turkish editor that put in that sentence because of a grammar mistake? Of course not. Instead, we'll be a bit more mature and fix that mistake which doesn't change the meaning of the sentence in any way. --Activism1234 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. The topic here is whether Shrike shows sufficient competence in the English language to edit articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I was able to understand what he wrote. It was not very fluid, but it was not "nonsense." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a talk page, not an article, and even there, the only difference is he didn't put a period or perhaps one other word is wrong, but that doesn't change the reader from understanding what he is referring to. It's understandable that certain editors won't use full grammar markup on a talk page, especially if they're in a rush. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't qualify a comment on a talk page as "nonsense." And Shrike seems to be referring to this, which does give the impression of canvassing. On an article, the story is different, but I explained this above. --Activism1234 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I read the initial comment, Andy isnt asking that you (Shrike) be banned from editing, but that you not edit articles directly. This is the English language encyclopedia, and it is expected that our articles be in, you know, English. If you are unable to write at a high level in English, then it is not an unreasonable request that you make suggestions on talk pages and have others correct the language before it makes its way to an article. nableezy - 20:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No-one minds the occasional grammar and spelling error, but you consistently write English that isn't comprehensible (for example the first sentence in the above paragraph, or this diff where you took 7 edits to write something that makes no sense at all). It is not fair to other users for them to have to clear up after pretty much all of your writing. Andy is correct - if you're going to write content here, WP:CIR applies. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I rewrote the article I asked other editors to c/e it.I have asked several times how the best to rephrase but didn't recieved any meaningfull answer [21] so I tried to fix it myself anyhow in future I will consult other editors how to best rephrase a source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that is an acceptable solution. You need to demonstrate that you understand the sources in the first place, which seems debatable to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is about a grammar mistake, and I don't feel that a grammar mistake demonstrates a lack of understanding sources. --Activism1234 21:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is not about "a grammar mistake". It is about repeated demonstrations by Shrike that he/she fails to display the competence in the English language required from a useful contributor. 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

With regards to understanding sources written in English, I'm not sure that's a valid rationale for excluding someone from the project. Certainly, many articles on the English Wikipedia cite sources that aren't in English, and we wouldn't say that editors that can't understand non-English sources are incompetent. That being said, I would certainly support Shrike restricting his editing in mainspace to wikification, citation of sources and other tasks not requiring him to formulate prose. Any other changes that he thinks need doing should be requested on talk pages so a user confident in the formulation of English prose can add it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Incompetent" might be slightly strong, but this is still the English wikipedia, in order to edit it it's merely WP:COMMONSENSE that one should be *ahem* resonably competent in English. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• We've tolerated pretty severe abuse of the English language from a number of contributors on here over the past few years. And Shrike is a veritable William Safire compared to most people who write stubs about Pakistani villages. Off the top of my head I can't recall seeing someone sanctioned for poor grammar, although there certainly are some insufferable pedants around here who would wholeheartedly support taking that step. In any case, certain parts of the project call for greater precision than others--when dealing with controversial or disputed information, clarity and precision are very important. Prose and grammar issues are less likely to lead to controversy if found on Water polo articles than on the Israel/Palestinian conflicts. It might be a good idea for Shrike to seek out less controversial topics to edit, or to propose changes on talk pages before adding them to articles to get more feedback on English issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

_{My "insufferable pendant" remark earlier wasn't directed at any specific user, and was meant as a joke since I tend to be fairly pedantic myself. Sorry if anyone was offended. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)}

No prob. I, for one, may be an insufferable pedant, I'm sure I am, but I actually do have a sense of irony. Well, most of the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• • One does not have to be an "insufferable pendant" to prefer that the English Wikipedia be written in recognizably English sentences that can convey meaning efficiently and cogently to English-language readers. I'm certain that there are many, many people who can contribute valuable information to this encyclopedia, but don't have the ability to do so directly in a way that is useful for our purposes. When that is the case, it hardly seems onerous to ask them to contribute the information on the talk page and allow other editors, more conversant in English, to integrate it into the article. The alternative – bsdly written English – is not one that we should allow, if we are to continue to shape this project into a quality reference work. Let's allow people to help in the best way they can, and to discourage them from attempting to help in ways that are not beneficial, and, by the way, perhaps we might also ask for a little less scapegoating of "insufferable pendants" who would simply like to see this be a quality product and not a linguistic mish-mash. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with Beyond My Ken. I work in controversial areas, and am constantly dealing with editors that can't even communicate effectively on a talkpage, let alone comprehend the sources and actually make sensible edits. There has to be a limit. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am one of those insufferable pedants who actually have not only advocated such sanctions, but imposed them. And if I remember correctly, I already gave Shrike an official warning to that effect. Shrike lacks the competence to participate adequately in talkpage discussions about subtle points of NPOV and proper treatment of sources; and he lacks the competence (either linguistically or intellectually) to adequately summarize academically demanding sources about the fields he tries to edit in [22]. Moreover, as you rightly say, linguistic competence is the more important the more controversial an area is. The attitude of "I'll try to write something first, and then if there are grammar errors let others correct them" just won't work, when what you're writing is perceived by others as tendentious and wrong on top of being ungrammatical. People don't like to spend time correcting material that they think shouldn't be there in the first place. Which is the reason why his errors very often remain uncorrected for a long time. The only thing they lead to is edit-warring – some people simply remove the whole thing, and others, in a knee-jerk reaction, restore it in full, but they often don't bother to correct the errors either. This passage, which I finally took out of an article after several weeks, is an example. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to reinforce what FPaS has written above: mistakes in grammar are not necessarily trivial - I'm sure we've all seen instances where sloppy, unfocused writing has actually said somethinbg very different from what is trying to be conveyed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If he's confined to talk pages he'll lose his daily one revert per article limit, which is largely the point of his presence here. That, and making Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in general look as bad as possible. Shrike fits in the topic area like a hand in a glove.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point, attention needs to be drawn to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Altetendekrabbe, where shrike makes out that drawing attention to his/her (self evident) POV-pushing is a 'personal attack' and a 'BLP violation' (?). If Shrike is going to engage in such battleground behaviour in non-article space, any restriction confined to article edits is likely to result in further problems. Frankly, I think that Shrike's comprehension problems extend to Wikipedia policy - and if someone can't understand the basics of such policy, they aren't competent to contribute, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I decided to refrain from commenting here. I could detail the mess he made at The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man. He jumps into pages I edit mainly to add his weight to reverters, but his comments, when he does explain what he's doing are often incomprehensible. On that page, I added alleged as per policy. He wanted an allegation to pass as a fact, and denied that the source used 'alleged'. He hadn't read the source, it turned out, despite in obscure waffling implying he had. See here and here.

Since he's doing the same thing, jumping in to tagteam a revert pattern, on the article I just created, Zion Square assault, I've dropped my distaste for 'dobbing' other editors in. His objection there is not argued, just (inexact or irrelevant ) policy waving that, nota bene, shows a complete estrangement from policy guidelines. He actually believes, to judge from his syntax, that WP:RS prints who is notable (The sociologist in question has a doctorate and is published in RS, if that's what he means), and thus the American Israeli academic sociologist I cited cannot be used because of WP:UNDUE, without linking up the dots for the bewildered reader as to what the connection is between RS and undue. The point seems to be simply to back editors he agrees with who are more familiar with this kind of article.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything I only stated my objection that you used not WP:RS and not WP:UNDUE source in talk as you brought it yourself [23] in ARBPIA area.What exactly wrong with that?.Also what is have to do with my grammar?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Shrike's editing, but I'd like to put in a good word for him based on his generosity at the Resource Exchange. He has made 246 edits to that page since April, and has several times made academic papers available to me that were behind a paywall, which is a really invaluable service. He appears to do this regardless of the subject matter or whether he knows the person requesting help, so I hope that kindness is taken into consideration. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. Being "kind" in areas that are irrelevant to one's aggressively pursued agenda is a good way to try to build social capital that will ultimately assist in pursuing that agenda. Who cares? "Kindness" to fellow insiders is far more important than what happens in the actual articles, right?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, kindness is not irrelevant. :) He is making scholarly sources available to people who don't have easy access, and that's helping to improve content right across the board. The editors who help out at the Resource Exchange are a godsend. I'm not arguing that it cancels out all other issues, just that it's worth taking into account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So ban him from articles, where he's a complete detriment to quality and neutrality, and he'll have more time to devote to the "resource exchange." Your argument amounts to "I know he's a terrible musician, but he's a decent cook, so let's keep him in the band." This is a very, very bad argument.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether the band is struggling hand-to-mouth and needs to keep all possible resources in-house, or is successful enough to be able to concentrate primarily on music. I think Wikipedia is successful enough to think mostly about the music, and not about the cooking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Slim has a point. I'd be happy if he just was denied his 1R revert right in the I/P area for a fair stretch. I've seen him revert instinctively, even without reading what he is reverting.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic specific sanctions regarding I/P might be the way to go then, especially since it seems several editors have already mentioned that the editor have NPOV-issues on that subject.--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone think that I am biased I suggest that they should go to the WP:AE with evidence but the accusers themselves and not exactly neutral or uninvolved--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Shrike—if you have any questions, or you would like me to read source material, especially to see if it seems to support language potentially for inclusion in article space, don't hesitate to post an inquiry to my Talk page. I think this is a way to proceed to gather more information on the questions raised in this thread. I am reluctant to jump to conclusions of a negative nature about an editor in good standing who just doesn't happen to speak English at a level some deem to be minimal. Perhaps after a period of time—one or a few months—it will become clear whether there is a problem or not. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will certainly consult with you -- Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that in spite of Shrike's earlier assurances, he is still editing in article space. I'd also like uninvolved opinions as to whether "WP:DENY" constitutes an adequate edit summary for this edit: [24]. Note that this article is right at the core of the contentious Israeli-Palestinian topic area where Shrike's previous topic ban was instituted, for amongst other things "inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete edit summaries". [WP:DENY]] is a link to Wikipedia:Deny recognition - an essay on the appropriate means to deal with vandalism and trolling. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Shrikes edit was a reversion of either. On this basis, one can only reasonably conclude that either the edit summary was intentionally misleading or offensive, or that Shrike has once again demonstrated a gross lack of comprehension. Either way, it seems to provide further evidence that Shrike should not be editing in Wikipedia article space at all. (Note also that this 'WP:DENY' edit summary has been recently used by Shrike in relation to several other articles [25] - this seems to be a pattern) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted Strike's DENY edit since there was no sign of trolling or vandalism to be undone by him. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert. One of the problems in the I-P conflict topic area is dishonesty, which comes in many forms, but in this case, it was in the form of sockpuppetry. The WP:DENY in Shrike's edit summary was referring to a sockpuppet (Special:Contributions/Rusko_skins). Shrike reverted a sockpuppet. A better link in the ES would have been Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Evasion_and_enforcement and to name the sockmaster. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will do so in the future, thank you Sean.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Apparenly I have only been looking at the BBC reference which was actually reliable but missed the deleted part. Activism1234 has already reverted me, so we're back at Strike's Shrike's version. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had minimal interaction with Shrike in the article space, but we have interacted at the resource exchange and his language skills are more than adequate for interacting with other editors on technical subjects. I can't pass judgment on Shrike's article work, since I don't have extensive knowledge of it, but I would point out that Wikipedia's general philosophy when it comes to good faith contributions is to consider them as works of progress that the community should improve rather than to reject the editor. If a new editor doesn't understand wikifying and submits a large block of text we tag it, stick it in a backlog and eventually someone comes around and wikifies it. Same with sourcing, categorization, etc. We should consider that the Foundation and the community have larger goals of reversing editor decline and expanding the pool of contributors from outside the English-speaking world and we're not going to succeed at meeting these goals if we turn away editors who have the willingness and skills to contribute but aren't perfect writers. GabrielF (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

108.60.139.170 (talk · contribs)

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

---

Accusations of supporting pedophiles. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm far more concerned about the comment made by 66.110.251.145 that 108.60.139.170 was responding to. We have a policy against having such opinions displayed in user space, but saying that in an AfD? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not accuse the IP of being a pedophile, which is why a registered editor reverted Seb az86556 after Seb az86556 reverted my comment for a second time. This Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents report is ridiculous. Seb az86556 stated that my comment contributes nothing to the AfD, when the same goes for other general comments in that AFD (such as AJHingston's, the comment that is right above mine). I had a right to provide correct information about what rape is, even while stating that the IP made a comment that sounds just like what pedophiles say. The IP was mostly talking about pubescent and postpubescents, which is outside of the definition of pedophilia (except for sometimes in the case of early pubescents), which is why I stated "And while statutory rape usually concerns sexual activity with pubescent and postpubescents" before I went on with my commentary. My comment mostly has nothing to do with pedophilia. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"What you are saying is just like what pedophiles say". That has nothing to do with pedophilia? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that you don't read all of people's comments. I clearly stated that "My comment mostly has nothing to do with pedophilia." Jeez. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm. And that makes a difference why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it makes a difference per all of what I stated above. Now let others comment on this. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes zero difference. Retract the comment please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If WP:Consensus is for me striking through the pedophile part, I will. But, again, I did not accuse the editor of being a pedophile, which is why it does make a difference. And keep in mind that if the pedophile part of my comment should be retracted, then so should the IP's commentary on adult-child sexual encounters, per Wikipedia:Child protection. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

While my comments should not be so construed as to be defending 108.60.139.170, 66.110.251.145 really needs to be indefed as this comment (particularly the part about statutory rape not being real rape) does violate Wikipedia:Child protection, as 108.60.139.170 pointed out. Per that policy, this really isn't up for discussion or consensus and needs be actioned ASAP. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No. You're totally misreading the policy. None of those comments warrant blocking. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, they do, and I've blocked 66* accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Which part exactly? Enlighten me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It took me a couple of readings as it's buried in the middle of the sentence, but the IP's statement here regarding statutory rape laws is blatant defense of pedophila. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah... well... I took that as sarcasm. But alright. If that's the threshold, you will need to also block 108.60.139.170 who in their post defends sex ith a 16-year-old, which is advocacy for committing statutory rape. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I like to think my sarcasometer is well-tuned and it didn't even twitch. As for 108* - 16 is the age of consent in many jurisdictions, including 30 U.S. states. I'm not sure if the fact Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida, where the age of consent is 18, makes it an issue though - in that case the IP should be warned to change their comment first, as they may be in a jurisdiction where it's 16 and it would, thus, be an honest mistake. (And his comments read as if he's in such a jurisdiction.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

True. So let them retract. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll give him a ping on his talk page. (Done.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Seb az86556, you're the one misreading the policy, just as you've misread everything else. The IP's comment was quite clearly expressing that statutory rape is not harmful to minors. Heck, the IP, as shown above, doesn't even believe that statutory rape counts as rape. What the IP stated is a clear-cut violation of WP:CHILDPROTECT. By law, those who are under the age of consent or age of majority are children, and statutory rape sometimes regards prepubescents. While the IP cannot be indefinitely blocked, even if a static IP, considering that Wikipedia doesn't block IPs because they get assigned to new people all the time, she (she's identified as a transsexual woman) should be blocked for that comment. And if not blocked, that comment, or at least the statutory rape part of it, should be removed. And as for defending sex with a 16-year-old... No, I stressed that there is vast mental and physical difference between a 10-year-old pubescent and a 16-year-old postpubescent. For your information, as The Bushranger pointed out, age 16 is the most common age of consent in North America. Refer to Ages of consent in North America. Sex with a 16-year-old usually isn't statutory rape, and it's far from pedophilia. Not to mention, that the earliest age at which a person can be diagnosed with the mental disorder pedophilia is age 16. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 06:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As for the actual comment 66.110.251.145 left on the AfD, does that need to be scrubbed or what? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been sent to Oversight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. If the jurisdiction a user is in constitutes the threshold, are users from Sonora free to say that they like sex with a 12-year-olds? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You really do have a problem with interpreting people's words. In your view, I'm somehow the bad guy, but not the actual person who was expressing the view that statutory rape is A-okay because it isn't even rape. Unbelievable. Anyway, The Bushranger, I explained further here. With the IP's comment being removed, mine should be removed as well. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP's comments were clearly referring to instances of people who are going through or have gone through puberty having apparently informed consensual sex with people over the age of consent, which is a subject of legitimate controversy. Although AfD is not quite the place for such forumish talk, it is hardly an example of advocating "inappropriate adult–child relationships" not only because it wasn't "advocating" anything but also because plenty of places in the world, including the developed world, have age of consent laws where the age limit for informed consent is far lower than the lowest in the States. That block should be lifted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not how I read, or read it, even after a second look. Regardless, though, I believe that unblocking would be up to ArbCom now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it won't help if your judgment is clouded on the issue, which I think is most likely the case. Any time there is a dispute over age of consent it is not unusual for people to see everything as being about child abuse. When someone is talking about statutory rape as it concerns age of consent, I think there should be a great deal of consideration given to whether the comments can be reasonably taken as referring to the legitimate controversy. I fail to see how this is not a case of someone saying that age of consent laws often involve situations where people willingly have a sexual encounter and as such only constitute rape in a legal sense rather than any practical sense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are we discussing this here? The policy clearly says to send it to arbcom and not discuss it. Frankly I'm tempted to just delete this thread but it seems way to late. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it's unclear to me if arbcom was ever notified, I've notified them now. Edit: Sorry I missed Bushrangers comments which seem to imply arbcom was notified. Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Aware of the block, but not of this thread. Arbcom is in communication with the user. Hatting simply because this discussion features a real live person behind the IP, which is why these things are supposed to be handled with a little discretion, rather than plastering "paedophile" all over the user. Theoretical discussion of the application of the Child Protection policy to statutory rape can take page at Wikipedia talk:Child protectionElen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Bluerim, a third time (though the second was never answered by an admin)

