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

Soliciting off-wiki pressure on editors

• Scripturalreasoning (talk · contribs)
• Scriptural reasoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently posted about the above user's threat to publish inflammatory material if other editors didn't back off. [1].

Same editor has been in direct consultation with an organisation mentioned in the article: "I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing."

Now this statement from said Trustees has appeared off-wiki, repeating unproven claims about the affiliations and hostile motivations of editors here *, as well as making heavy hints about what the article should say about this organisation. Apart from such close communication being probable COI, this smells of attack-by-proxy. Does it come under WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: oh, apparently not here, since (despite precisely matching what he said was discussing with them) the statement doesn't mention Wikipedia by name. Must be some other user-editable "online encyclopaedic resource" with exactly the same dispute then. FX: rolls eyes Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the kind of editor who is here to Right Great Wrongs, having no caring about our policies and community ethos. Such people often have a short but turbulent career on Wikipedia. Does WP:BATTLE apply, do we think? as an aside, the article scriptural reasoning needs a complete rewrite or nuking; right now it reads as an unholy mix of WP:OR and WP:HOWTO. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

They come to Right Great Wrongs and then we tell them to Fuck Right Off. HalfShadow 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could possibly add that slogan to the policy guidelines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

You could possibly be slightly more subtle HalfShadow. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And you could burst into flames spontaniously. What's your point? HalfShadow 18:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, should this user be indefinitely blocked? PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the "fuck right off" message. In regards to the article, do we have any experts who could take a look and assess and edit? please step forward now... --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So you approve of an indefinite block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Me, definitely, yes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The same editor has also created Interfaith scriptural reading with a lead "Interfaith Scriptural Reading is a form of Interreligious Dialogue, and takes place is a variety of different ways. This page is new and under construction..." (and Interreligious Dialogue is red-linked, so..). Google and Alltheweb come up with [2] and a mention in a pdf of someone taking part in an interfaith scriptural reading conference but that wasn't the title of the conference. At least Scriptual reasoning is I think notable enough for an article, but the Isr article needs to be dealt with appropriately. dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott: there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Interfaith work group. The other editors appear to be editing well within WP:NPOV, but it's very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way (akin to describing a tea-party and citing it to the Brewing Instructions on a teabag box). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully put, thank you. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

←And on the 8th day Jimbo (and/or Sanger) did createth the wiki. And thine policy shall stateth: Go forth and propagate thine web with great "sum of human knowledge", but be not vain in your efforts. Thou shalt push neither negative, nor positive OR, but rather provide great NPOV. (ohhh I hope the big guy upstairs don't get mad about that post!) — Ched (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole thread is just great. :O) seicer | talk | contribs 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reading the posted document, it is not just a matter of propaganda in favor of this religious group, but a question of there being two rival groups, the one that posted the message, the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" and its sponsor,the "Interfaith Alliance UK" (which cooperates with a loosely associated US organization, ""Interfaith Alliance"; and on the other hand the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and its "Cambridge InterFaith Programme". The matter at controversy is the relative importance of the two, and also whether, as the SRS claims, the term "Scriptural Reasoning" is generic for reading the scriptures of various faiths in parallel. Given all this, I would therefore not make any assumptions about which edits to the article are the fair ones. I of course do support the present block, and it is possible that other editors may need similar attention. In any case, i would not disparage any of them, & I think the two immediately preceding comments ought to be retracted. Obviously, as dougweller says, people from outside both must do the editing here. DGG (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And this is indeed reflected in the edit history of the article, and the WP:SPAs who have edited it. So, should we banninate the primary warrior here? Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the indef block as well. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 has just left a notice on my talk page about this discussion and directing me to it, so not sure whether I am supposed to post here, but he has posted. I have already posted details on my talk page about this incident [3] so not intending to repeat at length.

Given that that Trustees have clarified that they were informed having received a telephone call from someone from the "Inter Faith Network of the UK" of which the "Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme" and "St Ethelburga's Centre" are both affiliated member organisations (both are also part of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and both have been critiqued by me in past edits of Scriptural Reasoning) ---- the question arises exactly how did this happen? So who exactly put the "external pressure on a Wikipedia editor"? You might therefore want to clarify this from the other users on Scriptural Reasoning since with the exception of Gordonofcartoon they are all stalwarts of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" and Thelongview works for the Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which is a nice coincidence.

Also a nice coincidence is how on 27 November 2008 and immediately around that time, after 20 months previously of quiet and low activity on Scriptural Reasoning all of a sudden Thelongview (at that time Nsa1001) arrived and immediately concurrently Mahigton and Laysha101 (new user to Wikipedia), all three of whom admit to knowing each other and are part of the same "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" group. Not long thereafter, other brand newly registered users, all very familiar and supportive of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" position -- and all editing together. External pressure?

The article Scriptural Reasoning has been a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning and exaggerated the practice's importance and originality (SR is nothing original nor practiced by thousands), and as DGG there is a dispute between the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" which claims ownership of SR and the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" (Oxford Group) which claims that SR is just a name for something loads of others have done.

I'm not all that bothered about being "banninated" so do go ahead. But what I don't think is acceptable is for others who have been rather cleverer and less stupidly open about what I think and which of my friends I talk to, to get away with a biased promo article for Scriptural Reasoning. In fact to save you all the hassle....I shall delete my account...so happy jolly days chaps...and tatty bye...(arseholes)

--Scripturalreasoning (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This user has requested that their user talk page, User talk:Scripturalreasoning be deleted under CSD U1, but U1 does not apply to user talk pages unless RTV is invocted, but given the above, I do not think the user talk page should be deleted; I especially don't think it's right that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is to be thrown in my face when I question the deleting admin's deletion of the page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it as being part of an ongoing dispute, it can be nuked once this has all died down. I don't think the deleting admin was made aware of the controversy in which the user is embroiled. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins inappropriate comments in this thread

A number of administrators / other responding parties violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL using comments such as "fuck right off".

It is entirely possible to respond to abuse cases such as this one without insulting the party who caused the problem. Using insulting and abusive language violates Wikipedia's policies and degrades the quality of participation in the community and the communities' values.

This is not acceptable behavior here or anywhere else. Please do not do it again. HalfShadow is getting a warning - others should consider your own actions and participation in the abusive subthread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they were not setting the most open mood possible, but I doubt those comments constituted WP:CIVIL vios, and certainly not WP:NPA violations. It was indirect speech anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity. HalfShadow 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Charming to respond to a WP:CIVIL notice by violating WP:CIVIL again. It's times like this I wish I had admin powers. THF (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They're (the admin powers) not as cool as they sound. Sure, they help us impress chicks, but that's about all. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's one other possibility, but he types too well for that to be likely. And it's times like this that I wish I had a unicorn. There's never a wrong time for a unicorn. HalfShadow 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between simply using the (cover your ears, children!!) f-word!!! and an actual incivil personal attack - in much the same way that there's a very, very, very subtle - perhaps even downright infinitesimal! - difference between a painting of a knife and stabbing somebody in the face. It may take some deep rumination, but I'm confident that you - and others who enjoy being the first to fling around wikilinks to WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - can grow to understand it. =) Badger Drink (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The civility and personal attacks policies are not a black and white spectrum. The original abuses above were neither as blatant nor as specific as many in the past.

However, there is a renewed emphasis in policy circles that the policies are real, serious, that we mean it (from Arbcom at the top through normal admins and editors), and that the at times and in places rampant abusive behavior on wiki especially in admin forums has to stop.

There is nothing in this thread that required or justified rude language or abuse of the problem account.

HalfShadow's initial behavior was across the line but not horribly abusively so. His choice of responses to the initial warnings was most unfortunately less ambiguous. His behavior has a problem - he needs to stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, please count my !vote in support of the block given by GWH, though I won't be participating in the ensuing wikidrama. THF (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete overreaction. Block should be undone. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And even if a block was warranted here, GWH should not have been the one doing it. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking on the original issue would have been a complete overreaction. A reasonable discussion (which Deacon, to be fair, started) as to whether the original conduct warranted a warning or not is fine. An edit summary suggesting another editor is insane and a comment suggesting another editor is insane are however evidence that HalfShadow has a problem with civility and NPA. As direct responses to an editor warning them about civility... He proved my point.