I am once again having issues with User:Bluerim. I have mentioned the Talk page multiple times in my Edit Summaries, but he has yet to post his concerns there, and then on his last two Edit Summaries (on the two separate pages linked later), he told me to post on the Talk page despite me having addressed it multiple times in my Edit Summaries. A few times he reverted without an Edit Summary to explain his changes. This editor has stated that he's "Not going to break down every change." I'm not asking him to break down every change, but instead, explain why he's changing things that have been discussed (from his statement, it sounds like he's practically refusing to discuss). This is occuring on the two articles, God of War (series) and Kratos (God of War) with their revision histories here (series) and here (Kratos) (where in the latter he claimed that I'm making "neurotic reverts"). The previous two incident reports are here (1st) and here (2nd). I was hoping this editor would post on the Talk page instead of making his reverts, but he didn't, which is why I brought the situation here so it can (hopefully) be settled. I don't see why this user does not post concerns on the Talk page and essentially ignoring past discussions about points that he's reverting. He also seems to only post on the Talk page when he's forced to by reports such as this one (only a few times has he posted without force per se). --JDC808 ♫ 05:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I previously left a note about a borderline personal attack on Bluerim's talk page, which he appears to have partially taken on board (he's using edit summaries when reverting now at least). Nevertheless his reverting while yelling "stop reverting" is obviously hypocritical as is saying "take it to talk" while never himself using a talk page. I felt the need to modify the edit he was reverting over re the above diff, so his condescending "my wording is so obviously much better" was spurious on that occasion at least. bridies (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever stopped to think why the last case was never answered by an admin? Discuss first on talk pages and if that doesn't work go to WP:WQA or WP:DRN (but please not both). Remember that edits summaries are not a dueling field, and check out WP:EW too. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping this editor would post on the Talk page instead of making his reverts, but he didn't, which is why I brought the situation here so it can (hopefully) be settled. I don't see why this user does not post concerns on the Talk page and essentially ignoring past discussions about points that he's reverting. bridies (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As bridies quoted from my above post, it's hard trying to get this editor to discuss things. There's actually discussions on a couple of other pages where I've asked Bluerim some questions and asked for him to answer them multiple times but he has yet to answer them. I even posted on his talk page asking for answers and he ignored it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As I've indicated before, third party comments are often required. This particular editor means well but many of his edits require work, being more suitable for a fan site than a Wikipedia article. On a number of occasions others have agreed re: certain points, but despite this he attempts to push what are very, very minor points. I apoologize for the term but it is a tad neurotic, and these "micro-wars" are tiring as no one should have to meticulously explain every edit. A third party might also help to tone this editor's style down: this is no less than the third attempt at administrative action (unwarranted), which is also coupled with several failed attempts at bringing in other editors via their Talk Pages. These issues can be resolved, but he needs to take a step back and get some perspective. Regards Bluerim (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Again I'll provide a third opinion then. You don't have to "meticulously explain every edit" but you are expected to provide an edit summary of some kind. And again if I may point to this diff: aside from the fact it wouldn't have killed you to write "active voice" (or whatever it was that made you think this an "obvious" improvement), here you neutered the sentiment that the sources "criticized" the points in question and introduced ambiguity into the statement. It is indeed a minor issue, but your claims of "obvious" improvement are baseless. And that's another tacit personal attack in stating the OP's contributions are "more suitable for a fan site", without citing any content. There's no need for the OP to "step back" and if you're keen to use the talk page, do so. bridies (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, if you would have fully read my first post, you would have saw that I stated that I'm not asking you to break down every change, but instead, explain why you're changing things that have been discussed. Also, that "number of occasions" is actually just a few, because if I remember correctly, more editors have agreed with my points than yours, but that's a side note. To be perfectly honest, I've generally had no problems working with other editors (except for one that made similar claims that you have against me, but that account is no longer around because it turned out to be a sock). For example, me and User:Niemti worked together and made the Kratos article an A-Class article. There were some things we disagreed with, but we discussed it and resolved it. Speaking of Niemti, there's a discussion involving you, Niemti, and myself about points that you began to change in this last week, which is what I've been referring to (with Kratos) when I stated "changing things that have been discussed" and though Niemti agreed with one of your points, he was more in agreeance with me on the others, which is what you've been changing. Niemti actually reverted you on these near exact current issues at that page. In regards to "ton[ing] [my] style down," not trying to brag, but I've made four of the God of War articles GA-Class and Kratos A-Class in the past month. I'll give you credit that you had some contribution to those, however, there were times where I was making edits and stated in my ES "as per GAN", and you reverted them. --JDC808 ♫ 23:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You are drifting off track. Yes, this isn't the place to brag, particularly since there is in fact nothing to brag about. Several other editors efforts were required to bring articles up to standard. As for the ES, this isn't actually mandatory, but I will use it. I suggest moving with a third party to the relevant Talk pages. Bluerim (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How was I drifting off track? Everything I said (except the side note and GAN stuff) was directly related to this issue (as for the "up to standard," there weren't several editors required except for FAC, but I was talking about GAN). And I thought I made it clear that I wasn't trying to brag, but you essentially turned it into me saying that I was. I was making a point since you made the comment of toning my style down. Though the ES was an issue, this report is primarily based on your refusal to discuss on the Talk pages and ignoring past discussions. --JDC808 ♫ 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talking to the user above at List of God of War characters. I hope this is the last time I am pulled unnecessarily into a discussion here. As indicated, this has happened three times thus far (all instigated by the same user) and is a waste of administrators' valuable time. Let's move on. Bluerim (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a waste of time if it pressed you to practise what you preach rather than engaging in risible passive aggression. bridies (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible wikihounding

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

---

Moved from WT:AN CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I have a rather good reason to believe that for the past several months(!), the user Sjones23 is constantly following me around, even after having repeatedly claimed to "disengage" from me. He's often editing various, even extremely obscure, articles immediately after I did (on the same or next day). Including the articles that he had never edited before. I've repeatedly told him to stop doing that, including recently, which he acknowledged, but apparently didn't stop. My personal opinion is it's being quite obsessive and creepy.

In the link above (while removing my edit), he actually told me to "Kindly stay away from me, please...". Well, that was my line. Simply speaking, I'd like the user Sjones23 to "kindly stay away from me, please" indeed. --Niemti (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry if I was uncivil in any way. I did not want to follow the user around, but I was only trying to help him understand. I only wanted him to stay off of my talk page when I told him to "Kindly stay away from me, please..." last time. I was only trying to help this user out and I did not intend to cause disruption in doing so or end up on another confrontation in doing so. I was only trying to avoid Niemti, and was trying to help clean up the mess the user makes.

By the way, it looks like the very definition of WP:WIKIHOUNDING to me:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases.

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Niemti has indicated that he has a personal grudge against a perceived slight. This is "wiki-hounding". Also, I am a rule-abiding editor and my edits were correcting related problems on multiple articles and fix violations of relevant policies and guidelines, and were not intended for revenge or causing distress towards a user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask for any "blocks and other editing restrictions" for you, I asked you to "kindly stay away from me, please". I hope you see a slight difference (and stop doing that). --Niemti (talk) 06:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Cease fire. The two of you are on the Talk page...not the right place. Trying posting on the correct noticeboard.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

All right. First off, I would like to apologize for closing the discussion on WT:AN unintentionally. My edits were obviously all good faith improvements and were not meant to break protocol in doing so. When using the term "disengaging", I meant that I want to avoid this user. I have been voluntarily avoiding interaction with him since discussing his behavior with user Ryan Vesey (talk · contribs) and administrators Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Berean Hunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In this relevant discussion, Berean told Niemti that he "did not follow #1 in the offer but even as that may be ignored, #2 & #3 shouldn't be" and that if he "promised to avoid incivility which was the chief cause of your ban, I haven't seen it and would prefer to hear you reinforce this." He was also advised to using a "greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off your back. This would help you with regards to #3 in the offer; don't give folks a reason to object to your return. Again, focus on editing and avoid controversy to rebuild editor trust." Unfortunately, Niemti did not respond to the discussion and Berean Hunter's advice does not seem to be working lately. It's only stalking if the edit is not made in good faith, and I would like to reinforce it that I always assume good faith and most of my edits to these obscure articles were obvious improvements. Today, I reverted the addition of the Ninja Turtles page to comply with the WP:NFILM and WP:FUTFILMS and clean up the mess that the user made in question. I had to revert the removal after it was restored by the user in question in violation of these guidelines, only for it to be reverted again with what appears to be a hostile and confrontational message in the edit summary by the user in question. Niemti has also left another possibly uncivil message in the edit summary. These may count as personal attacks, which I do not tolerate and hold a strict policy advising against all personal attacks, as it applies to everyone. I am a civil, rule-abiding editor who tries to avoid confrontations, and I have been trying to be less abrasive. I've been a regular editor of video game and TMNT articles and have those on my watch list and fix errors on them where necessary. Regardless, I have kept Niemti's talk page off my watchlist.

However, I am seriously concerned that Niemti clearly indicates in comments this thread and on this discussion that he holds a grudge against a perceived slight per my comments above. I do not hold a grudge against any user and have no problem with them editing here, as long as we obey the policies and guidelines. Also per WP:BATTLEGROUND, "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals." There's no need for me to do any bear poking on Niemti, even if I was trying to help him and give him the fair chance he has been given to return. I fear that he has used up all of his rope and he is attempting to muddy the waters. With that said, I will be able to answer any questions that anyone involved has about this matter. I did not intend to cause disruption, game the system or harass anyone in doing so, but if I did, then I sincerely apologize. It was not my intention to upset or hurt anyone and I was only trying to help this user. I fear that nothing else can be done, so I would like to ask for a solution to the matter.

Also, please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was a long post. I just want you to not follow me around, like I don't follow you. --Niemti (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm clearly frustrated with these accusations, as none of my edits involved bad edits or deliberate confrontations, as I am trying to help fix errors that Niemti edits so we can comply with the relevant policies and guidelines and manuals of style. There is no policy against me going around and fixing things any user would do is wrong. Regarding Niemti's edit summaries in my previous comment, the user in question has seemingly made personal remarks and was aggressive towards me in his edit summaries, which is a possible violation of the edit summary dos and don'ts in our civility policy ([26], [27]). As for Wikihounding, the edits by the user in question appear to clearly fit the description of WP:WIKIHOUNDING due to expression of perceived slights on AN/I, the "errors" "corrected" are not unambiguous, and the hounding is being accompanied by tendentiousness, edit warring, personal attacks ([28], [29], [30], [31]). Also per WP:WIAPA, "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" is considered a personal attack, and "serious accusations require serious evidence." No personal attacks also applies to everyone here as well and I cannot tolerate any more attacks. I am not responding to Niemti, but I want to explain what I did and also express concern about it so fresh eyes from other users and administrators will get a clear idea about this. The previous resolution on Berean's talk page might not have worked out and I am also concerned that Niemti has violated #2 of the standard offer, and I seriously think this is preventing me from moving forward. I am going to remain civil, maintain good faith and I would like to kindly ask that more fresh eyes on the matter would be appreciated. I am waiting for a solution and also hope to end WP:BATTLEGROUND and commenting editors instead of discussing the content and if we can bring up a productive result, we should be able to move forward. We should also watch out for the boomerang as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about the origin of this grudge you have. I noticed it in the discussions concerning Niemti's unblock. The only good will you've shown towards him is after the consensus has turned against your proposals to discipline him. So please, enlighten us. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, I am always a fairly civil person and always maintain good faith in my edits when I interact with other users, but some of them can be difficult. I do not intend to wikihound or stalk anyone in doing so. The community has given Niemti a fair chance to edit and I have no objections to his return despite my initial doubts, but I was frustrated with Niemti's apparently poor behavior, and I spoke with Dennis Brown and Ched (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about this, but Niemti followed me to this discussion with a confrontational attitude and Dennis Brown suggested that I should avoid Niemti while waiting for a response to Berean Hunter (see also this discussion). In this resulting discussion, Berean Hunter suggested that we should move forward and said that Niemti "did not follow #1 in the offer but even as that may be ignored, #2 & #3 shouldn't be" and that if he "promised to avoid incivility which was the chief cause of your ban, I haven't seen it and would prefer to hear you reinforce this." He was also advised to using a "greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off your back. This would help you with regards to #3 in the offer; don't give folks a reason to object to your return. Again, focus on editing and avoid controversy to rebuild editor trust." I have been voluntarily avoiding interaction with him. When I spoke with Ryan Vasey, I took Niemti's talk page off my watchlist and everything seemed fine. However, when I was only trying to help clean up issues more recently and seemed to frustrate me even more as Niemti's edits might have caused controversy. I do not have a grudge against Niemti, but would like to have a more productive resolution. I am clearly frustrated by his behavior that led to what happened today, as Niemti has clearly indicated in this thread and elsewhere that he has a grudge against a perceived slight (this is Wikihounding) and I was only intending to help out, but I am concerned that I do not want to turn this into a battleground. That's why I explained what is going on in the comments above. I fear that he has used too much rope and right now, I feel that these issues are preventing me from moving forward, and want to have more fresh eyes from other administrators and users on the matter here to provide a more proper and productive resolution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite all your links and references to policies, it's just white noise. I've just been seeing soapboxing, even in the diffs you try and use against Niemti: [32] - "Please stop"? You removed more than the disputed edits with that revert and he even told you but you reverted anyway. You just seem to be baiting him so you can gather 'evidence'. There's just so much crap that I couldn't be bothered going through it all. Acoma Magic (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, I gave out relevant and important information about this situation and I wanted Niemti not to edit war when I reverted him and was on the verge of violating WP:3RR, as his edits to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (film series) caused controversy by almost getting into an edit war ([33], [34], [35]). The disputed edits on Ninja Turtles was moved back and forth per WP:NFILM and WP:FUTFILM, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." That's why I had to reverse them as well. This edit in which Niemti said about the indiscriminate edits was referring to Oknazevad (talk · contribs), not myself, as I was only trying to help him. And no, I am not baiting him to gather evidence. As what Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) pointed out to me on a recent discussion, a fair opportunity must be given for him to demonstrate he can work here since he is unblocked. I am still waiting for a solution. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Niemti came here looking for a solution and I want one too. I'm not sure what it could be though. Maybe a "100% disengagement"? Acoma Magic (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also want a solution as well, but I would also like to request that some of the Wikipedia administrators comment on this matter and I will be guided by what they say about the situation. My very best wishes (talk · contribs) has already asked Niemti to seek advice from an administrator prior to posting it. For now, I would like to make a suggestion that per Dennis Brown, we should focus on other article work for a while and per Berean Hunter, we should have Niemti follow #3 in the standard offer, have him use a greater degree of self-control and ignoring things letting them roll off his back and I also want him to be careful in his words and work to build collegial relationships with other editors especially those working in his areas of interests. If there are problems with Niemti's behavior, I will defer them to Berean Hunter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That statement was bad enough before your rewrite. This is just so annoying lol. I think I'll go now. Acoma Magic (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The logical solution seems to be (granted I've only spent the last 10 min. or so gather information etc.) that the two users find different interest areas and edit articles on those specific areas. A good faith resolution to the problem would be following that, however if that doesn't work, one editor will likely have to receive a topic ban from where ever the other wants to edit. As of now, I'm thinking Sjones23 should be on the receiving end of the proposed ban from whatever area Niemti wants to edit. This is out of control and frankly somewhat childish, so I recommend heeding my advice or previous advice before an administrator comes in and blocks one or both of you. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I did any type of misbehavior on the article. I think we should find different interests and I want to end the hostility between Niemti and myself. I apologize if I was uncivil in any way. :-) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Two things: a.) please stop sucking up to whomever tries to resolve the issue, it is unnecessary and frankly makes me understand why Niemti is annoyed, b.) I would strongly recommend what I said below, an arbitration. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps you should seek a arbitration, but the nonsense needs to stop. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Go Phightins, that's a great idea! I agree that this is getting out of control and we want to end this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I'm brilliant...(sarcasm), please request it and be bound by whatever the committee's decision is. Niemti, is that all right with you? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I already said I don't want any "blocks and other editing restrictions" for him and I seriously don't. Just to stop what it seems to check my edits every day (the following edits were not bad at all, don't get me wrong, but it's very clear how he discovered this article the next day after I edited it). And I'm sure he's got enough self-contol to stop doing that on his own. And, if he wants, he can actually watch my talk page (he claims he doesn't, but I have no problem with this), from which I practically never remove anything (just archiving). --Niemti (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think Niemti is very active in the project. He makes good improvements in a number of articles, he is willing to discuss content disagreements [36], and he knows these subjects. Speaking about this ANI request, I do not think it was unreasonable. Looking at the edit histories: [37], [38], it's obvious that both articles were first edited by Niemti; then Sjones23 came to revert his edits. Sjones23 did not act "by the rules" by reverting edits of Niemti without talking. He effectively deletes an article, but there was no discussion to delete or merge. In the past, Sjones23 promised to "disengage" from following Niemti, and I think he should do just that. I made this suggestion, but he apparently did not like it and expressed his intention to continue following edits by Niemti [39]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. I initially did not wish to interact with Niemti at the time, but now, I've changed my mind and I intend to edit collaboratively with Niemti. As Dennis Brown pointed out to me, sometimes, it's better to simply just walk away and let others deal with the problems, particularly if we have been too "involved". He also said that things don't happen in a vacuum here, if he is doing something wrong, it will likely get noticed by someone else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• I cannot comment on the "wilkihounding" allegation per se, but the reverts by User:Lord Sjones23 in the recent dispute at Ninja Turtles were entirely justified. WP:BRD does not require to you to discuss before reverting, it requires discussion to take place if you feel the revert was unjustified. WP:NFF is very clear about when it is appropriate to create new film articles, and User:Niemti wasn't editing consistently with them. Sjones23 brought the matter up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Ninja Turtles article, which was the correct course of action, where it was confirmed the film did not meet the criteria for its own article. To give Niemti his due he stopped creating the article once the relevant guideline was pointed out, so it seems to me this dispute was resolved without sanctionable impropriety by either side. Betty Logan (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, they were justified. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • @Betty Logan. As a note of order, BRD is not a policy, it is not about deletion of articles, and it tells about only one revert prior to talking at article talk page. This is not what had happened here [40] [41]. But I am mainly concerned about this response by Sjones23 which does not seem to be encouraging. @Sjones23. Would you agree not to follow edits by Nietmi and not revert them? There are many other people around. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think in regards to this particular dispute, it was resolved in a relative proper manner. There was a bit of spat, but Sjones23 pointed out the relevant guideline and solicited a third opinion at the Film project and Niemti acceded. Personally I don't think there isn't a problem with how the Ninja Turtles disputed was resolved. As for the wider harrassment allegation, I agree it is not productive to rake over someone's contribution history looking for stuff to revert, if indeed that is what is happening. Sjones is a proven competent editor and I am sure it is not is not his intention for Niemti to feel harrassed, so what I suggest is that he refrains from reverting Niemti on articles he himself has never edited, and instead drops a note at the relevant project if he thinks something needs to be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I think this thread could be closed if Sjones promise to refrain from reverting Niemti on articles he himself has never edited. Other than that, both sides must realize that bringing complaints about fellow editors to ANI (or to attention of individual administrators) can only be appropriate in the case of very serious problems. Otherwise, this looks like block shopping. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Refraining from reverting Niemti on articles I have never edited and notifying the project is also a very a good idea for me. It was actually not my intention make Niemti feel harassed by anyone here, as I am a trusted and competent editor. Per the relevant policy at WP:WIKIHOUNDING: "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I am always careful with these policies and I did not cause anyone distress, nor did I want revenge for a perceived slight in doing so, so I apologize for that. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I have been uncivil or condescending towards anyone here. My comments were not intended to be offensive or disruptive in any way. For me, I feel like the best solution to the problem is to work this out between myself. Also, I clearly explained in my edit summaries during the dispute at the Ninja Turtles article ([42] [43]) that the article did not comply with the relevant WP:FILM guidelines: WP:NFF and WP:FUTFILMS. Unless there is a reliable source confirming the start date of the principal photography, we should not create a new film article. In maintaining good faith, the best option was to move it into the film series article, but I had no intention of wikihounding in doing so. I had to bring it up at the wikiproject's talk page and the situation was resolved and I did not want to get into an edit war. FWIW, I am willing to apologize to Niemti and edit collaboratively with him if he is willing to do the same, as I do not want to be incivil towards anyone. Dennis Brown also suggested that it might be better to remove myself from noticing for a while. I did not intend to follow Niemti's edits, cause distress or break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. If he has made a major violation of some policy, I should contact Berean Hunter, who is familiar with the situation, and let him make a determination. I will be patient and hold out for more users and administrators to respond. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm here because Sjones23 asked me yesterday to voice my opinion, but I couldn't until now. I have not done any research into the contributions of Niemti or Sjones23. I have read, sometimes skimmed, this topic. The thing that jumps out at me is that Niemti hasn't made their case for wikihounding. In the original post, Niemti has precisely one diff, which despite its odd dissonance, is hardly enough to constitute wikihounding. After that, Niemti posts to this thread only to repeat their request, which is for Sjones23 to stop following Niemti around. I see lots of posts by Sjones23 who seems to be earnestly trying to find a solution, although, honestly, some of his posts are a bit confusing. Although I commend Sjones23 for seeking advice from various admins, I'm not quite sure what he's proposing just above. Being a rule-oriented fellow, I would have recommended closing this because Niemti didn't meet what I believe is their burden to demonstrate a problem, but it seems to have gone beyond that with Sjones23 sort of conceding there is a problem but it's not really wikihounding. I'd still like to see a good set of diffs from Niemti that show wikihounding. Absent that, although Sjones23 is free to voluntarily do whatever he thinks is constructive, I'm loath to endorse any sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This difference posted by Niemti is hardly enough to constitute wikihounding and I am also concerned that Niemti has not made his case for my supposed wikihounding. As a rule-abiding user, I usually seek advice from various administrators to see what they feel about the matter, as I am earnestly trying to find a swift and earnest solution to solve the problem (no soapboxing is intended, of course). However, I am concerned that my posts were confusing at times. I did concede that there is a problem, and it is not really wikihounding. I would also like to have more differences from Niemti to show the alleged wikihounding. Other than that, I also agree with your concerns about your reluctance to endorsing any sanctions, despite my will to freely voluntarily do whatever I know is constructive. Also, I have no intention of block shopping around here, as I don't want to get blocked because of bad issues. Bbb23, your thoughts and comments are always welcome. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My two cents, since I come across both of them frequently. This isn't a case of "wikihounding", it's just a matter of two editors that butt heads a lot. They have very different theories and interpretations of policy and guidelines, and both work on a lot of similar articles. (We all work on video game articles a lot.) If anything, I take issue in how Niemti is frequently condescending in his/her comments to others in general, that I don't especially think is always constructive. But even there, it's usually more of a "That was kind of rude" reaction than anything that goes agains WP:INCIVIL or WP:NPA. Neither one has broken any policy or done anything warranting any sort of disclipline.