Admins are not conflicted out of taking admin actions on the grounds that someone they warned (after no prior interaction or conflict) turned around and got abusive on them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The use of "fuck" in this thread was problematic, but certainly not blockable of itself. I see nothing else here that shows that HalfShadow should have been blocked, it looks purely punative for the use of salty language, and I see no evidence of it being warrented. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. HalfShadow wasn't blocked for saying "fuck." He was blocked because he insulted two editors who asked him to be more polite. If we're going to take WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA seriously, it needs to be enforced. There's no excuse for repeated abuse of experienced editors, and we don't do enough to cut it off at the pass, which is why so many editors burn out. THF (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems that no one really took note of or had much of an issue with the usage of the word fuck and such, til this admin decided to blow it up into a subsec of the existing discussion. Sometimes the waggling of the "thou shalt not" finger does more to inflame than the original act could ever manage. All in all, an egregiously bad block if I have ever seen one. Tarc (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

::Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by THF (talk • contribs) Striking out inadvertent extraneous text. Not sure how that happened. THF (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow is quite often uncivil and left cynical and unhelful comments here, so I don't wonder he is blocked for his incivility.--Caspian blue 04:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I see HalfShadow's comments here as being largely satirical. However, when the targets of that satire don't see the humor in it, then it can be time to... "walk right off" for awhile. Before someone else makes you take that walk. On the other hand, if one is having a bad day or week, then in being compelled to take that walk for a short time (24 hours, for example), there is no real harm done, and it can be therapeutic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has to take the walk for 24 hours from here. Not bad decision.--Caspian blue 05:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The comments here can be read that way now that I reread with that in mind. His responses on his talk page don't indicate that to me, though.

I don't want to step on people just being satirical, but if that was what he had in mind he should have said so after the warning, or at least after the block, and he's instead defending himself on his talk page saying that the block was inappropriate because I was in conflict with him (because I warned him once??). I would think that he'd be likely to have explained himself then if his original intent was satire. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going strictly by what he said here, and I gather he doesn't always know where the "line" is. I don't always know either, and that's when I've been blocked. If I were him, I would do as I have done when I've been blocked: find something else to do for 24 hours. It's Saturday. Go to the movies. Go shopping. Help the economy. Wikipedia will likely still be here upon expiration of the block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you plan on commenting on his talk page, per request? seicer | talk | contribs 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I did with the block warning. He deleted that from his talk page, along with previous warnings by me and THF, as he is entitled to do under the userpage policy. I generally try to avoid interfering with an unblock request from one of my blocks that's active - that's for other admins to decide.

If there a specific other request up here for me to ask him / talk about? I don't have a problem with engaging in more discussion with him on his talk, if he will actually discuss something and not just delete it again. What do you suggest I ask or suggest? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