That being said, I do think it would probably be in both of their interests to at least try to avoid each other a little more if possible, so that things don't even escalate to something that actually belongs at WP:ANI. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the concerns by Sergecross73. Although I have some issues with Niemti being frequently condescending in his comments to others in general, I also do not think these are always constructive and is a bit more "that was kind of rude" reaction than any violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. This discussion is not really a case of "wikihounding" for me either. Not only have Niemti and I having very different theories and interpretation of policies or guidelines, we have not broken any policy or done anything that warrants any sort of discipline. I believe that this positive solution for Niemti and I to avoid each other a little more if possible, in order to prevent things from escalating into something that actually belongs at ANI, will help my moral support as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Final thoughts to administrators

I would like to offer my final thoughts to the administrators who are watching this case. After Bbb23 and Sergecross73's responses, I have concluded that Niemti's case of "wikihounding" towards me was unsubstantiated. We have different theories and interpretations of policies and guidelines, and work on a lot of similar articles. I find issues with Niemti being frequently condescending in his comments towards others in general, they are not always constructive and is a bit more of a rude reaction than anything that goes against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Since we have not broken any policy or done anything warranting any sort of discipline. As such, per Sergecross73's suggestion, I think we should try to avoid each other a little more if possible. However, I am concerned that if I should avoid him, I won't be able to edit the articles I want to edit if there is a large overlap between my editing areas. As what Betty Logan pointed out to me, just because I watch and edit the same articles at Niemti does not mean that it is wikihounding. If I did anything wrong or did something to upset anyone, them I am sorry. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• No one really seems to be pushing anything against you here, (not even Niemti) so I think you'd be safe to let this one sink into the archives.
• As far as working on the same articles: I think it would just be best to informally operate out of a WP:1RR moreso, and be quick to bring it to the talk page to discuss after that. If no one's commenting, bring it to WP:VG's attention like usual. I think it'd be best if you guys stick to one main comment each, rather than responding to each other over and over again. I'm sure you'd think "Well, I can keep it to one comment, but what if Niemti doesn't?" To that, I say, let him, because I honestly I don't think excessive arguing helps him much. His hard-to-follow, condescending responses don't seem to bring him much support. But anyways, I think that if you have the consensus speak for you, he shouldn't have any grounds for being upset with you in particular. (And vice versa.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree, this should be closed without action. It's noteworthy that Niemti did not demand any sanctions at the first place. Possibly for that reason he did not care to provide supporting diffs. But as someone who watched this story, I must tell that some supporting diffs of wikihounding and block shopping could be easily provided. So, I would strongly suggest for both participants to stay away of each other. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To the responders, thank you very much and they were very helpful. There's nothing we can do at ANI for now. I will operate out of a WP:1RR rule and be quick to bring it to the talk page to discuss it after that, but if no one's commenting, I should drop a line at the WikiProject talk page. It would be best to stick to one main comment each. If we have the consensus to speak for me, Niemti should not have any grounds for it. I understand that Niemti did not demand sanctions in the first place. I should avoid him as much as possible. Excessive arguing does not help everyone much. As such, there is no action to be taken at ANI and I am going to close this thread. Thank you very much for your time looking into this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

What is going on here?

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

---

Hopiakuta (talk · contribs) Somebody do something. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should anyone do anything to a user cleaning up their accounts? Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just indefblocked them, until someone else can work out what is going on and handle it. Account compromise, possibly? -- The Anome (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This comes up periodically. See [44]. CIreland (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the previous ANI conversation I've fixed all the dubious moves, unblocked them and left Floquenbeam a note. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

While I can see the editor has some issues at the moment, they do seem to make some useful contributions. I'm not sure if they are currently capable of being engaged with in a sensible way right now, and WP:NOTTHERAPY seems like the appropriate rule for the immediate moment. They seem to do these sorts of edits in bursts: perhaps a short block of a day or so until they calm down? -- The Anome (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, what, Black Kite? You are unblocking a user who is making obviously nonsensical mass page moves and who is not communicating about them? I was just about to say that, this being Wikipedia, where every kind of craziness has its defenders, I wonder how long it takes this time for someone to conclude that, no, these edits are the very mark of a productive contributor. And your unblock edit-conflicted with that comment... Well, it's your responsibility now.  Sandstein  12:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Either of you, feel free to override that unblock if you want - the most important thing as far as I was concerned was (a) not leave them indeffed and (b) let their mentor know. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the rationale given that they are disabled and are editing with outdated assistive equipment: I really can't imagine any kinds of assistive equipment that would make these kinds of errors, and these edits seem to me, on the face of it, to look more like a sign of some sort of mental issue. Or expert trolling. Can anyone enlighten me? -- The Anome (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have always found that explanation to be implausible as well, but even if true it is a poor excuse. Should I be able to take a car out on the road with no brakes, a tendency to veer into traffic, and belching fumes? Tarc (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the persistence of this behavior despite a series of blocks and long time of mentoring, I fail to see the benefit of the unblock. Even if done in good faith, moving an IP talk page to your userspace is no more appropriate than moving it to "User talk:71.102.31.67 on wheels!" Why do we continue tolerating this? Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've now indefblocked them for persistent disruptive editing. Fundamentally, this is an encyclopedia project, first and foremost. Regardless of the reasons for this, WP:COMPETENCE is needed, and mentoring has not helped. -- The Anome (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As an engineer with a fair amount of experience designing adaptive equipment for various disabilities, I would like to see a manufacturer name and model number for the equipment that is referred to in the "This user interacts with Wikipedia using outdated equipment" notice. This and similar notices could benefit from more details about the exact kind of problems that the outdated equipment is likely to cause as opposed to problems with other causes. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume their mentor has been notified, but I support leaving the block in place for now or longer. I don't get the "equipment" excuse, but it doesn't matter, as disruption is disruption regardless of cause, particularly when it is an ongoing issue. If the "problem" can be fixed, fine, but they need to remain blocked until then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both Dennis and Guy: If this is indeed an assistive technology issue, we might be able to help. Until then, the account should stay blocked. -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't object, though my actions were based on the fact that the user has communicated with both Xeno and Floquenbeam in the past and they've both been fine with any possible difficulties. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility and I also always had my doubts about the "outdated equipments" thing. Despite some research in archived discussions I did not find the basis for this conclusion. In 2008 someone suggested his disability resembled that of Autism, possibly some kind of high-functioning autism syndrome - people with nomal intellect but extended difficulties in social relations difficulties. I personally don't know. And I don't know how to help this user. I do have the feeling he means well, however. Dodoïste (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support this block. Basically competence is required and disruption is disruption regardless of the cause. If the "problem" can be fixed, that's fine. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• As I said last time this came up, blaming the assistive technology is a smokescreeen, it is not what is causing the problems. Years of mentoring have failed to help in the slightest. Having a coherent converstion woth thos user is virtually impossible because they choose to be cryptic and not directly reply to questions, not because of any tech issue. WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:CIR both apply. There comes a time we must decide to part ways with a user who causes problems rathwr than solving them, regaordless of how we may feel about the underlying reasons for it. It is not a happy moment for anyone involved, but it is necessary. We don't let the blind drive busses. That's not discrimination, it's just common sense. They can't do it. This user can't edit Wikipedia in a productive fashion and constantly causes messes that need to be cleaned up. We need to revoke his bus driver license. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those moves are being performed on his own accounts and IP. I don't see anything disruptive about it. Acoma Magic (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Accounts", plural, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, the point here is that this user is not a Wikipedia editor at all. What he thinks he is doing here, I don't know, but none of it improves Wikipedia. None of it. And filling up an IP talk page with utter nonsense and then moving it to a title like User talk:Hopiakuta/ DonFphrnqTaub Persina juneteenth 2006 ( Oy vey, D. F. T. P. 22 26, 18 June 2006 71.102.31.67 ) ~~ ~~ / 71.102.35.65 actually is not ok. IP talk pages do not belong to anyone, even if they have had the IP a long time it could be re-assigned at any time, but that is not really the point. The purpose of talk pages is communication. Hokiaputa is not using them for that purpose. Wikipedia is not a free web host for a bunch of random nonsense to be shuffled around to various equally nonsensical titles. He's wasting his own time, and whenever this gibberish shows up in recent changes or wherever and someone tries to figure out what the hell is going on, he wastes everone else's time as well trying to figure it out. Nobody is gaining anything from his edits. He is not able to contribute here in a productive manner and made it clear in the last discussion that he is not intersted in even trying to communicate coherently. He can pursue this.... whatever the hell it is somewhere else where they are not working on an encyclopedia, which his edits have no relation to whatsoever. There is nothing to be gained by unblocking this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He was editing in article space before the block before this current one and making useful edits, most of which were redirects. I managed to communicate coherently with him. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I also edit with outdated assistive technology. I teach and beta test various types of systems. Without going into details, but to hopefully provide some useful information, after running through a number of the user's edits, I would say that the claim is true, certain types of errors in the edits, and some irregularities, minor things that you probably do not see, coupled with some user content suggest specific type(s) of adaptive technology. The programmer above, looking through a specific type of my Wikipedia contributions might guess what type of adaptive technology I use. However, it is not so easy to make some other types of errors this user makes, due to specific constraints of the technology. Also, nothings stops me from apologizing when I do make the techno-error, but it is a lot of work, each post and communication, with some types of disabilities and adaptive technology. These threads on this board trend towards Jupiter-sized snowballs and participating may be a lot more work than you can imagine, certainly it removes editors from editing, ordinary editors, so the burden on an already limited editor is much greater. Th sorry aftermath of a techo-generated oops can be seen here. [45]. Eau (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He should be unblocked in accordance with the previous AN/I discussion. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just so we can rinse and repeat? It doesn't matter what the cause is of these disruptive edits; they keep happening, they keep being disruptive, and until there can be assurances that the disruption will not resume/continue, the block needs to stay in place to prevent the disruption. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

He's been editing for 6 years with over 6000 edits. He's made it no AN/I less than half a dozen times in that period. Now, when he hasn't even been editing articles, he's blocked for redirecting his own accounts. It doesn't seem right. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support block - This keeps coming up over and over again, and the arguments are the same every time, and the situation never really changes. Overall, it's a net drag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Block - Apparently unblocking before was not a long-term fix. Unless something can be done to fix the problem, unblocking means (at best) a temporary lull until this happens again. --Nouniquenames (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block - He's done nothing disruptive so far. Moving pages from his own accounts that he doesn't edit from anymore isn't a sufficient reason. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support block - The project cannot be expected to deal with such a basic lack of competence here; this person completely lacks the ability to communicate with others in a coherent manner. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried? I got on fine. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Goody for you. Between this discussion and the one on WP:AN a month ago where the unblock was very poorly-received, most editors have had enough. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Most editors only look on the surface. They're just seeing a lot of links on his page and don't care to delve further. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't think that unblocking Hopiakuta last month was a good call - there was a fair bit of evidence that, irrespective of whatever disability-related accommodations s/he uses, there was also an unwillingness to try to be comprehensible - but given that the user hasn't edited outside of their userspace since then other than doing some weird move-fu on account and IP talks that are "his", I don't think should have been the thing to set off a re-block. Not that it was a good call to go moving an IP's talk to his userspace, but it's a sort of understandable mistake someone might make ("The people talking to this IP were talking to me, anyway, so I might as well group it here..."). So I give the block a big "meh" - yeah, it was probably going to end up being necessary if Hopiakuta went back to editing mainspace in his old style, but as long as he was doing his semi-nonsensical thing only in his own space, there wasn't much call to do it today other than what was probably a page-ownership misunderstanding. That said, though, now that a block is in place I'm also not convinced that it will improve the encyclopedia to lift it - Hopiakuta's habit (weakness?) of making himself as difficult to understand as possible doesn't benefit Wikipedia, whether he's doing it in mainspace (in which case it's disruptive) or his talkspace (in which case it's sort of a chaotic-neutral "uhh...why are you here?"). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"why are you here" pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I don't see the point, for them or for WP, in their continued presence here. If nobody is getting anything positive out of it what's the point? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on this, probably time to revoke talk page access and then maybe issue a revdel.[46] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just done both. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can those who keep wanting to unblock this editor explain, in words of one syllable, what that user is doing, and why they should be unblocked? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a guy who may need some help, and anything we do should be carefully considered. Hopiakatu (or DonFphrnqTaub Persina) has a surprisingly extensive web presence. This blog post is actually readable, and may provide some insight. Zagalejo^^^ 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

He may need some help, but Wikipedia is not therapy. Regardless of what good contributions may have been made, if disruption keeps happening (it does) and there are no assurances of it not happening again (there aren't) a preventitive block to prevent the disruption is necessary. Wikipedia has enough problems editors have to deal with without enabling a situation where they have to clean up disruption, intentional or not, that everyone knew would happen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, the only disruption is from people who couldn't be bothered reading the template at the top of his user page. More disruption comes when an admin blocks him just because of all the links on his user page. Moving his own accounts doesn't deserve a block or amount to disruption. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If it is the same person, then what that blog post shows is that a) he deliberately refuses to communicate coherently on the Wikipedia and b) that this is a severely mentally unbalanced individual who should be kept well away from this project. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree that the blog writer seems remarkably more able to communicate, and unhindered by "equipment problems", then the editor in question. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it confirms what I have been saying all along, that blaming assistive technology is an outright lie and that he is deliberately being difficult. Yes, it is possible that his mental illness is partly to blame. That is not our problem to fix even if we could. As has been repeated again and again, Wikipedia is not therapy. I won't add that competence is required as it is now well established that the way he communicates here is a deliberate choice, meaning he is being deliberately disruptive. As he is hard blocked without talk page access and there is obviously not a consensus here to overturn that I would suggest that we are done here and this a matter for WP:BASC should he choose to appeal that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is the disruption? As far as I can tell the user was redirecting their alternate accounts to one single account per best practices. Why was this user blocked? Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I really think this is more of an issue with this user as a whole as opposed to the reasons for this specific block. Anyone who goes out of their way to make it difficult to communicate with them is not someone who should be working in a collaborative environment. I thought that had been pretty well established when this thread was closed, and I am disappointed tha it has been forced back open. For the moment this issue is in BASC's capable hands, let them deal with it. (I'd also be curious to know how moving an IP talk page that you have filled with garbage for some reason to a title like "User talk:Hopiakuta/ DonFphrnqTaub Persina juneteenth 2006 ( Oy vey, D. F. T. P. 22 26, 18 June 2006 71.102.31.67 ) ~~ ~~ / 71.102.31.67" reflects best practices, or any sane practice of any kind, but really I'd rather we just put this whole thing to bed.) Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no issue with the user, only editors who keep trying to block him. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we should not block users without a good rationale and then shuffle the problem off somewhere else where the user has to file a form in triplicate and show his original birth certificate, etc. This user has done nothing wrong. I'm sorry you don't like his preference for naming his user pages, but that's his own decision and it isn't blockable. Please unblock this user immediately. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You conveniently set aside the proof we now have that his "unable to communicate" shtick has been a lie. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such proof, any anyone saying there is such proof is making it up. Viriditas (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well one, that isn't relevant whether he should be blocked; two, I managed to communicate with him fairly well on several occasions and three, the web post was 10 months ago so has little bearing on whether he was faking it - unless his posts to Wikipedia were incoherent on the same day he posted that other stuff on the web (even that argument is wobbly). Acoma Magic (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm, not sure why you're having a hard time understanding a simple matter here. This user has been brought to AN and ANI several times in the past for disruptive editing concerns, and most of the complaints have been dismissed or mitigated, large because of the excuse of "outdated equipment" used because of his disability results in difficulty to communicate. That excuse has been exposed as fraudulent. Any other user who has done what this user has done in the past would have been sanctioned. Tarc (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I too assumed that 'outdated equipment' meant some sort of special machine for disabled people. Only because of his way of communicating which is occasionally difficult to understand. It might just be an old computer. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me sum this up: User was brought to AN/I because he was moving his previous accounts. He was blocked for that. Since the argument for keeping the block in place is based on other issues, then another AN/I section should be started and a decision to be made on whether to block him. An unblock should be made now, since moving your accounts is not a blockable offence. Acoma Magic (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But failure to communicate coherently is. And why are you using bold script? 69.62.243.48 (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone need to communicate about maintaining their user space? There was no actionable rationale for this block and it should be lifted. Viriditas (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That hasn't been a problem for quite a while and isn't the reason for this AN/I discussion. For funzies. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no stone tablet on which the inscruption "Thou shalt not have an AN/I discussion about one topic deviate to related topics" - which, as this is the same editor in question, is very much a related topic. And you are seeming to not get the point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine then, see if you can get consensus for a block based on the issues raised. An unblock is required at the moment as it was implemented for frivolous reasons a frivolous reason. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. Just as a matter of procedure, the bad block should be removed. If a good block follows, so be it, but the current one can't be left in place "just in case" a good block might one day follow. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Acoma, your summary is inaccurate, this block is more of a "straw that broke the camel's back" thing, it wasn't for the most recent bizarro page moves. We're simply at an "enough is enough" moment. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If moving former accounts is not just rule breaking but also a blockable offence, then the block is fine. If it's not, then an unblock is in order and a discussion on whether to implement a block based on something else can take place. Acoma Magic (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you actually read what people write here, as most of your replies ignore any points others have actually made. Several users, including yourself, have tried to handhold and coddle this user over the years because of alleged communication issues due to a claimed disability, a claim now shown to be 100% fraudulent. People get blocked for being disruptive and deceptive all the time here, this was no different. We all know now that Hopiakuta can indeed communicate in clear English, so he is free to follow the steps at WP:BASC. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed the points made. No disability has been shown to be fraudulent and he's communicated in clear English on Wikipedia quite often, both recently and long ago. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say the disability itself was fraudulent; again, please read what people write. I said that the past excuse making that this user cannot communicate competently because of poor equipment is a lie, since it has been demonstrated that the user can communicate coherently when he chooses to. Blocks have been dodged in the past because of this excuse-making. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I already addressed that as well if you look up top. I and others assumed that his antiquated equipment was referring to a special machine to aid in communication. However, it seems that it was just about an old computer or the like. Looking back, it's quite obvious that it was a mistaken assumption, as he communicates often and is easy to understand most of the time. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support block. There is not one iota of benefit given to the encyclopedia by the user's recent contributions. Nothing to do here until the user can rally the English language and request the block be lifted, using clear communication. Binksternet (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel that these supports are irrelevant since a subsection needs to be started and a discussion to take place on whether to actually block him based on certain reasons such as communication issues. Until he's unblocked for the frivolous reason already discussed, then we're just wasting our time. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that your opinion that it is frivolous is in a very distinct minority. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked for direction to the policy that says moving former accounts is against the rules and blockable. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say WP:IAR, but moving former accounts is WP:DISRUPTIVE, and, together with previous blockable offences, for which I really don't understand why he was unblocked, it might be sufficient to restore the indefinite block. Assuming, without further analysis, the statements made that his article edits are sometimes good, he chould still be sufficiently distruptive that his presence causes more trouble than his absence. Constructive editors have been blocked, when it was determined (usually at AN, rather than ANI), that the problems outweighed the benefits. I supported an indefinite block previously, but I'm not commenting this time, as it takes too much effort to attempt to understand his talk page edits, to determine whether there might be some value. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A consensus on whether to block him is all that I want. WP:IAR is the policy that's required to keep him blocked. Acoma Magic (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: that Hopiakuta be blocked from editing for long-term misrepresentation of his ability to communicate on Wikipedia

Since certain contributors seem to think that Wikipedia has to operate like a court of law, and that a block which is self-evidently justified based on what we now know should be lifted on the basis that it may possibly have been incorrectly imposed in the first place,I propose that we settle the matter by immediately imposing a new block on Hopiakuta, for long-term misrepresentation of his ability to communicate on Wikipedia - such a block to be lifted only after Hopiakuta has given a clear explanation, in his own words for his behaviour, and also given an assurance that such misrepresentation of his ability to communicate will not recur, and that he will at all times attempt to communicate with others to the best of his ability - it will of course be up to the unblocking admin (and ultimately the community) to determine whether any such assurances from Hopiakuta can be given credence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, for reasons given above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose because there's no evidence he misrepresented his ability to communicate. The title and reasons above should be changed or diffs provided. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not. He's been communicating just fine on and off. You're making it sound like it was just discovered that he can communicate well. Acoma Magic (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that at this time, as noted above, Hopiakuta's block is based at least in part on the contents of a rev-deleted edit (see posts above from Baseball Bugs and Mark Arsten). That rev-deletion was valid and the contents of the edit should not be discussed on-wiki. I'm reluctant even to make this post here and call attention to it, but I hate to see a great deal more time spent on discussing this block in the abstract without reference to it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad. Should we close these threads noting that the blocked user may appeal to ArbCom?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should. I also hate to see more time wasted on discussing this block in the abstract without reference to it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

His response was based on a template telling him to come here and defend himself; even though he was just indefinitely blocked. Naturally he was annoyed. So no, the block was never based on that. Now cast your votes and reasons on whether to block him (also somebody unblock him so he can respond here, as that's what's supposed to happen). Acoma Magic (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not what is supposed to happen, nor is it what is going to happen. This should have been left closed two days ago, but lately there is an obnoxious trend here of trying any ridiculous argument one can to explain away even the most obvious bad faith behavior. Unfortunately it has worked a few times, making the situation worse. Amd, sorry folks, but the revdeleted edit is pretty bad. The fact that it had to be revdeleted, as Brad noted, means the details are not going to be discussed here but I can assure you it reflects an attititude completely incompatible with Wikipedia, and it is in fact coherent. When he wants to be really nasty he can communicate just fine. When he wants to just be irritating he chooses not to. That is why he is blocked and why he will remain blocked until he appeals it himself, so please, let's finally let this lie where it is and let BASC handle it should he choose to appeal the block. This desperate advocacy on his behalf is accomplishing nothing. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Acoma Magic, I share your distaste for the way many people here handled this, but after Hopiakuta's now-revdel'ed response, there is no benefit to him in leaving this ANI thread open; he is simply not going to be unblocked without contacting ArbCom. There is perhaps a benefit to those who wish to Fight and Speak Truth to Power, or a benefit to those who wish to further mock someone who can't answer back, but there is no benefit to him. As such, I am going to close the thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:MoonLichen and personal attacks

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

---

MoonLichen (talk · contribs) has committed personal many personal attacks against me, even after many warnings. [47] [48] [49]. He also gave ME a PA warning for my giving him a warning. Note that he deleted the 2nd and 3rd warnings from his TP. I request a block for some time (24 hours maybe?) so he stops attacking me. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Add to this the creation of a blatant hoax Fragplatz, now being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 22. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a 24-hour block for MoonLichen would work, as personal attacks are not, and should not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that MoonLichen just tried to remove this comment and the one above it from this noticeboard. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just meant to remove the first one. Did not seem to have any bearing on the topic at hand, but if it helps you with your character assassination, then by all means... --MoonLichen (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the relevant diff. At ANI we are generally interested in an editor's overall behaviour, regardless of the primary topic of the report. If you think that is an assassination then you might have misunderstood something. And it's definitely not up to you to remove content by other editors in a discussion like this. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with avoiding personal attacks is that it's impossible to know just what a person is going to take personally. There comes a point where it is clear that you just need to stop communicating with a person because they are taking everything you say the wrong way. I recognized that and said "let's agree to disagree" on my talk page. I'm really just trying to end this conversation, but this person has camped out on my talk page and will not stop dogging me with warning tags and now they're reporting me to the admin noticeboard. StringTheory11 needs to take a chill pill. --MoonLichen (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

MoonLichen, that seems like a reasonable solution. If you and StringTheory can avoid interacting with each, then we will avoid a great deal of drama and be able to get on with things. Does that sound acceptable to you both? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine with that, as long as ML is warned that should he make personal attacks again, he will be blocked from editing. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Some background: I note that MoonLichen appears to have (a) created a blatant hoax article, Fragplatz, and (b) replaced their talk page by a redirect, so that they will not recieve notifications when other editors edit what they believe to be their talk page. I'm not particularly impressed by this, and I'm not particularly hopeful about their interactions with others, which seem to be generally combative. -- The Anome (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

More: I note that MoonLichen edited another editor's comments on Fragplatz, replacing them by a wholly misleading misrepresentation of those comments. This was four days ago, on the 22nd.[50] Since the hoax article was created some considerable time ago, this makes me doubt that they are editing in good faith, and I've temporarily blocked them from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Genre dispute on a specific articles.

For a long time, there has been considerable fighting, edit warring, arguing etc. over the genres listed in the infoboxes for articles related to the band My Chemical Romance. I don't know why it's this band in particular, but over the years that I've been watching the pages there have been countless, unsourced, undiscussed genre changes, while users involved have fought and fought, sometimes getting blocked. Personally, I'm against even listing genres in the infobox, seeing as only bad things tend to come from it. I would be lying if I said that the amount of "genre-warring" going on on this site doesn't drive me crazy out of its sheer meaninglessness, but in the interest of keeping the articles consistent and well-sourced, I've been trying to, firstly, keep the genre parameter as general and inoffensive as possible, and secondly, make sure any additions to the parameter are reliably sourced and verifiable.

Anyway, the reason that this has escalated is because over the past, say, month-or-so there have been several editors (who I'll mention later on) that seem to believe these three points:

Point #1. Despite being sourced, the genres listed in the infobox are too vague,

Point #2. Anything listed as a musical "style" on the website Allmusic should be considered a genre,

Point #3. Anything listed under "genres" on that same website is unreliable because it is too vague.

In my opinion, the first two are acceptable seeing as they clearly have consensus, and have seemed useful in stopping the edit warring. The third one, in my opinion, throws WP:V out the window entirely. If something is backed up by reliable sources, it's subject to inclusion. Personal opinions or interpretations are irrelevant, as verifiability makes the content usable. That's the entire purpose of WP:V.

But the reason I'm bringing this topic to this particular noticeboard is because what should be a fairly basic discussion has become very strange recently. The main user who began all of this was Musicstuff0324 (talk · contribs), who frequently edits anonymously as 72.89.197.34 (talk · contribs). (The user has never denied this or abused it in any way, so I'm not claiming sockpuppetry or anything.) They started claiming point #1 without any source, while changing the genres on various pages repeatedly without sources. The user and I exchanged messages over talk pages, in which I tried to explain why I was reverting their edits. Eventually the user, apparently frustrated, asked another user to "explain" to me, in essence, that I was wrong. They did this without telling me. Then, when that apparently didn't go as Musicstuff0324 wanted, they contacted Noreplyhaha (talk · contribs) without telling me, and asked the user to lock the article so that I couldn't revert their edits. Eventually, on this talk page, thanks to the more civil edits of Noreplyhaha some consensus was reached that we should allow point #2. Noreplyhaha even opened a RFC over the subject. I would like to point out that this is how I would prefer these situations to be handled, and so far Noreplyhaha has been the only one who has tried to be, in my opinion, both civil and reasonable about this. However, recently, Point #3 has been brought up with yet more reverts and unsourced edits. A fourth user, Ericdeaththe2nd (talk · contribs) was then contacted, again without telling me, by both Musicstuff0324 and Noreplyhaha. It was the discussion between pages that basically brought me to the point of bringing the subject here, and not on a content or reliable sources noticeboard:

Noreplyhaha: "Hello, I saw your recent edits to My Chemical Romance albums; putting "post-hardcore" in the genre box. I agree with you, but a user keeps reverting all of those genre change attempts. :/"

Musicstuff0324: "I agree absolutely as well, your a huge help in this little fiasco, friginator edits like a robot without any regard to interpretation, its insane! Thank you for all your help! and can you fix up the genre for the ghost of you that song still says pop/rock for some reason."

Ericdeaththe2nd: "No problem, every time he changes it we should revert it"

Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking this, but going behind an editor's back repeatedly and eventually planning on starting an edit war to resolve problems clearly seems like the wrong way to approach such a situation. Hopefully now that it's here we can discuss this without the sneaking around and fighting like children. I'd appreciate that. This whole situation further reinforces my view that listing musical genres on Wikipedia is a bad idea and a waste of time. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I hate genre warring as well, and it is a serious problem, especially on Wikipedia. I have an idea for this type of situation: all affected pages should have their genre fields removed permanently. Keep in mind that you can't please everybody in terms of genre description, so don't try to do that. Some people will have to remain unpleased, and that's the way it is, and that's the way of the world. Nonetheless, I agree that what you are describing here is canvassing. Several people are simply making too big a deal out of the genres, and it needs to stop yesterday! As I said earlier, I would support having all the genre fields be removed from relevant pages, and maybe even some pages getting equipped with temporary full protection, if there is enough editing activity on such pages to warrant such a maneuver. Also, edits like this, which removes what is considered by Wikipedia to be reliably sourced content, I cannot support.

This does make me wonder if Allmusic really is a reliable source for determining genres of music, because Allmusic is somewhat controversial on Wikipedia in this regard. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing, tag-teaming, WP:GENREWARRIORs. Ugh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if I were to remove the genre parameter from the affected pages like Backtable has suggested, would either of you support it? And would this be an appropriate place to gather consensus on the subject? Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If Allmusic categorised a thrash metal album as pop music, would you blindly add "pop" to the infobox? In the case of Allmusic, they have an extremely broad and unpecific music categorisation for their database. It lists every rock album as "pop/rock" for THEIR categorisation purposes. For example, look at Slayer, an American thrash metal band. They are apparently "pop/rock" according to Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/artist/slayer-mn0000022124, but do you see that on their wikipedia page? Do you hear people refer to them as a pop band? Meanwhile, pop bands like maroon 5 are also classified as "pop/rock." Allmusic has "indie rock" on My Chemical Romance's page, but My Chemical Romance is obviously not "indie rock," as for starters, they're signed to a major label and have a large exposure in the music industry. Thus, Allmusic's genres listed in the side bar can be both incredibly vague and sometimes wildly inappropriate. Noreplyhaha (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls Slayer Pop/Rock, it can be included per WP:V. This is a very fundamental policy on this site, and one which you don't seem to understand in the least. I say this because if you did take WP:V into consideration, you wouldn't make arguments like this one, or the half-a-dozen others you've made. Content on Wikipedia is not about interpretation or opinion, no matter how widespread it is. It is about facts. Verifiable facts. Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually kind of disagree with this. WP:V really only applies to statements likely to be challenged. For instance, we don't need a reliable source to say that the human hand has four fingers a thumb, do we? And if a reliable source mistakenly said otherwise, that human hands have seven fingers and a thumb, it doesn't mean we need to add that just because a source said it. Verifiability is important, but so is common sense. Calling a band like Slayer pop/rock is not common sense. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting. Firstly Pop/Rock what is that is it really.