civility break 1

Without commenting on the comments or the block at this point.... I remember responding to a WQA sometime ago that was filed against HalfShadow mid-last year. I'd initially suggested that if there were still problems, that it went to RfC, and that a friendly reminder would be enough - but based on his responses to that reminder (which were plain - not satirical), I ended up closing it as "stuck - hopefully the incivility would cease" and advised the filing party to bring it straight to a noticeboard the next time there was a problem. This may be irrelevant given that it was so long ago, and I can't find the link, but wanted to note it just in case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Google, Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive46#User:HalfShadow. THF (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a fuss about nothing - "fuck right off" just means "go away", it's not aimed at one particular person. And in that sense, many people should fuck right off in regards to their conduct here - the block was pathetic and should be overturned immediately. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As is noted in the block message and above, the block was for insulting other editors (violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). Kcowolf (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• George is right: rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some, so we are asked to keep it out of anything that might be construed as an "official" procedure or discussion. Even I have worked that one out by now, and I am pretty dense in that regard. I always italicise right anyway. Yes, we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the block on its merits, too, though it would be better if someone other than one of the insulted users had issued it. Because admins are prohibited from blocking users they are in a conflict with, I'm granting HalfShadow's unblock request, but I'm also reinstating the block as a block of my own.  Sandstein  12:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the block...when writing, we don't just "blurt" it out like we may do in speaking. Writing is a decisive act. Decisions are made on the words we choose and their meanings and the effect we wish to accomplish. This brings into play the issue of swearing on the talkspace. Swearing, not by vandals, but by editors to make a point or give emphasis. But it (swearing) brings with it its negative connectors and responses and the conversation starts downward. Dignity is required in this process; we should seek to engender goodwill and approval, co-operation, not the opposite. This is an adult environment, not a saloon. There is really no good argument to the contrary. Administrators should convey propriety not bad examples. BTW... fuck right off means fuck right off. If he typed Go away it would have required fewer keystrokes and would have been less agitating!--Buster7 (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we fucking serious? We blocked half-shadow for that? (the two diffs noted on his talk page). Come on. I'm not inclined to think that what he wrote there was appropriate, but we have to accept that multiple perceptions of these boards exist. Some people think of them as places akin to a judge's chambers, where arguments and positions are presented in a semi-official manner. Some people feel that they are simply a mechanism for notification of admins and interested editors. Some people feel that they are a watering hole. These have subjective interpretations have varying levels of acceptance and legitimacy, but we certainly don't need to engage in some heavy handed nonsense in keeping the "f-word" off of them. Unbelievable. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• No comment on the block, but there is far too much unnecessary sarcasm and snarky commentary on WP:ANI, and oftentimes it crosses the murky line into incivility. I would put HalfShadow's comments in this thread into that catchall category. Poking fun at another productive contributor is not appropriate (i.e. comments on Georgewilliamherbert's sanity). Wikipedia is not censored, and WP:ANI is not censored, but it's not appropriate to stop by WP:ANI just to leave a snarky one-liner aimed at someone else. -- Samir 22:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a matter of censorship. If someone is claiming censorship, they need to reexamine the evidence. I don't think half-shadow is being "censored" in the sense that someone is using authority to control content or discussion. We are just (rightly, as you note) trying to avoid cynicism and sarcasm in our forums (which project poorly w/o extra-textual clues) and we went too far in conflating "bad language" with malign intent. I don't think half shadow was intending to lower the discourse or demean another person, I think he was intending to be funny and blunt (or funny by way of being blunt). Was it poorly received? Clearly. Was it a bad idea? Probably. Was it something so wrong as to prompt a somewhat officious "warning" which devolved into an inappropriate block? NO. Suggesting that someone has taken leave of their faculties in leveling a warning is uncivil (borderline, IMO), but not a personal attack (again, IMO). Doing so in an edit summary on your own talk page is relatively harmless (honestly...). Doing so on AN/I is not harmless and half-shadow should have known better. But the impetus for the block ("fuck right off") was an unneeded minor panic over a word used more gently than a former vice president used it with regards to a sitting united states senator. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody was blocked for saying "fuck." (And if Dick Cheney spent a trillion dollars on a fruitless war, would you do so just because he did?) THF (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying "fuck" is not blockable (and that comment is not the trigger of this block). But insulting others repeatedly ("you could burst into flames spontaniously", "I can only assume George's message to my talk page is some aftereffect of a sharp blow to the head or possibly a temporary descent into insanity") is. WP:NPA is policy, and there is never an excuse for violating it. See, generally, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#How to raise the tone of the wiki.  Sandstein  23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, THF. You'll note the sentences I spent on the two diffs cited in his block. I referred to the use of the word of curse as the impetus for the whole display which has played out here. And as for sandstein, I understand that NPA can't be violated but we really should treat things in perspective. This whole thing escalated too quickly for stupid reasons all around. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on 2 secs...someone says "Fuck Right Off" to nobody at all, which is not uncivil. Someone says "you could be nicer" and he gives a little sarcastic reply "and you could spontaneously burst into flames", which is NOT an attack, it's sarcasm, meaning "um, not likely". Someone wrongly gives him a warning, and he got a little pissy, and then he gets blocked? A-B-C anyone? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Boy this whole thread sure went to hell in a handbasket. Suggestion: Everyone just take your hands off the keyboard... and back away very slowly - then look around at the real world. This has gone way off-track. — Ched (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Handbaskets are fun. Hell...not so much. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, I'm familiar with the lol cat that says "I iz adminz" and "this iz serious bizniz" and all. But this is supposed to be the big boys board. Self-importance doesn't belong here. This whole thing was about a religious posting, and how to handle it. Somehow everyone seems to have lost track of things. Wikipedia: The objective is to be "objective". geesh. — Ched (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block per Sandstein. If this was the first time HalfShadow's civility was an issue, maybe a block would be an overreaction in the absence of trying to talk to him (eg; through WQA or other methods). But that's just it; this isn't the first time - attempts to discuss it with him have been unsuccessful. Per Guy; rhetorical exuberance is not appreciated by some...we can think FOAD while we LART the guy, but we do by now have sufficient experience with Wikilawyering trolls that I think we should have learned not to give them obvious excuses. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • FYI, the block expired some hours ago anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah...seeing I did end up reviewing this, thought I'd note my view for the record before this is archived. Ncmvocalist (talk)
      • I wonder about the value of contesting blocks that are 24 hours or less. It's not like they're going to undergo withdrawal or something. Or maybe they will. I was thinking maybe there should be restrictions on contesting short blocks. The risk there, though, is that overzealous admins (if there are any) might take it as license to block more freqently and more frivolously. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't contesting the block, just the blocker. And vocalist take heart in the knowledge that your thoughts and opinions have no value to me. That goes for THF and Caspian, too. HalfShadow 18:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow, if one is blocked for making personal attacks on an administrative noticeboard, it is unwise to return to the same thread with more personal attacks. I was about to re-block you, but I don't want to sound like a broken record, so I invite any other administrator who concurs with my assessment to do so.  Sandstein  18:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a 'personal attack' to state an opinion, regardless of whether that opinion is 'wanted' or not. Calling them a name would be a personal attack. Suggesting their intelligence is flawed would be a personal attack. Simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value to me isn't; it's simply stating that I see their opinions as having no value. I have nothing more to say on the subject: I simply do not care. HalfShadow 20:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I also fail to see the attack. Yes, HalfShadow could perhaps be a bit more civil. However, other people could just learn how to appreciate sarcasm instead. I see nothing in this discussion that was a clear personal attack (meaning that it was malintentioned). The way I see this thread, HS was being sarcastic, people got pissed, he responded with more sarcasm, people got even more pissed and warned him rather than WP:AGF, and then he understandably got a little upset about it. All in all, this doesn't seem like an issue that we can't move past. Firestorm ^Talk 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