'Rock' stylistic origins Rock and roll, electric blues, jazz, folk music, country, blues, rhythm and blues, soul music, please tell me how that matches My Chemical Romance's genre

'Pop' Rhythm and blues • Jazz • Folk • Doo-wop • Dance • Classical • Rock and roll, yet again doesn't meet the genre at all, but don't get me wrong its not always about styles but adding Pop and rock is useless you've listed 'pop punk' and 'alternative rock' so why have it at all. Also i've been told numerous times by countless admins that sidebox genres aren't reliable, you need sources that discuss the genres. I've been told that by User:IllaZilla , see this link here Talk:Blink-182#Genre_(again). Also where I said we should revert it everytime he changes it, is simply not an attack but correcting mistakes the way pop/rock and indie rock/alternative rock is so....I'm not sure how to describe it. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

The "mistakes" you're referring to are not mistakes. They are simply sourced pieces of info that you dislike. Also, other Wikipedia articles do not constitute Wikipedia policy. Yes, they hold precedent, and sometimes held up by consensus, but just because the Wikipedia article on "Rock music" says something, or the wikipedia article on "Pop music" says something, doesn't make it any more relevant when discussing policy. And like Noreplyhaha, most of your argument is simply based on your particular opinions, which are also irrelevant when discussing policy. Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel the need to add pop/rock to this page friginator, it't not helping the page at all and you don't do it to any of the other bands you edit, so your reasoning for adding pop/rock to the my chemical romance album pages still makes absolutely no sense to me, it doesn't add anything of use to the page, i mean if you can give me a good reason i'll be satisfied. --Musicstuff0324 (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

1. If a genre identification sourced to an RS is still disputed by editors (that basically means there isn't consensus that the viewpoint in that particular RS is necessarily the neutral point of view), it should stay in the article but have WP:INTEXT attribution rather than be presented as an uncontentious fact. It should probably stay out of the infobox in this situation.
2. If an identification is really dubious, like some source saying Iron Maiden is classical harpsichord music, it's ok to ask for multiple independent sources per WP:REDFLAG.
3. Self-identification (genre tag from officially published mp3's, for example) might be helpful in some cases, though not definitive. In principle they're supposed to be treated as inferior to sources independent of the subject, but use some common sense here.
4. I think independent, full length reviews should be preferable to Allmusic tags (they may even originate from publisher metadata or something like that) as sourcing.

69.228.170.132 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ah yes, the Genre wars. What it comes down to is some genre's aren't "cool", and fans don't want their hipster sensibilities offended by being associated with liking bands that are uncool, or with their bands being labeled with genre titles which are uncool. The truth is most bands overlap genres considerably. Is The Police a punk band, a ska band, a reggae band, a pop band, or a rock band? Yes, and more. What's more is most bands fall into the same problem, you can't define any band well into a single genre, especially since some genre's get so specific as to be silly (take a look at the various subgenres of Heavy Metal; I think the total number of genres actually outnumbers the total number of bands...) What's the solution? I don't know. I'm not happy with the scorched earth approach of banning all mention of genre in an article, but I am becoming resigned that such Solomonic solution is the only way out... --Jayron32 06:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I stated above that I would be for such a solution as to remove the mention of genres from the infoboxes of affected pages. I will not retract from that stance, but I don't recommend this action as a first resort. I would recommend, before such a maneuver should be determined, that other sources be involved with determining the genres and the genre line-up. Other sources, such as websites listed here or websites and magazines devoted to music news, should be consulted, as opposed to hanging around what Allmusic says. What do those sources say about what genre(s) the music of My Chemical Romance is? While I'm not going to actively seek out such sources to help resolve this issue, since My Chemical Romance doesn't particularly interest me, I can say that this type of action is at least a considerable avenue.

However, if good sources have their information on the affected Wikipedia pages, yet fighting and feuding still exists over this über important topic which never wastes anyone's time, then I would have no reservations for resorting to the "scorched earth" method for at least the most affected pages. In one case (or two, depending on the perspective) where I was dealing with people editing genres without discussion, with such shameful activity happening on a long-term basis, I decided to remove the mention of genres from the infoboxes of Judgement (Anathema album) and Alternative 4 (album), both of which are albums by Anathema. This controversial info has been taken away from the pages since June and July 2011, respectively, and from what I've observed, the pages have been doing relatively well since then. Also, for a while, Night is the New Day, the article for the album by Katatonia, had its genre field removed, although it's been restored since then with sourced content (it's important to note that the content is sourced with Allmusic and Sputnikmusic).

Concerning Allmusic, I have significant reservations about it being a source for genre determination (not necessarily as a reliable source at all, but merely for genre determination at least). The habit in which Allmusic lists genres of albums or bands is strange; in the column to the left, there is one extremely general genre description listed in "genre", while "styles" describe some styles which are official sub-genres, and some that are not. When I source genres, I don't try to source that area, and instead rely more on the review or band biography. Should this factor about Allmusic warrant an in-depth discussion elsewhere or would that not be required? Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 08:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I have been told by numerous admins not to use Allmusic's Sidebox genre as a source since its not reliable, I would let this go just remove Pop/Rock is it really necessary? I'll say again 'Allmusic is not a reliable source for Genres' Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

Dispute on Jimmy Henchman page

Jimmy Henchman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this diff and note that there is more than a content dispute here. Especially note the edit summary recorded with the diff. Inspection of the article history will then be useful

I had thought previously that this might have been a BLP Noticeboard issue, but it seems to need a wider set of eyes on it and an administrative conclusion reached. I will allow the facts to speak for themselves.

My own interest is as an uninvolved editor who has this article on his watchlist Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note please that there was an attempt by one of the editors to handle this at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, which was closed as inappropriate for a number of reasons. There may be other forums where an attempt is also being made, or is about to be made. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• The discussion on my talk page here is relevant to the issue. There is obvious strength of feeling here and a genuine perception of injustice. I am stating it as a genuine perception, but not as my perception. I am remaining wholly neutral. I simply wish to see the issues resolved in order that the article may benefit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see that Scholarlyarticles (talk · contribs) is new and has some misconceptions about Wikipedia. I'm going to dig a bit deeper and see how deep this hole goes. Likely, some mentoring is going to be a good idea to help prevent them from getting into trouble. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think that, however new an editor is, it should not have degenerated into a fisticuff. Somehow it needs to be rescued from that status with honour intact. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've added a note on their talk page, offering to help mentor a bit. I have plenty to do but think this would be a better step at this point, to offer a helping hand and get them up to speed on some policies. Often, a lack of understanding of the complex web of policy leads to frustration, which leads to snippy remarks, so I'm confident that this is the best option to deal with the problem at this stage. Hopefully, they will accept the offer and I will help then along the way for a few weeks and they can be contributing in a more compliant way. At this time, my opinion is that this the proper way to deal with the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, SA had an editor go through every one of SA's edits to check them (declared by the editor). Many were reverted / removed for reasons that did not require immediate attention (not copyvios, etc). That would be enough to irritate most editors, I'd imagine, and wasn't likely the best course of action. It's not a good excuse, but it may explain some of what has happened. --Nouniquenames (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• That would try the patience of a saint. I think it is becoming clear that no-one who has interacted at edit/revert level here is blameless. This diff shows that SA seems to choose not to understand advice, however. I have reinforced the offer from Dennis Brown to mentor SA, both on my talk page and on SA's. I have not looked at all at the merits of SA's position nor at Diannaa's (spelling). That was the secondary reason I brought this topic here. The primary reason was the ad hominen words used in SA's frustration. I am very much hoping that consensus will prevail in the article and in assisting those concerned towards an amicable resolution. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nouniquenames: I'd like to outline the difficulty here as I see it. I hope perhaps you could refer it to the Administrators complaint board. I would also like to take you up on your kind offer for mentorship (as you seem to be aware of what has happened.) . Here is my analysis of the situation.

Mostly I’ve found the edit questions here to be fair since beginning in early June. My difficulty began around August 21th following an edit dispute with Diannaa and a few others (including Malleus) on Sean Combs page. I was simply correcting erroneous information about an article to which the page referred which was not in fact retracted in March but on April 7th. The retraction specifically read that the LAT did not mean to implicate Combs. A minor edit resulted in major edit war with her and Malleus and I think another person on the page. At the time, I was not quite as familiar with the Talk page to handle disputes. Nevertheless after several attempts to inject a note of reality into Combs page I backed off. I concur with another writer’s comment on the Talk page that the Combs page reads like an advertisement. Diannaa took bitter umbrage.

Within about 20 hours she erased every page I worked on for months. Below tried to list the URLs but this has the effect of corrupting the file so maybe someone could advise me of how to do this. This a question that bears close scrutiny because in many cases the ostensible reasons for the edit are not in accord with what she actually did. The content areas she edited ranged as widely as MOCA-LA, Newspaper articles, Tupac, Who Shot YA, Eli Broad, Don Simpson, Ozzy Osbourne. Many of my additions were based on hundreds in not thousands of pages of reading (not to mention meetings I was privy to, the outcome of which were documented in newspapers and blogs.) She changed articles that I had worked on simply because I had worked on them. In many cases the changes were not related to my own work (although they always included deleting any reference to author Chuck Philips). Often although not related to my own work, her edits had the effect of damaging the legacy of individuals to whose pages I’d contributed, solely it would seem because I contributed to them. Note: I added a small note about Hilburn’s upcoming Cash bio. (I know Hilburn and did add a reference for his upcoming bio although it’s referenced in many places and by many newspapers.) For this she subtracted a number of words from his page with the editorial explanation that she was simply “cleaning it up.” One of her “clean ups” was to edit out that this famous pop music critic had a 36-year tenure at the LA Times. (I put it back in). Was it necessary to take out that Hilburn had a 36-year tenure at the LA times? Does anybody deny this? If there is one person who could, could she track down that person within a few hours after the Combs dispute to wipe out his contributions? To deny a 72-year old man with such a sterling reputation his legacy because of her rampage against me seems beyond the pale.

Here's a key point to consider: There was not time for her to read and understand the content section she obliterated. There were about 20 or 30 articles, hundreds if not thousands of pages, on which I based my edits, all of which I’ve read. She would have had to read all of these in many instances for her to make the comments she did and erase the work. She erased much of the work 30 minutes or so of her rampage. She erased a section on Broad with the explanation that the comments didn't relate to the article. The article to which she referred was only available by purchase from the New Yorker (Bruck, C Dec 6, 2010) and I'm sure she hadn't had the time to buy it much less read it when she wiped it out within 15 minutes. (II and could not have read that Bruck article in 2 hours much less the 15 minutes she took to destroy reference to it.)

Within hours of the edit dispute she wiped out all the author contributions of the original author on the Ticketmaster flap, stating that they didn't support the notion of congressional investigations. There is no doubt that they did. I know Washington staffer who ushered them through the process based on the work of reporter Chuck Philips. I have also been in touch with Philips who is deeply dissatisfied with the revision of history and the false designation of origin. These were six articles which she couldn't have read. She's reinstated them now but with an unusual twist on the event. She wiped them out within 3 minutes stating that the articles did not support congressional investigations. Did she have time to read those articles in that time? These were the original LA Times articles on the Ticketmaster issue. They did lead to the investigations. Even if she doubted this, which she had no reason to, why was there no correct designation of origin of authorship on that. LA Times coverage of the anti-trust issue did help trigger Congressional hearings (why did she wipe out the references to the author}?

She also mis-edited Tupac's page and "Who shot ya?” erroneously removing the most current articles on the subject, and to be in line with Combs preferred but incorrect version of reality.

Often in her hunt to undo every edit I've done she has made the contention of "copyright violation" where there is none. Sometimes she used "clean up" and then deleted hundreds and sometimes thousands of words of any article written in which Chuck Philips was the original author of the articles. She falsely designated origins of the Milli Vanilli, Don Simpson, and of the Ticketmaster flap stories where LA Times Chuck Philips wrote them. She deleted entire sections Osborne's page (because of a small section in which Philips had interviewed him on about pills.) In doing so she wiped out much of Osbourne's history.

Another change within roughly a 10-hour period was to add unethical behavior to Hiltzik's section that I had removed because it seemed a small event given far too much importance in the life of a man who has made such contributions. It appeared to be unfair and possibly also libelous given the entirety of his career. Maybe she has some argument here. However, by contrast is their any unethical behavior on the Combs page that she protects so vigorously? There certainly is documented evidence of his violent behavior and arrests. Recently much of it has been on the front page of All Hip Hop.com. How does Sean Combs’ page get "good ratings?" I have no doubt that if every person trying to edit that page to reflect reality gets the Diannaa treatment that no one would dare challenge it. But I digress...

She also dinged my submission of the jpg of Chuck Philips (basing it on “copyright violation”). It is public information – it exists on his open Facebook page.

I haven’t bothered to identify for you all the pages she corrupted about MOCA-la. But as someone quite familiar with the situation and scholarly on the topic she erred in the extreme. The ostensible reasons rarely matched the underlying content.

Among the most egregious errors that have been let stand is her corruption Jimmy Henchman’s page. A key point of the AHH article on Dexter's confession was that Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac ON HENCHMAN’S orders. She edited out "on Henchman's orders" so that it makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed was that Henchman set it up. She finally said Dexter was "an associate of Henchman." He wasn't just an associate of Henchman according to all the news articles. He was an associate who Henchman paid to ambush Tupac. Isaac admitted this in the AHH article. She removed a Village Voice article by Philips, the most recent on the topic which referenced Henchman's admission to setting up the Tupac ambush according to prosecutors. This article has been picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, The Washington Post, AHH etc. She accused me of vandalism for putting back paragraphs that had been on Jimmy Henchman’s page since before I had been on Wikipedia. The more recent articles that I added show that Dexter Isaac confessed to the Tupac ambush at the Quad on orders from Henchman. They also cite the original Village Voice article picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc., in which prosecutors noted that Jimmy Henchman confessed to the setting up the ambush in one of nine “Queen for day” proffer sessions with the government. It seems that her concerns relate to the fact that Jimmy Henchman is a close associate of Combs. And Diannaa is quite persistent in trying to knock down the truth on this point. ( Timrent put back "on orders from Henchman" and Diannaa erased it.aa

This is an encyclopedia and so it should reflect reality not the power of a cabal who wishes to clobber the work of anyone who injects a note of reality into Combs page. The articles on which I based by edits were documented. My point is there is no way she could have become familiar on background with all the articles she defaced within the minutes and hours it took to deface them.

Her reasons ranged from "copyright violation" which on Henchman's page there was clearly not, to attacking the substance of the articles to "cleaned up,” “ added dashes". By "cleaning up" she mean removing thousands of words on Hilburn’s and Osbourne’s page with seemingly no other reason than that I added to them. In some cases she did not remove what I wrote, but just dinged the legacy of an icon whose history I followed and wished to update. Although in almost all instances the effect of her work was to remove any of Chuck Philips well-cited references – the stories that he broke that were never in contention anywhere. Note that Combs has been openly accusatory of Philips simply because Philips began writing about him in the LA times. The 2008 article that was retracted became in May, the prosecutors exhibit number 1 in People Vs Henchman. No copyright violation here. I was there for the trial and got the PACER reference. This People’s exhibit number one, is a reference she removed inappropriately. This reference is appropriate on Jimmy Henchman’s page not only because it is the article documenting the theory of the attack at the Quad but also because it was also the government’s exhibit number 1 against Henchman on a case in which he was convicted on 13 counts. Also please note that Combs was implicated as an associate of Henchman in the attack of Tupac on the Quad. There is tight cabal here, with Dianna as Queen, (and Malleus whatever his name is et al.) protecting Sean Combs and going after anyone they perceive as in conflict with him. I am keenly aware of this.

I feel that this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I think a thorough investigation into the events of the 21-22 (the urls are below), and into her performance on the Combs page is warranted. I would hope that another administrator could reinstate the references that Diannaa removed. In particular, the Jimmy Henchman reference as it stood on August 19th or so. I realize this is a serious charge. But this is a serious problem.

That's all for now. I will come back though with more thorough documentations of the Jimmy Henchman references I'm sure ya'll are dying to hear more (joke). Thanks for your time in thinking about this Scholarlyarticles (talk)

One thing that has really made Scholarlyarticles angry was content I removed from Robert Hilburn: "Hilburn published a biography of Bruce Springsteen in 1985 as one in a series of Rolling Stone Press books. Hilburn left the Los Angeles Times in 2005, after 36 years." became "Hilburn published a biography of Bruce Springsteen in 1985 as one in a series of Rolling Stone Press books. Hilburn left the paper in 2005." The reason I did that is because saying "after 36 years" is redundant; both the starting date and the leaving date are present, and the usual thing is to let the reader do the math. This results in an article that is a little more neutrally worded. Obviously if I had known it would cause so much heartache I would have left that phrase in. I apologise.

The problem started on Sean Combs. I removed an addition of some 300 words to the article about the Tupac incident from the article, firstly because adding 300 words on the incident gives it undue weight. On further examination I discovered that the sourcing is inadequate, in my opinion, to tie Henchman to the crime. The main source Scholarlyarticles used for the allegation is a blog written by reporter Chuck Philips. One of their primary activities on this wiki has been to try to link Henchman to the attack on Tupac, across a whole suite of articles, including Sean Combs, Jimmy Henchman, Tupak Shakur, and The Notorious B.I.G. As I was convinced that the sourcing was inadequate I removed the content from several of these articles, but I did not get finished. I began to go through their other contributions and discovered other BLP violations and copyright violations. Here's some examples of my edits:

• Ozzy Osbourne: removal of copyright violation
• David Mack (police officer): removal of copyright violation
• Eli Broad: removal of defamatory material sourced to a blog

Here's some other examples of copyright violations introduced by this editor:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Margo Leavin, art gallerist
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark Saylor
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Schimmel
• User:Scholarlyarticles/sandbox
• File:Chuck Philips, picture.jpg

Another activity they've been doing is inserting information about reporter Chuck Philips into many articles, not neutrally worded additions, but more like promotional pieces. For example, in their version of the Ticketmaster article, Chuck Philips is mentioned nine times. So I undertook clean-up of some of that stuff too. Note this diff, where Scholarlyarticles threatened to smear my good name on a bunch of articles. The Jimmy Henchman talk page is loaded with personal attacks and bad faith. I stand behind my edits as being what I thought was right for the wiki. -- Dianna (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Posted by Scholarlyarticles

Mostly I’ve found the edit questions here to be fair since beginning in early June. My difficulty began around August 21th following an edit dispute with Diannaa and a few others (including Malleus) on Sean Combs page. I was simply correcting erroneous information about an article to which the page referred which was not in fact retracted in March but on April 7th. The retraction specifically read that the LAT did not mean to implicate Combs. A minor edit resulted in major edit war with her and Malleus and I think another person on the page. At the time, I was not quite as familiar with the Talk page to handle disputes. Nevertheless after several attempts to inject a note of reality into Combs page I backed off. I concur with another writer’s comment on the Talk page that the Combs page reads like an advertisement. Diannaa took bitter umbrage.

Within about 20 hours she erased every page I worked on for months. Below tried to list the URLs but this has the effect of corrupting the file so maybe someone could advise me of how to do this. This a question that bears close scrutiny because in many cases the ostensible reasons for the edit are not in accord with what she actually did. The content areas she edited ranged as widely as MOCA-LA, Newspaper articles, Tupac, Who Shot YA, Eli Broad, Don Simpson, Ozzy Osbourne. Many of my additions were based on hundreds in not thousands of pages of reading (not to mention meetings I was privy to, the outcome of which were documented in newspapers and blogs.) She changed articles that I had worked on simply because I had worked on them. In many cases the changes were not related to my own work (although they always included deleting any reference to author Chuck Philips). Often although not related to my own work, her edits had the effect of damaging the legacy of individuals to whose pages I’d contributed, solely it would seem because I contributed to them. Note: I added a small note about Hilburn’s upcoming Cash bio. (I know Hilburn and did add a reference for his upcoming bio although it’s referenced in many places and by many newspapers.) For this she subtracted a number of words from his page with the editorial explanation that she was simply “cleaning it up.” One of her “clean ups” was to edit out that this famous pop music critic had a 36-year tenure at the LA Times. (I put it back in). Was it necessary to take out that Hilburn had a 36-year tenure at the LA times? Does anybody deny this? If there is one person who could, could she track down that person within a few hours after the Combs dispute to wipe out his contributions? To deny a 72-year old man with such a sterling reputation his legacy because of her rampage against me seems beyond the pale.

Here's a key point to consider: There was not time for her to read and understand the content section she obliterated. There were about 20 or 30 articles, hundreds if not thousands of pages, on which I based my edits, all of which I’ve read. She would have had to read all of these in many instances for her to make the comments she did and erase the work. She erased much of the work 30 minutes or so of her rampage. She erased a section on Broad with the explanation that the comments didn't relate to the article. The article to which she referred was only available by purchase from the New Yorker (Bruck, C Dec 6, 2010) and I'm sure she hadn't had the time to buy it much less read it when she wiped it out within 15 minutes. (II and could not have read that Bruck article in 2 hours much less the 15 minutes she took to destroy reference to it.)

Within hours of the edit dispute she wiped out all the author contributions of the original author on the Ticketmaster flap, stating that they didn't support the notion of congressional investigations. There is no doubt that they did. I know Washington staffer who ushered them through the process based on the work of reporter Chuck Philips. I have also been in touch with Philips who is deeply dissatisfied with the revision of history and the false designation of origin. These were six articles which she couldn't have read. She's reinstated them now but with an unusual twist on the event. She wiped them out within 3 minutes stating that the articles did not support congressional investigations. Did she have time to read those articles in that time? These were the original LA Times articles on the Ticketmaster issue. They did lead to the investigations. Even if she doubted this, which she had no reason to, why was there no correct designation of origin of authorship on that. LA Times coverage of the anti-trust issue did help trigger Congressional hearings (why did she wipe out the references to the author}?

She also mis-edited Tupac's page and "Who shot ya?” erroneously removing the most current articles on the subject, and to be in line with Combs preferred but incorrect version of reality.

Often in her hunt to undo every edit I've done she has made the contention of "copyright violation" where there is none. Sometimes she used "clean up" and then deleted hundreds and sometimes thousands of words of any article written in which Chuck Philips was the original author of the articles. She falsely designated origins of the Milli Vanilli, Don Simpson, and of the Ticketmaster flap stories where LA Times Chuck Philips wrote them. She deleted entire sections Osborne's page (because of a small section in which Philips had interviewed him on about pills.) In doing so she wiped out much of Osbourne's history.

Another change within roughly a 10-hour period was to add unethical behavior to Hiltzik's section that I had removed because it seemed a small event given far too much importance in the life of a man who has made such contributions. It appeared to be unfair and possibly also libelous given the entirety of his career. Maybe she has some argument here. However, by contrast is their any unethical behavior on the Combs page that she protects so vigorously? There certainly is documented evidence of his violent behavior and arrests. Recently much of it has been on the front page of All Hip Hop.com. How does Sean Combs’ page get "good ratings?" I have no doubt that if every person trying to edit that page to reflect reality gets the Diannaa treatment that no one would dare challenge it. But I digress...

She also dinged my submission of the jpg of Chuck Philips (basing it on “copyright violation”). It is public information – it exists on his open Facebook page. I haven’t bothered to identify for you all the pages she corrupted about MOCA-la. But as someone quite familiar with the situation and scholarly on the topic she erred in the extreme. The ostensible reasons rarely matched the underlying content.

Among the most egregious errors that have been let stand is her corruption Jimmy Henchman’s page. A key point of the AHH article on Dexter's confession was that Dexter admitted to ambushing Tupac ON HENCHMAN’S orders. She edited out "on Henchman's orders" so that it makes Henchman look innocent when the whole point of the AHH article in which Dexter Isaac confessed was that Henchman set it up. She finally said Dexter was "an associate of Henchman." He wasn't just an associate of Henchman according to all the news articles. He was an associate who Henchman paid to ambush Tupac. Isaac admitted this in the AHH article. She removed a Village Voice article by Philips, the most recent on the topic which referenced Henchman's admission to setting up the Tupac ambush according to prosecutors. This article has been picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, The Washington Post, AHH etc. She accused me of vandalism for putting back paragraphs that had been on Jimmy Henchman’s page since before I had been on Wikipedia. The more recent articles that I added show that Dexter Isaac confessed to the Tupac ambush at the Quad on orders from Henchman. They also cite the original Village Voice article picked up by the Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Washington Post etc., in which prosecutors noted that Jimmy Henchman confessed to the setting up the ambush in one of nine “Queen for day” proffer sessions with the government. It seems that her concerns relate to the fact that Jimmy Henchman is a close associate of Combs. And Diannaa is quite persistent in trying to knock down the truth on this point. ( Timrent put back "on orders from Henchman" and Diannaa erased it.aa

This is an encyclopedia and so it should reflect reality not the power of a cabal who wishes to clobber the work of anyone who injects a note of reality into Combs page. The articles on which I based by edits were documented. My point is there is no way she could have become familiar on background with all the articles she defaced within the minutes and hours it took to deface them.

Her reasons ranged from "copyright violation" which on Henchman's page there was clearly not, to attacking the substance of the articles to "cleaned up,” “ added dashes". By "cleaning up" she mean removing thousands of words on Hilburn’s and Osbourne’s page with seemingly no other reason than that I added to them. In some cases she did not remove what I wrote, but just dinged the legacy of an icon whose history I followed and wished to update. Although in almost all instances the effect of her work was to remove any of Chuck Philips well-cited references – the stories that he broke that were never in contention anywhere. Note that Combs has been openly accusatory of Philips simply because Philips began writing about him in the LA times. The 2008 article that was retracted became in May, the prosecutors exhibit number 1 in People Vs Henchman. No copyright violation here. I was there for the trial and got the PACER reference. This People’s exhibit number one, is a reference she removed inappropriately. This reference is appropriate on Jimmy Henchman’s page not only because it is the article documenting the theory of the attack at the Quad but also because it was also the government’s exhibit number 1 against Henchman on a case in which he was convicted on 13 counts. Also please note that Combs was implicated as an associate of Henchman in the attack of Tupac on the Quad. There is tight cabal here, with Dianna as Queen, (and Malleus whatever his name is et al.) protecting Sean Combs and going after anyone they perceive as in conflict with him. I am keenly aware of this.

I feel that this is an abuse of administrative privileges. I think a thorough investigation into the events of the 21-22 (the urls are below), and into her performance on the Combs page is warranted. I would hope that another administrator could reinstate the references that Diannaa removed. In particular, the Jimmy Henchman reference as it stood on August 19th or so. I realize this is a serious charge. But this is a serious problem.

Extended content
Edit history
21:47, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,759)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (Undid revision 508667248 by Scholarlyarticles; material is well-sourcedto the NY 21:46, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-781)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Undid revision 508674024 by Scholarlyarticles; WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case) (top)‬‬‬‬ 20:50, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+360)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ‎ (→‎User-reported: report user:Scholarlyarticles)‬‬ 20:32, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+116)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎You have a new message on Diannaa's talk page: new section)‬‬ 21:47, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,759)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (Undid revision 508667248 by Scholarlyarticles; material is well-sourcedto the NY Times and Washington Post; these are considered very reliable sources indeed) (top)‬‬ 21:46, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-781)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Undid revision 508674024 by Scholarlyarticles; WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case) (top)‬‬ 20:50, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+360)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism ‎ (→‎User-reported: report user:Scholarlyarticles)‬‬ 20:32, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+116)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎You have a new message on Diannaa's talk page: new section)‬‬ 20:29, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+5,319)‬‎ . . User talk:Diannaa ‎ (→‎Message from Scholarlyarticles: My reply)‬‬ 19:30, 22 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,504)‬‎ . . Talk:Albert Speer ‎ (→‎Introduction to Albert Speer Article: My 2p)‬‬ 22:57, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-10)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (Silly bot)‬‬ 21:58, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+35)‬‎ . . User:Diannaa ‎ (add different tool) (top)‬‬ 21:00, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-76)‬‎ . . Robert Hilburn ‎ (clean up)‬‬ 20:53, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-803)‬‎ . . Milli Vanilli ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; restore citation from revision 495861358)‬‬ 20:51, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-269)‬‎ . . Girl You Know It's True ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; clean up)‬‬ 20:43, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-624)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Remove WP:COPYVIO from http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.19992/title.jimmy-henchman-rosemond-found-guilty-on-all-charges-in-drug-case)‬‬ 20:41, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+1,794)‬‎ . . Talk:Jimmy Henchman ‎ (top)‬‬ 20:39, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-3,161)‬‎ . . Jimmy Henchman ‎ (Restore version 496211151 from June 6; add Isaac confession)‬‬ 20:27, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-455)‬‎ . . Michael Hiltzik ‎ (restore lost content; clean up former copyvio and BLP violations, remover over-long quotation)‬‬ 20:08, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-367)‬‎ . . Ozzy Osbourne ‎ (fixed dashes using a script; remove poorly sourced content and copyvio content fromhttp://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/07/entertainment/ca-ozzy7; other edits)‬‬ 19:50, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-569)‬‎ . . Don Simpson ‎ (wikilink; remove unsourced pop culture trivia) (top)‬‬ 19:47, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-313)‬‎ . . Don Simpson ‎ (→‎Death: tidy content; remove unsourced speculation;)‬‬ 19:32, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+60)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholarlyarticles (talk • contribs) )‬‬ 04:25, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-851)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Criticism: Link is dead and not archived; the other source does not back up this claim.‬)‬‬‬‬ 04:20, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-178)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: remove speculation‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:17, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-276)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: Remove content; WP:COPYVIO‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:15, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+48)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (revert unexplained removal of citation)‬‬ 04:11, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+139)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Eli Broad: forgot something‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:10, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+990)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Eli Broad: new section‬) ‬‬‬‬ 04:04, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-832)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (Remove addition: none of this material is in the quoted source.)‬‬ 03:58, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-331)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Arts: Clean up: remove unsourced speculation‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:56, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(-313)‬‎ . . Eli Broad ‎ (→‎‪Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles: remove WP:COPYVIO from http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-margo-leavin-closing-20120815,0,5070346.story?track=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=104530‬)‬‬‬‬ 03:47, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+13)‬‎ . . User talk:Penyulap ‎ (→‎‪For the pirate king who helped the girl who leapt through time: A little help for folks who are zoomed in‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:40, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+36)‬‎ . . Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Vanished 6551232 ‎ (→‎‪Articles 101 through 120: Remove completed revisions; see article edit summaries for outcomes‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:36, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+570)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Sean Combs: Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Sean Combs have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.‬) ‬‬‬‬ ▪ 03:33, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+289)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (→‎‪Recent additions about Tupac incident: I have studied it more closely, and believe it's a BLP violation as well.‬) ‬‬‬‬ ▪ 03:25, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+2,689)‬‎ . . User talk:Scholarlyarticles ‎ (→‎‪Sean Combs: new section‬) ‬‬‬‬ 03:23, 21 August 2012 (diff | hist) . . ‪(+520)‬‎ . . Talk:Sean Combs ‎ (→‎‪R‬‬‬‬

• • I see from your talk page that Dennis Brown has offered to mentor you. I think that would be the best way to work out the problems. He's very good at doing this, and very patient. If you accept, we can simply close this for now. It would be an enormously more helpful way to go than continuing here. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • On his talk page SA has indicated that he would value the help form Dennis Brown. Indications are that once accepted this incident may be closed successfully. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to ask, Scholarlyarticles, are you at all familiar with WP:TLDR? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The answer is that I made SA aware, and that it seems a positive choice was taken to rehash the entire set of posts and arguments here. This, too, will be helped by accepting Dennis Brown's extremely generous offer of mentoring. I cannot commend the offer highly enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus page vandalism by JC37

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

---

JC37 has reverted the Consensus page to last October and locked the page. This is highly disruptive and unrelated to the rather small discussion ongoing for the last few days on a proposed edit to the page that is about one sentence long. No idea what he is up to, since the last change reflected the discussion on the talk page. Positively bizarre behavior.

[51]

and

[52]

seem to cover it.

--Ring Cinema (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND. "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema - Your bad faith comments here and elsewhere aren't helping you.

• "Another incompetent admin who has more authority than they can handle. Unbelievable"

Anyway, it's not vandalism, and it's not disruptive. On the other hand, the slow motion revert warring that's been going on over the last 9 months at WP:CON, could very well be considered disruptive.

I understand that you've all been attempting to hash about somewhat about the policy, but constantly doing this back-n-forth especially with the seemingly bullying of each other through edit summaries (of bold or reversion edits) is just inappropriate.

At this point, I think you're all past the Be bold stage, and should go back to the Discuss phase. Maybe collaboratively working up a draft, before going "live" with it.

But the constant back-n-forth isn't good for anyone, Wikipedia in particular, especially on a core policy such as CON.

As I said in the edit summary, you all should know better. You all could be showing by example how to positively and collaboratively and collegiately discuss, so to bring a policy page better in line with what has been long standing policy, and common practice.

You're all arguing these things, but seemingly not practicing them.

Anyway, per WP:PROTECT: "...administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists."

As there has been editwarring going back months by the same handful of individuals, I tried to pick a spot before it all began.

If another uninvolved admin thinks it is appropriate to undo the reversion, or thinks they see a better place to revert to, they're welcome to do so.

But I suggest that the page stay protected until the constant players in this long term edit warring come up with a plan that has actual consensus at this point, in particular as this is the page that concerns consensus.

I welcome others' thoughts on this of course. - jc37 17:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe your actions were correct, and I, too, encourage the editors to discuss and gain consensus. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very strange time for JC37 to be expressing all this. Something could have been said at any time in the last ten months, but I believe he or she has been silent. Well, we have to assume it was a good faith silence. In fact, to the point, there is no reason to undo ten months. It is a sign of contempt toward the editors and has no place on Wikipedia. That he or she has the power to do it clearly is no justification. Rather, the abuse of the power shows it was placed in the wrong hands. There was a discussion ongoing, the edits were in response to the discussion, and no one made a complaint. It's really beyond absurd, since the remedy proposed by JoeS is the activity that was underway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess if anyone was looking for more examples, they need only look at User:Ring Cinema's comments directly above, and on my talk page. Not much need for me to add anything, I think. - jc37 20:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

A vandal destroyed Ishikawa Goemon

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

---

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishikawa_Goemon&curid=36832484&action=history

I don't know how to fix it now, the article is a now a redirect loop to itself and there's no history to revert and restore the content to from before the move.

Talk:Ishikawa Goemon too. --Niemti (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Also all the other edits. --Niemti (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to help fix this issue. I would request WP:CSD and help fix the page move vandalism as well. Hope this helps. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's even going to help? --Niemti (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Page appears to be at Japanese bandit Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am positively sure my CSD nomination certainly will help without a doubt. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The redirects have been fixed up. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I need to ask, why are random users even allowed to move articles? --Niemti (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Because most moves are productive and admins don't have time.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• All fixed. Looks more like a simple series of errors by a new user. Let's be mindful of the greater harm of mistaken accusations of vandalism. CIreland (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible compromised account

User:Annatto posted on my talk page out of the blue about a random topic that doesn't seem to be related to me. I checked his contributions and this user hasn't edited since April 2012, and after that, about a whole year without editing. He also seems to have cleared a lot of his userpage as well. I'm not sure if this account is compromised, but it seems like it might be. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting that this account does not have any additional userrights (admin, rollback, etc.). --Rschen7754 19:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "a random topic that doesn't seem to be related to me" - it's clearly a (belated) response to this thread. Although I agree resuming the debate after a two-year hiatus is peculiar. Mogism (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And I note that it was only after opening this thread and notifying the user of it [53] that you went back and tried just asking them, posting it above the ANI notice as though it had come first [54] despite the obvious discrepancy on the timestamps. I assume that means you realize maybe you should jave tried that first and we don't really need an ANI thread about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So do you think his account is compromised, or was it just a very late reply assuming that he checked Wikipedia but didn't edit? You can archive this section, but maybe a CheckUser could confirm. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A published book has word-for-word plagiarized a Wikipedia article and is charging money for the book and the author is claiming to reserve rights over this material

This a general community matter, not an administrator matter. It's now on the Village Pump. Uncle G (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

block/ban evasion

This and this are most likely edits by a blocked/banned user trying to evade the block/ban. The respective IPs are 82.113.122.166 (talk · contribs) and 86.174.78.24 (talk · contribs). I think that the site should be semi-protected. I justified my edits on the talkpage. What he calls "vandalism" is in fact consequent removal of obvious copy right violations. --Lysozym (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If all you are asking for is page pr otectipn you will probably get better results at WP:RFPP. If you believe this is a certain user evading a block it wold be helpful if you could tell us who you believe it is and/or file at WP:SPI. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't seen a blocked user (yet) but I have blocked both IPs for 48hrs and semi'd the page for a week, since there was a copyvio involved. Those IPs are British Telecom, which seem to rotate every 24-48 hours, so if you think it's a blocked user, give me something to go on as CU won't. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Amadscientist

I've noticed a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Amadscientist and request the community consider a topic ban or other action as appropriate.