HalfShadow made his point quite clearly last year (in the WQA thread cited at the top) - I never assumed that changed. But I suppose I should be the one to break the news: my thoughts and opinions in this thread were written purely for the community; it really is of no consequence whether he, the subject of the thread (who ended up blocked), considers them valuable or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The surprising thing is that there's any controversy over this. Dropping an f-bomb is problematic enough, but it crosses the line to follow up with insults at two people who've asked for greater politeness. When and if WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA get downgraded from policies to suggestions then rudeness may reign supreme at this site. Until then, Usenet is thataway. Kudos to Sandstein for doing it right (Georgewilliamherbert really should have recused). Durova^Charge! 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Blogging4truth SSP

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blogging4truth/Archive for the details. It's a mixture of BLP vios, trolling, spamming and socking so I am posting here. The case just closed as it seemed that no one could agree on how to proceed or what was necessary, but there is a distinct pattern to the edits and an obvious intent to self promote and inflame. The final recoemmendation was to bring it up here. It seemed clear to everyone who commented in the case and outside of it that the sockpuppets are clearly him and that the contributions were all both predictable and highly undesirable. There have been no edits since the SSP case was opened but there has never been any discussion from the editor(s) and from the wide range of articles edited in the past it will not be obvious where he will appear next without following his blog to see what the next topic is. There is a WPSPAM case on michaelcrook.net too. Mfield (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Socks are blocked and the last spammed site added to the blacklist (MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#michaelcrook.org). See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive74#User:Anotherblogger and his threats against Wikipedia, Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive_4#New_Website, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Crook (second nomination). Have I missed anything? I think we should characterise this one as banned, over two years of self-promotion, BLP violations, block evasion, sockpuppetry and spamming.

-

• Blogging4truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Whatgoesup11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• ohiotruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Freedomblogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• 72.49.47.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

-

• Anotherblogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• ScottMiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• michaelcrook.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

-

• michael-crook.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

-

• mikewww.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

-

Did I miss any? Guy (Help!) 09:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

• Is it just my impression or could we just as well add "4truth" or "fortruth" to the WP:UAA bot's block-on-sight regex? These usernames often signal ... less than constructive intentions. (Just half kidding...)  Sandstein  12:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

You're not wrong. Words like truth, justice, freedom and so on are very often indicative of people whose time here is short but turbulent. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

- -

I'm with you guys - "for truth" nearly always means "for The Truth™" - it's a damn reliable indicator of tendentious POV editing. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

If you mean this seriously rather than just rhetorically, no, I can imagine someone naive enough to use it in good faith. DGG (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Yes, I can imagine it too. Be nice to know if it has ever happened... Guy (Help!) 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

• Blogging4right (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Mbn01291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Ebn6701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

-

• Probably a pile of IPs as well, and I am sure these are not the last of the sockpuppets. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

If you think there are more, we can always reopen the case, and request a CU. Synergy 23:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

-

A few observations. The name is painfully reminiscent of User:Kossack4Truth, one of last year's most disagreeable sockpuppets - although the editing patterns are not at all similar. If there is sockpuppetry, and it is all designed to promote Michael Crook, considered by many to be an "internet agitator",[4] then it is best to know about it and may be useful deal with it in organized fashion. Speaking of that, why is the Michael Crook article salted? The reasons for deletion were invalid at least in light of what we now know (he is real, he is notable,[5] and has been involved in well reported lawsuits raising Internet privacy and DMCA copyright issues).[6][7] Like it or not you can self-promote your way to notoriety off-Wikipedia, and that notoriety may well make a person notable for Wikipedia purposes. The COI editing and sockpuppetry are a different matter, one we should take seriously in light of the person's being in the profession, apparently, of creating Internet scandals about himself.Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Shouldn't be necessary to CU, these are all blindingly obvious - his MO is to cite himself, link his name and add links to his blog or other blogs quoting him. Our old friend the Canard Abuse Detector is probably adequate to the task for now. The consensus at the last deletion debate was that any notability (or more accuratley notoriety) was passed; the rate of comment on him was low and appears to me to be tailing off. Michael Moore he ain't. Guy (Help!) 10:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

So then we assume it's all sockpuppeting by the person in question? The !vote was 9-7 in favor of deletion (7-5 if one discounts the contributions the closing administrator stated as discounted) but the entire process was problematic - canvassing, sockpuppetry, manipulation, and it would be hard to say that the decision was made on grounds of notability. Notability doesn't diminish over time - either the subject is notable or he is not. He does formally meet WP:BIO - full articles / segments devoted to him over a span of years on a variety of subjects on CNN, Fox News, and some less significant publications. Most of that coverage came after the AfD, so it is not controlling. There's no policy reason why the article cannot be recreated. The salting seemed to be out of frustration.Wikidemon (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

-

Not that I'm actually proposing to do it... I think the ratio of encyclopedic value to wikidrama would be very slim, plus I try to only recreate controversial deletions[8] when I know I'm going to succeed. Wikidemon (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sri Ram Sena