1. User refuses to "get the point"

The user has been urged by three experienced editors—Rschen7754 (dif), Homunq (dif), and myself (dif)—to relinquish his position as reviewer for Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1 since he is a significant contributor to Paul Ryan, ranking #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. Editors are not allowed to review GANs related to articles in which they have been significant contributors, in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the review.

After being notified that according to the significant contributor tool, he has made 275 edits to the Paul Ryan talk page and 52 edits to its main page, he requested, "Please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined" (dif). He was then made aware of the WP:GAN guideline that "You cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review." His response: "In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit. That is NOT a significant amount" (dif).

What's more, the user put up a similar fight after his nomination for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1 was speedily closed by Hamiltonstone (dif), even accusing the GAR steward of assuming bad faith (dif) on the GAR talk page.

2. User continually rejects or ignores community input

In response to requests for him to step aside as the GAN reviewer as mentioned above, the user defiantly stated, "There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw." (dif). He has since proceeded to prepare for the review. In his introductory review comments, he intimated that things that need to be addressed in Paul Ryan include "obvious [things] like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately" (dif), which is troubling since a lengthy discussion already came to consensus on the current lead of the article—a discussion Amadscientist was involved in and with which he was one of the lone dissenting voices with regards to expanding the lead further.

Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress ^talk 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

He should recuse himself. He broke the rules by taking on the GAN. Just because there are no dedicated GAN police does not mean he can stand his ground and declare victory. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Which goes to show you believe that he can not be a GA reviewer, but does not show any violation of Wikipedia policy, nor that he is "disruptive" in his edits. Perhaos you can catch more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar -- complaining here is, by the way, considered very sour vinegar. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, refusing to get the point and rejecting or ignoring community input are both violations of WP:DISRUPT. I and others have tried to reason with the editor in other forums to no avail, so coming to ANI seemed prudent. —Eustress ^talk 23:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You may view his conduct as disruptive, I suppose (YMMV} but the specific charge of "disruptive edits" is not bron out by your material presented. The proper place for all this is on the GA talkpages themselves - this is not really the best forum for your dispute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Amadscientist should step down as a reviewer in this nomination, but I think a topic ban (other than excluding him from the GAN discussion) is somewhat overzealous. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support Amadscientist stepping down as review for this nomination. Excluding him from the GAN discussion seems to be reasonable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support removing Amadscientist from the GAN, either voluntarily or by force (CSD G6'ing page if need be). --Rschen7754 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• This all sounds quite drastic, and doesn't sound like an incident as much as a desire to have him not review the article. It would seem that WP:RFC/U would be the proper venue, not ANI. As for topic bans, again quite drastic and this need thoughtful deliberation, not the kneejerk "fireman" routine we are forced to do at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with others that a topic ban is unwarranted. My preference would be for Amadscientist to acknowledge that there is a sufficient number of editors who believe it would be inappropriate for him to do the review and withdraw. That would accomplish two things. One, it would satisfy those who believe he shouldn't review the nomination. Two, it would demonstrate that he is willing to defer to the community's wishes. I also liked Homunq's suggestion, i.e., that if the editor who reviews the nomination wishes to rely on Amadscientist, they can.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Homunq (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with the other editors here it would be improper for Amadscientist to review considering his past contributions. I don't understand the 7 day comment; if someone is a heavy contributor and stops contributing for 7 days it's not like their internal biases disappear. I believe it's always pertinent to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and the fact of the matter is if one person drops a task someone else will pick it up. Contrary to popular belief we have more than enough editors to handle this sort of a thing. Additionally, I completely reject that a topic ban is warranted at this point but would be willing to change my mind if more compelling evidence were introduced. Sædon^talk 00:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree per Saedon. As the editor mentioned above in relation to the Mitt Romney review issue, thought i would comment further. I slightly mishandled the close of the Mitt Romney GAR, which I regret and for which I apologised. However, I took another look at actions there. Amadscientist's actions didn't make the best use of the various WP processes. For example, Mitt Romney is obviously a contentious subject at the moment, and being very actively edited. This includes constructive contributions from the original GA nominator, Wasted Time R, working to keep the article at a high standard, and with regular debate with other editors. On 16 August Wasted Time R put the article up for Peer Review. There was active discussion on the article talk page. There was no more edit warring than I would expect on the page of a presidential candidate in an election year. I did not, and still don't, see what was to be gained by starting a GAR page (without going through the individual reassessment stage either) on 21 August. Amadscientist was making constructive suggestions on the article talk page, but when I came along as an uninvolved and closed off the GAR, consistent with the views of other editors, Amadsci (in my view) overreacted and made accusations that didn't square with my actions at all. I just think the editor is making some constructive contributions on substance and talk, but needs to take a closer look at the spirit as well as the letter of GAN/GAR. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've had some conflicts with Amadscientist over content but he never struck me as particularly unreasonable. While he should be excluded from being a GA reviewer when there's a conflict of interest, even discussion of a topic ban seems premature. This may be a teachable moment; let's treat it as one and see if it helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support forced withdrawal from Paul Ryan GAN. 276 edits to the talk page and 54 edits to the article before taking the review makes him ineligible. That he refuses to acknowledge this fact makes a topic ban in the future likely with my support. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Apart from being among the article's 10 most active editors (with 52 non-minor and 2 minor edits), Amadscientist has conducted polls regarding the article's content, expressed strong opinions about it, and has participated in discussions on the talk page more than any other editor. It should be clear that they can not be considered an uninvolved editor and the GAN should be reviewed by someone else. Deliberately trying to interpret "prior to the review" to mean "seven days prior to the review" seems like pure wikilawyering. Despite several people telling him that he should not be reviewing the article, somehow Amadscientist is still arguing that there's no consensus for their withdrawal. Jafeluv (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support "forced withdrawal", whatever that might entail. There's unanimous opposition to the GAN in question both here and on the GAN talk page and he's still providing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT exemplars both there and on his talk page. bridies (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• There is no set in stone procedure for forcibly removing a reviewer. I have moved the GA1 subpage to OldGA without redirect, which should trigger the bot to change the status of the review. Hopefully, this resolves the situation. --Rschen7754 16:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And now User:Cwobeel, who is also a significant contributor to Paul Ryan (#8 most edits to article, #4 most comments on talk), has inserted himself as reviewer of the GAN (dif). What is going on? —Eustress ^talk 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that forbidden? If so, please let me know on my Talk page and I will remove my comment. Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, folks... I changed my edit to "Comment" which I hope I can still make. Cwobeel (talk)

• The editor appears to be awaiting for this thread to close before officially withdrawing: I suggest closing it now with the decision that the editor not perform the review as the reviewer. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • ANI is not a jury. There's pretty obvious consensus above that Amadscientist isn't an appropriate reviewer in this case, but a random admin sticking a purple box around the discussion doesn't make it binding. Just... do whatever it is you'd normally do if a GA reviewer was unsuitable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party movement 1RR violation

Reverts by User:CartoonDiablo Article: Tea Party Movement under 1RR clearly marked on talk page and on editing page

Reported by User:Collect

[55] 18:51 26 August [56] 19:25 26 August

Warning and request to self-revert at [57] 23:28 26 August

Response by CartoonDiablo at [58] 23:39 26 August with content:

that aside the reverts were done in response to his reverts and everyone at WP:EW/N will see that.

I did not think that violating 1RR because one does not like edits from others was a valid excuse, but I suggest that this excuse be weighed as he wishes it to be weighed. Collect (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice given of this at [59] 23:48

Report made here per clear instructions at [60] saying Violations can be reported at WP:ANI.

I suggest that when one editor has violated 1RR and been given a polite opportunity to self-revert, that such an editor is seeking to test the rule. Collect (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested in this issue, here's what took place, with numbered diffs in sequence:

1. Back in November 2010, User:CartoonDiablo adds three sentences to the article's Media Coverage section which become longstanding content in the article.

2. Today, on August 26, 2012, User:North8000 removes the three sentences originally inserted by CartoonDiablo.

3. Next, User:Ian.thomson reverts North8000's removal of the material, adding the three sentences back to the article.

4. Next, North8000 reverts Ian.thomson's reversion, removing the three sentences a second time.

5. Next, CartoonDiablo reverts North8000's reversion, restoring the three sentences he or she originally put in the article, and asks that its removal be discussed first.

6. Next, User:Collect reverts CartoonDiablo and removes the three sentences again from the article.

7. Next, CartoonDiablo reverts Collect's reversion and adds the three sentences back again a second time.

By my count, in the span of 6+ hours today, that looks like 2RR by North8000 in removing the three sentences, followed by a 2RR by CartoonDiablo in returning them. As Collect points out at Template:Editnotices/Page/Tea_Party_movement#Further_points, the article is on 1RR restriction and point #5 says violations can be reported directly to WP:ANI. Although North8000 and CartoonDiablo have exceeded 1RR, and may deserve to be blocked, I would like to bring up the fact that point #3 of Template:Editnotices/Page/Tea_Party_movement#Further_points says that more leniency will be given to editors who act in the spirit of WP:BRD. If you look at what was happening, it suggests that North8000 and Collect were not following WP:BRD by repeatedly removing the three sentences after the removal was objected to, whereas Ian.thomson and CartoonDiablo were following WP:BRD and expected that the deletion be discussed first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that only one editor was given proper warning of the 1RR violation with an opportunity to self-revert, and that opportunity was specifically rejected by that editor in the apparent belief that 1RR does not mean 1RR absolutely. Had North been warned and not self-reverted, I would hold him to the same standard, but Wikipedia believes that people should be given a clear chance to self-revert. AFAICT, however, North hit 1RR -- his first removal does not count as a "revert" under customary Wikipedia standards defining "revert." As it is, CartoonDiablo is the one in clear violation of a brightline rule imposed on that article. As for the problem -- the material was specifically under discussion on the talk page, which you appear to elide, and there was no apparent consensus for inclusion (mainly - the material is of exceedingly tangential relationship to the article topic, and was totally unrelated to acts or positions of the TPM, but only related to how the "nedia" covered the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the 1RR rule served its purpose by stopping y'all from edit warring before it could get really nasty. My advice is to withdraw this ANI and go discuss on the talk page. You're all established editors and you know how BRD works, so get to it; getting an editor(s) blocked here will solve nothing. Sædon^talk 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If CD had self-reverted or acknowledged that 1RR is applicable - fine. CD not only did not self-revert, his post to me indicated that he would edit war again in the same situation, and that is what is the problem, in my view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect's analysis. If notice is required and it wasn't given, you can not legitimately block someone. As for CartoonDiablo, if he (I should say all) takes a deep breath and does not repeat this offense, and edits productively, a block should not be given here. PumpkinSky talk 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Approximately 22 minutes after North8000's second edit removing the material, I posted a polite note to him about self-reverting here, as I didn't want him to stumble into a block either. However, North8000 hasn't made any further edits today since that last edit, so in all likelihood he may have left his keyboard after his last edit and had no chance of seeing it, hence no chance to self-revert. Academic as far as I'm concerned, as I had no intention of pursuing a block and only got involved here when I saw Collect's ANI posting. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Saedon just about sums up my opinion of it and yeah in retrospect it wasn't the best idea to violate the IRR even if it was with regards to someone else. Also for future reference to Collect and AzureCitizen, AN/I is generally used for vandalism while 3RR is for edit conflicts like these, it's not a big deal but it's good to keep in mind. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR notice page specifically states to come here. So much for your "interpretation" of process -- when a specific process is called for, that is the process I use. Cheers -- and I still find your refusal to self-revert when given a very polite note to be the problem here. --Collect

Collect, the Template doesn't "specifically state to come here", it just says that you can (but not that you must) - something to consider when we speak of interpretation of process. Looking at the timing of your contribs (your conversation with CartoonDiablo about reporting him if he didn't revert, followed by your ANI post), it's also apparent you didn't spend a lot of time considering whether or not this ANI post was really necessary. Lastly, please consider that you ignored WP:BRD when you joined the fray between North8000, Ian.thomson, and CartoonDiablo. Many editors find that sort of thing discourteous on contentious articles that have 1RR restrictions, thus your polite demand to CartoonDiablo that he self-revert was unlikely to be well received. Maybe it would have been better to just go straight to the Talk Page and start working out the issue instead of trying to have him blocked? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the place it says to use. Yes -- I could have ignored the absolute refusal to self-revert -- heck I could ignore every infraction, I suppose. But when a report is made, it is rational to fgo to eht place the notice says to go to. I did not post here until after CD made clear his position what he would not only not revert, but that he would defend what he had done as the only clear 2RR person on the page (North's first edit is not a "revert" per Wikipedia usage). And I absolutely did use the article talk page so much for that absurd aside. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the place it says you can use; restraint can be a virtue. Also, you absolutely did use the Talk Page, after you reverted, right? Revert diff, Talk diff. You have to keep the sequence of events in mind when considering what WP:BRD means in this context and how you approached the situation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate 1RR, I only reverted once. The one note that raised this question made the error of considering an edit to material added 1 3/4 years ago (November 2010) to be a "revert" of that addition. By that standard, ANY removal from any article would mistakenly be called a "revert" which is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR defines a revert as " Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." It says nothing about a time scale and I've never before heard the argument that an edit doesn't count as a revert based on the time differential since the material was added. Sædon^talk 03:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that every instance of removal of any material, even the oldest item in Wikipedia is a "revert" for the purposes of 1RR ? ! That's unimaginable. And doubling up on that, we're talking 1RR not 3RR. Frankly, I think that I was being used to obscure the report here which involves someone who did two reverts within hours both on the same hours-old edit by trying to say that my first edit, the first one on 2-year old material was a "revert". How would anybody even know that it came about by some method in ancient history which the current edit would be considered a "revert" of vs. going in some way where it wouldn't? This isn't a report on me but if someone is trying to raise the question about me this would certainly need a broader discussion on this which is only a side-topic on this current one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the policy seems pretty clear and mentions nothing about a time period. If you are going to assert that removing material isn't a revert if it happens after a certain time period you need to be able to point to a policy that says that, otherwise you're just stating your opinion on what the policy should say. Additionally, it appears to me to be in line with WP:STATUSQUO which is an essay that makes a lot of sense. And of course it's in line with WP:BRD which is exactly what should have happened instead of an EW. Sædon^talk 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I'm sympathetic to your rationale, and don't think you should be blocked here either. Since the 3RR rule doesn't make exceptions for time frames, however, it's probably better to err on the side of caution on hotly contested articles. The Tea Party Movement article sees a lot of edit warring and continues to be on 1RR restriction for 1 and 3/4 years now, during which time you've made many edits and comments. We also both know that for the past few weeks, removal of content has been especially contentious. If you make an edit on a 1RR article, and the edit quickly gets reverted, it's more appropriate to follow WP:BRD instead of promptly reverting it back to the way you just changed it, touching off a mini-edit war today with those three sentences flip-flopping back and forth six times. Just something to think about going forward from here. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is not infrequent to see an editor under "0RR" -- the definitin being used by some would mean the poor editor could never emend any articles at all, ever. The customary usage is that it means undoing an edit from the recent past. Any other meaning is indefensible.

A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it

Does not posit that the bold edit is also a revert. In fact it appears to state that the bold edit is not a revert. Period. Collect (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had some significant content disputes with North8000, but even if he's technically in violation, I don't think a block is in order. He acted under the good faith belief that he wasn't violating 1RR, so punishingblocking him for not being a wikilawyer would be punitive. 08:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...punishing him...would be punitive." Huh? 149.135.147.1 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken and I'm off to bed! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The interpretation promulgated by some (i.e. both claiming it it such for 3RR and then transferring it from 3RR to 1RR and 0RR) is very unusual, and that's putting it mildly. By that standard, 0RR would mean that an article could NEVER be edited, period. There is no exception for discussed or consensus edits because it is clear that it is not intended for the first edit on ancient material to be considered a "revert". Again, I think that this side discussion where it takes a tortuous creative unusual syntheses of policy pieces to come up with this is a diversion on a report which is not on me and which is about a clear 1RR violation. 2 edits within hours, both reverting hours-old edits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that that interpretation promulgated by some would mean that just editing four different parts of ANY article in one day would constitute a 3RR violation. That is preposterous. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You are assuming all edits are reverts. They are not. For example, if this page was under 0RR, my edit posting this comment would not be a revert. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant 4 edits that involved modifying or removing existing material would be considered a 3RR violaiton under 3RR. That is clearly not what it is about. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It may sound preposterous but I have had that exact interpretation levelled at me before while editing a page. I have also had a wide ranging thread on Wikiquette where basically some users were backing up that position. That discussion can be found here. Sport and politics (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing or altering content is a revert. Tiderolls 12:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the wording should be clarified to prevent that mis-interpretation. But the intent is already clear. Simply editing ancient material is not intended to be considered "revert". Again such an interpretation would lead to preposterous situations. Under that interpretation 0RR would forbid ALL edits to existing material, and 3RR would prohibit 4 edits on one day to even ancient existing material. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How is my statement a mis-interpretation? That is what the policy states. Tiderolls 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think North8000 missed the "within 24 hours (more or less - don't game the system)" part of the 0/1/3/9001RR rules. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how 24 hours even comes into play on this. The implausible interpretation (counting the first change to ancient material as a "revert") aside, I only made one revert on it. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether an edit of something which was there a long time counts here as a "revert" - no one asserts that North removed material which had been there a short time. And AFAICT, the "first edit" does not count as a "revert" under normal meanings - ese a person who is on a 0RR restriction is enjoined from ever editing at all <g> which would be absurd. The only person who expressly refused to abide by the 1RR is, alas, CartoonDablo, who would not have been reported had he not made a rather odd post on my UT page saying that he thought he did nothing amiss. The claims that others were "edit warring" is absurd - the extensive discussion on the article talk page belies that excuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He wouldn't have been reported had he not said what he said? I thought you told him that if he didn't self-revert, it would be reported. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Tide rolls, I meant contrary to the obvious intent and to the way the Wikipedia works. (in good faith in your case) A clarification in the wording is obviously needed. E.G. 4 edits to ancient material in one day is not a 3RR violation, and 0RR obviously does not mean that existing material is uneditable. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0RR means exactly that; and 4 edits can very easily be construed as a 3RR violation. I can see where the 4 reverts could be explained, but it had better be a very good explanation. Tiderolls 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? That is completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates. What you just said is the 0RR means that (even ancient) existing material is absolutely uneditable, and that 4 edits to existing ancient material on an article constitutes a 3RR violation which might be given a pass! North8000 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, edit wars are completely contrary to how Wikipedia operates and the edit restrictions are used to divert editors to the talk page. Tiderolls 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are changing the subject, but on the new topic are saying something I agree with. :-) Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0RR almost always, and 1RR frequently, define "revert" differently than 3RR. 0RR almost always says that you cannot revert to restore your own edit, and 1RR almost always applies only to reverts of the same material, and frequently applies only if the the first revert is that of a recent change to the article. I haven't checked the specific edits here, and I would be considered "involved" even if I had. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize this argument supports what I think should be in the article. Sorry about that, but the reasoning makes sense to me, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

The talk page of the Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics has begun to descend in to frankly personalising madness. Can a few users please cast an eye over this page and attempt to calm this down as some users are getting highly personal. I also think that some issues of ownership may need to be resolved regarding this article. At the moment very little productive discussion is occurring, it is just basically tit-for-tat with lots of personalising claims and wild unfounded statements about the article. Sport and politics (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Justice007

Justice007 started Wikihounding my edits immediately after I posted under the Articles for Deletion/Nandini Sahu, supporting deletion of that article. Also, Justice007 attacked and highly criticized every editor who supported deletion of that article to a point that he was advised by another editor/administrator "If you want the article to be kept you need to find reliable sources, not absurd statements calling other editors views as nonsense, especially when the best source you point to is a user submissions aggregator.—SpacemanSpiff". He did not take that advise and went on WP:Wikihounding me. First, he attacked Seyamak R. Payek ‎that I authored by posting BLP-sources and Notability tags on those articles. I advised him to stop retaliating. He did not take notice of it and immediately went on attacking Mohsen Esmaeili‎ which is another article I authored. This is a clear case of WP:Wikihounding by Justice007.