There appears to be an issue reguarding the Sri Ram Sena article. User: Sathishmls is attempting to make the article conform to his view of the group, based on personal beliefs. He is disputing the edits of various editors, and seems to be of the opinion that Wikipedia must not present the information that is Verifiable, but that he "will not allow people to have a wrong impression of Sri Ram Sena", and other POV edits. I understand his feelings, and several editors have tryied to work the issue out, but he is persistant. :p There is no open edit war or 3RR breaking, I believe this is the best place to ask for help. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sathishmls needs a lecture on What Wikipedia Is NOT. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 13:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• In Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, the section Bias says "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. ... When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed". The article Sri Ram Sena violates this.
• Though the article has news from the verified source, the editorial is biased. Anyone can easily observe this by just viewing the article of Sri Ram Sena.
• The above is my request. Thank you. Sathishmls (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I've been following the article. In my opinion, the article is composed of news reports linked to the group in question, instead of what the group is, which may be the reason why User:Sathishlsm feels that the article is biased. I tried to recommend that he could add further information about the group, instead of adding details like religious dictates and the like. - Skysmith (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Child's personal information

There's a child revealing personal information at User:Bea0015. Thought it would be best to bring it here. Readro (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You likely won't get a positive reaction from the editor by describing them as a child - teenagers can get proper surly with such stuff. I shall have a word with them on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

15 is not a child, it's an adolescent. No 15 year old thinks it's a child. Unfortunately, no 15 year old thinks it's a mortal being, either, and they often reveal information that could potentially put them in danger. (Of course, that doesn't explain Michael Phelps.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken, however my main concern was raising the point. Apologies to all teenagers. Maybe "minor" would be a better term for next time? Readro (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Jailbait" ummm....I think "young adult" is the pc term - speaking of which, a great many of our pc using editors and some sysops are young adults. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Do they still use the term "San Quentin Quail"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically Young adult would be more 18-24, wouldn't it? That being said I don't think there's much of a concern with him giving out his first name and city. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a copy paste from something else, nvm ><) -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I thought a Young adult was 20 - 25. His last name is also there but I'll doubt that he has a mobile phone (IE: he wouldn't be in the white pages) in his name (Next to his age) so I wouldn't be overly worried but it's up to Wikipedia's policies (Not sure if there is one about this type of issue). Bidgee (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that "child" can cover anyone up to 13, and "young adult" beyond that. That said, it's not based on anything, just my personal feeling! And if it's just first name and city, then there's nothing to worry about! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of lines down he gives his full name and date of birth. Readro (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. I don't think we need to mother contributors who are 15- I was editing under my real name with the name of my village on my userpage when I was 15, no one ever saw fit to attack or mother me, and so I'm still about. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "young adult" may have its origins in publishing as it was instituted to describe popular literature for teenagers. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

Only as an aside, I think it's untowards to call anyone over 12 or 13 a child unless their behaviour straightforwardly calls for it. Far more fit terms, I think, would be (depending on what's being talked about), underage person, minor, teen, young person, young adult and so on. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• In response to the first comment, well, I'm a teen (won't reveal any info [duh!]) and I don't do things like that!  ;) Anyways, we should have a talk with this guy. Should someone delete this stuff? Montgomery' 39 (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I notice he's been blocked for vandalism now. Readro (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to those who thought nothing should be done, how do we know that the information they published was actually theirs? I guess I don't have a problem with a 'child/young adult, teen, whatever' displaying their own info (though I'd like to see someone mention to them it's a bad idea), but how can we actually know that it is their information? --Ged UK (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mysticshade back again