Justice007 seems to argue and believe an associate professor of English Nandini Sahu (not even a full professor) is notable enough to deserve an article of her own in Wikipedia, but at the same time attacked notability of Seyamak R. Payek and Mohsen Esmaeili‎ who are clearly notable by virtue of being Guardian Councilmen of the Constitution of Iran in the Parliament of Iran in addition to holding senior academic positions. By the way, Guardian Council in Iran functions as that country's guardian of the Constitution of Iran and is comprised of six Councilmen who are the most senior legal academics and distinguished jurists in Iran. The point that I am trying to make is that Justice007 is clearly not being civil nor honorable (to say the least) and is WP:Wikihounding me. I hope he stops Wikihounding other editors who contribute to Wikipedia and focus on improving articles he authors or contributes to.

It is note worthy that since May 2012 this is the second time Justice007 is brought for discussion here. Obviously, Justice007 is not progressing toward civility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juristicweb (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question, as you should have done when posting this on the board here. Remember that if youa re bringing an issue to ANI, you need to be sure you notify all the parties involved. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Justice007 and will be notifying SpacemanSpiff, since I named it above. Thanks for reminding me though.--Juristicweb (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He notified him before posting here which is fine.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply

• We should not lose our cool, it has realy not been my intention to any kind of reliatation to edit this, it seems to just happend that he commented his view before my edit, actually I am improving and expanding articles everywhere, where is needed tags, I first tags and then search the reliable sources to cite and remove the tags, that can be access on my user page which I have done many other articles. This privilege I have from be bold. I assume always good faith, regarding Mohsen Esmaeili‎,I just added and fixed wikilink, the tags were already there. He asked Help request on his talk page, I replied his concerns here. My comments and questions are valid, should be answered. Neither I have done any wrong thing nore violated any wiki rule that I am accused. We mush realise that no one own here any thing. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Justice007, the community's response to your choice of words, editing, responses and interactions with other editors has been one of disapproval as it was gently put to you by SpacemanSpiff in Articles for Deletion/Nandini Sahu. I believe once a gentle advice is ignored a more effective response is appropriate. That is why I started the discussion here so that other more experienced editors would be able to render better approaches for resolution than I may be aware of. By the way, if it turns out that what you've been doing as referenced above is fine with Wikipedia rules, then I will respect that. However, your reply clearly admits actions that fall under WP:Wikihounding, but you insist that they are not. More reason for having this discussing. We should not Wikihound and once the rule is intentionally and repeatedly ignored, as was the case here, after being advised of it, there should be a consequence for the editor who violated it, which is you.--Juristicweb (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:FS Italia

This editor keeps reverting additions to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:FS_EMUs_and_DMUs&curid=15721842&action=history stating "it doesn't exist". I have repeatedly explain that the article Frecciarossa 1000 does exist, and is clearly verifiable, and tried to explain the purpose of navigation templates Wikipedia:Navigation templates. See also User_talk:FS_Italia#Don.27t_edit_tendentiously. Oranjblud (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put a message on the user's talk page. I hope this helps. In the future, if you could try to steer discussion to the talk page rather than communicating via edit summaries? Even templates have a talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes at CBS Records

Can someone disentangle all the changes made at CBS Records and CBS Records International and CBS Records (2006). Consensus was established on the talk page on how to handle the various business entities called CBS Records, and one author has come up with a fix on his own that had lost the history for each article by cutting and pasting. The page history and discussion is now at Talk:CBS Records (2006). The problem is that there are 1,300 incoming links to the business entity known as CBS Records which is not the same as CBS Records International, both had their own presidents: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. ... Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since you are both participating in the WP:DRN discussion about this I don't think we need a separate discussion here. Hopefully they can sort this mess out. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle Gupta and copyvios

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

---

Twinkle Gupta (talk · contribs) is persistently removing {{copyvio}} templates from articles ([61] [62] [63] [64]). He's been warned each time against doing so (see User talk:Twinkle Gupta), and has been invited to discuss the matters on Wikipedia:Copyright problems ([65]) but continues to remove the templates as "unnecessary".

He's compounded the problem by recreating a deleted article by copy-pasting; the deleted article was itself copy-pasted from another article, so if the article in its current state is to be kept, two different contribution histories need to be merged and acknowledged. (Since one of the sources is a deleted article, only an administrator can get the contribution history for us.)

That said, I find it extremely suspicious that he happened to have the wikitext source of the deleted article lying around so that he could recreate it. Probably he is the banned user who originally created it. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks that way to me, and to User:Floquenbeam, who has blocked them and protected some articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime I opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vibhas Kashyap. Perhaps it's moot now but at least it will contribute to the record for future reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I blocked Twinkle Gupta; I didn't block User:Dellice, who was doing much the same thing, because it looks like they've been around slightly longer, and I suppose there's a small chance they aren't a sock, and they haven't removed a tag again after their final warning. But I already feel like that might have been the wrong move, so another set of eyes on that account would be appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Concordia University move dispute

Hi, despite long, settled discussion on whether to keep Concordia University (Quebec) at Concordia University, someone decided to move it again. Can you please help resolve this dispute? --The lorax (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• The move may be contested but I don't see any discussion yet that addresses this. Have you tried to talk to EdwinHJ who moved the page? Editing against consensus is not necessarily something we here need to deal with from scratch. See also WP:CCC. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Concordia University in Montreal has been determined to be the article to use the primary name via WP:RM discussion in 2005, an WP:RFC in 2006, and another WP:RM discussion in 2010. Consensus has been established three times as of 2010.--The lorax (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Gross incivility from two editors

I have been attempting to remove the unattributed and pov term "terrorist" from the introduction section of the Anders Behring Breivik article. My justification was the Wikipedia guideline here [66]

Rather than arguing against my point, a number of editors who seem to think they own the article have simply resorted to a tirade of incivility on the article's talk page that pushes the extreme end of foul language and personal insults.

Examples include:

From User:AndyTheGrump
"fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit. Sociopathic scum like you shouldn't be let within a mile of Wikipedia." [67]
"I suggest you take your deranged POV somewhere else" [68]

From User:Ian.thomson
"Just leave, sicko, we don't need your trolling here" [69]
"Take your Breivik-excusing and get out of here" [70]
"Go away, nasty person." [71]

Meowy 20:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see someone who argues that the mass murder of 69 people (mostly teenagers) wasn't an atrocity getting much sympathy round here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Will I add your name to the incivility complaint? Where did I argue that the murder of 69 people wasn't an atrocity? Meowy 20:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did not want the word atrocity used, see [72] and it is pretty clearly one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That reply really does reveal you inadequacy as an editor. Do you think that the Wikipedia guidelines that advise against using pov terminology like "terrorist", or heated wording like "atrocity", are there because lots of terrorist-loving atrocity-supporting editors wrote those guidelines? Meowy 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My inadequacy as an editor? I invite anyone here to check my blog log, and then yours [73]. As can be seen on the talk page for Brevik he has been called a terrorist (and frankly is one) and it was an atrocity. Personal attacks about my "adequacy as an editor" are uncalled for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As multiple editors have pointed out (and you so violently responded to), the terrorist label is considered NPOV in that article, as he has been sentenced for terrorism, is called a terrorist by various RSs (which the guideline you cite says allows us to use the word terrorist).

And you've been trying to argue that Breivik's actions are not an atrocity, and that his bigoted manifesto was not Islamophobic or anti-feminist (based on what? You do know that editor interpretation of the manifesto is original research, since there's a giant banner explaining that whenever one edits the article). You tried to argue that Breiviks attacks be given more of a social context, after having complained about the sourced and accurate labeling of his beliefs as Islamophobic, anti-feminist, and far-right. You called everyone who disagreed with you "self-righteous" while making rather asinine generalizations about everyone there (how the hell are we supposed to have edited the Breivik article before he showed up on the news for his crimes? He wasn't notable before then). You threatened me with a block (not your authority) when I pointed out that Breivik is a murderer, and that there is no positive way to describe his actions. Not once have you even begun to concede that Breivik is a terrible person, which anyone concerned with maintaining NPOV would have done. Your Breivik-excusing is not welcome here, and I'm not the only person who will not tolerate your threats. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "The lead is full of pov wording! "Terrorist" is a pov term and should not be used in Wikipedia articles. "Far right" is a pov term that should also not be used (and the meanings of "far right" or "far left" vary greatly from country to country). "Militant ideology" is also pov. Brevik’s manifesto was not "Islamophobia, support of Zionism and opposition to feminism" – that is just the opinion of certain commentators who have characterised its content thus. "Attrocities" is also pov." (my emphasis) at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#The lead (And you can put my name wherever you please, I've not been uncivil to you - I'm just suggesting you might want to reconsider who you think might be likely to be on your side considering your apparent opinions on Anders Breivik). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that puke-brains is still trolling away, trying to make out that Breivik isn't a terrorist: [74]. (P.S. if you are going to report me for incivility, please quote it in full next time. I was rather pleased with my effort...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Puke-brains" is all very well, Andy, but Meowy's own words are much more damning. I just glanced at his/her talkpage, and was struck by this statement: "..I consider Wikipedia to be an intrinsically evil concept and a malevolent entity, a cancer on truth and on legitimate academic studies. Its concept of verifiability is the core of its evil. I am not here because I want to contribute to Wikipedia - I am here because I oppose everything Wikipedia stands for."[75] My bolding. Why is this, uh, contributor, still allowed to edit Wikipedia? WP:NOTHERE is admittedly only an essay, but it's my impression that it enjoys wide approval in the admin corps and is often quoted in indefinite block reasons. HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

• If I hadn't already commented here, taking a side in the content dispute (making me WP:INVOLVED), I would be taking the hint - anyone who does will have my support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it looks like the M.O. for Meowy is:

• make a bold edit. -- Usually ok.
• call everyone who disagrees with him (no matter how many people there are, or how much they try to help him) incompetent, self-righteous, POV-pushing article-owners, and threaten to have them blocked. -- Last I heard, that's not exactly encouraged, or even tolerated around here.

The second part alone is troublesome enough, but in this case, the bold edit was trying to excuse a murderer of dozens of children, who he still has yet to decry.

Seems to me the only reason to keep this open is to find enough WP:ROPE for this WP:BOOMERANG case.

Oh, and Bishonen found some more. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, while everyone enjoys piling onto the 2-Minute Hate against Meowy here, this user does have a point; we should avoid the "...is a terrorist" verbiage in the lead. We don't even do that for Osama bin Laden. Introduce the person in the lead, describe what he is infamous for, but avoid making declarative "he is a terrorist" statements; that is simplistic/sensationalist tabloid writing. I also find it amusing that some hold me as some sort of paragon of incivil behavior around here, but the antics and words of Andy and Ian Thompson above are well above and beyond any stunt that I have ever pulled on-wiki. Is there a particular reason why they are not blocked yet? As the puerile name-calling shows no signs of abating, I think we'd be clearly in the "preventative, not punitive" territory here. Tarc (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have now indeffed Meowy because I find his edits at the Behring article to be intentionally provocative and because of the self-confessed opposition to the project. There's also a long history of sockpuppeting and disruptive editing. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That was just about the worst possible decision to make in this matter. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • What, you support the continued presence of someone who has openly declared their opposition to Wikipedia and says "I am not here because I want to contribute to Wikipedia - I am here because I oppose everything Wikipedia stands for"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't know Meowy from a hole in the wall and am honestly not terribly interested in their past. What I am looking at here is an editor filing an ANI against Andy the Grump and Ian Thompson over this affair. His opinion on the addition of "terrist" is IMO correct, and his assessment of those two editors opposed to him is also correct. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You're telling us you really don't care about someone's declaring themselves to be an enemy of Wikipedia, and you support their continued presence here? You may well agree with him over "terrorism" and believe that the incivilities require action, but to simply not care about an openly declared troll is appalling, in my opinion - and if you genuinely don't care and have not looked at his trolling or his past, then I'd say you're in no position to oppose his block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
          • What Tarc is saying is that the original subject of the thread is still valid even if the author has his own problems (namely, having engineered the misbehaviour he reported). Sometimes that is enough to consider just dropping the whole thing: sometimes it isn't. In this case, there is merit to pursuing redress on the original parties even after the original poster has been indeffed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • To be fair, I got involved in the content discussion right before blocking Meowy. But my main motivation is not this dispute but Meowy's overall conduct. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tarc that the behavior reported here by Meowy was inexcusable. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to accept Ian Thompson just got carried away, and should be trouted for getting so readily trolled. ATG should be facing a month off for this, though, with the instruction that it's the last time he'll be let off with a time-limited block. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (ec) As to the incivilities by Ian and Andy, this is certainly unwarranted and has hereby been recorded. However, preventative measures don't seem to be necessary to me since their gross name-calling was clearly related to this one user and their questionable edits. Other admins (Thumperward) may however take action in this area. I for one issue a warning to Ian.thompson and Andy the Grump to not repeat this kind of incivility, no matter what caused it. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)The indef block is probably a good idea, Meowy would blatantly rather be writing editorials than an encyclopaedia, and there are other places for that. As for AGT...I don't know if there's any possible reason not to block. His intentions are good and I like his direct style, but this kind of response only ever inflames the argument and makes the whole situation worse (which is exactly what happened here - and now we have an editor indeffed). It has to stop. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tarc, if someone is pushing a POV, especially if that POV is so inhuman, it's perfectly reasonable and within the guidelines to ask them to stay away from the site or at least articles they are have problems with. That's what I did. I also called him sick, but I cannot and will not describe excusing Breivik in any other way. As evidenced by recent edits to the article, attributing and following the MOS is not a problem, it's reshaping the article into a praise piece for a mass murderer that is a problem. Notice that never, even after prompted, did Meowy once begin to agree that Breivik's actions are deplorable. It is an example that polite POV-pushing can be rude elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda your problem, editing a topic in which you obviously feel passionately and personally about. Breivik's deplorableness isn't relevant to the discussion here. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What I'm getting is "You shouldn't overreact to trolling," instead of "Meowy shouldn've have trolled," which is blaming the victim. Denial of Breivik's deplorableness was Meowy's motivation. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Meowy's motivation was probably getting a rise out of people. Polite POV pushing has long been known to be an extremely effective method of trolling here precisely because it elicits responses like yours. Given that we allow anyone to edit articles on Hitler, the KKK, cold fusion, Jesus's pet brontosaurus and pretty much every other hot subject in modern culture, it is extremely important that editors who wish to work on these topics learn how to deal with it without getting baited into acting improperly. This appears to be an anomaly on your behalf, but it's gotten to the point where ATG seems to be actively pursuing a course of doing the right thing in the worst possible way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine. I was also going to point out (but edit conflicted) that the attribution issue, when brought up by editors who weren't trying to excuse Breivik's actions, was fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to block me, block me - it seems self-evident that cognitive dissonance will continue to rule Wikipedia, and that rules against 'personal attacks' will be enforced rigidly, even as hate-filled bigotry against all and sundry in the world outside is not only tolerated, but positively encouraged by rules that prevent the obvious being stated. Meowy, like so many bigots before, has exploited Wikipedia's peculiar double standards to his own advantage, spouting garbage about NPOV even while openly declaring his contempt for the concept. I don't know why I bother to try to make a difference here anyway. Clearly a waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, it is possible to tell someone to fuck off and die without actually using the phrase "fuck off and die." I'm a local government officer - we do it all the time. And if you're having that much trouble with an editor, call a bloody admin! Meowy has a history going way back - any admin would have nailed them to a coffee table for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any incivility blocks. I'd support a WP:TROUT, however. Recommend closure of this item. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)