User:Dundean19 has just been created and is starting to repeat the disruptive insertion of photographs for which Mysticshade was reported and banned yesterday. Changes on Irish People, Dublin and Dundee illustrate this. The pattern is too similar for it to be a coincidence, we may have a serial sock in the making (some aspects of Mysticshade has aspects of serial sock WIkipiere about the language and mixed celtic/Mediterranean claims. If someone could nip this in the bud it would save several us a lot of time!--Snowded (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was the huge similarity between User:Dundean19's edits and those of a serial sock called User:Nimbley6 (adding images, changing picture sizes, fascination with Scotland and any area tangentially related to Scotland). Looking back at User:Mysticshade their edit summaries seem very similar to Nimbley6 - this edit summary in particular is "classic Nimbley6". Just an observation, but I wonder if Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Nimbley6? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That might be a better guess, the childish language etc would match that and the Scottish link (although it started with Irish articles). Wikipiere and Nimbley6 waste more time than I care to think about for you, me and others. Whatever I'm pretty sure its one of them! --Snowded (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is obviously Mysticshade as well, I have already asked for an admin familiar with this on Commons to block his new account there. O Fenian (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Don't know if you saw this above [9], but all the edits of Mysticshade and Dundean19 fit into the pattern, and blatantly if you ask me, of Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked for socking in sock drawer quantities. I could bring it to Sock investigaions, but really, it looks blatant enough to deal with here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(Addition) Of course, Historian could just be an account in the chain of accounts of a previous sock as well. (Sorry, I missed the earlest contributions of one of the accounts above) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

⬅ and we may have another User:MarshVeld just created, picture edits on Northern Ireland and several POV edits against consensus (Ulster flag etc). --Snowded (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd guess not Nimbley6 - discussions on talk pages aren't Nimbley6's style. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost identical response on my talk page to that of Mysticshade, language and all. --Snowded (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken this to Sockpuppet investigations FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A cup of coffee and a quick invigorating stroll later and it seems CSI:Wikipedia [[10]] thinks MarshVeld == Dundean19 == Mysticshade == Historian19 with a few other old socks added. (Oh, come on, I can't be the first to do the CSI:Wikipedia joke :)) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Possible anon IP making Mysticshade-esque edits here. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• (...and now making "Im[sic] not who you think I am" edits too, just in case anyone was unsure! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Existentially-speaking, I may not be who I think I am either... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And now we have an IP. Ho ho ho. Canterbury Tail talk 12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...and they've admitted they're User:MarshVeld. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...and they're blocked. Thanks, Canterbury Tail! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 1 week (in case it's a rotating IP). Due to the nature of it I had to block all coming off the IP. If some established editors (non-socks) complain I'll review the block, but I thought it best going off the number of socks involved. Canterbury Tail talk 15:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but could User:GreyPoint be another sock? Canterbury Tail talk 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong yup on GreyPoint. Edited a lot of the same articles that Mystic/Historian were on (Dublin, Irish people, List of Scottish Americans) along with image fiddling in Rotterdam and GDP updating in Finland. There is another editor that has made two edits (as of now) that might fit in the pattern, but I think two edits is not enough to be sure, or at the very least, say it out loud.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:HOUND by new? editor User:TWilliams9

TWilliams9 (talk · contribs), a new? editor has, since his arrival on Wikipedia, been subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) following me to various articles. He "arrived" on Feb 13, and by Feb 14 was editing articles I had recently edited. ([11], [12]) By the 15th he was reverting old edits of mine on one article, and trying to insert my username into another.([13] [14] [15] [16]; Note this edit in particular) Yesterday and today he tagged 18 stubs I had created on synagogues for deletion or merger. I've reverted his edits on the stubs, and brought the issue here for further discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

He's obviously a previously blocked troll and should go back to blockland. Wikipedia is not a battleground and not the place to take out grudges.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no one brought this to my attention I am glad that I noticed it after realizing my requests for condensing were deleted. I think it appropriate to borrow a recent quotation from another wikipedia user. TWilliams9 (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's my advice Brewcrewer. Become an extremely prolific and influential editor; get admin and checkuser powers; keep your edits fiercely nationalistic; keep your policy rationales variable, specious, ad hoc, and contradictory; work on developing a more peremptory, imperious, and papal tone toward editors who disagree with you; make hair-trigger edit-warring as basic to your idiom of self-expression as iambic pentameter was to Alexander Pope's; and most importantly, make a 100+ edits a day to dozens of articles on all aspects of the Middle East conflict. Make yourself ubiquitous in that area, and take up any partisan angle you can find within it, no matter how silly. Then, if in your ceaseless, vigilantly ideological patrol of that extensive beat, you find yourself having a number of arguments with the same editors, you'll be in a position to accuse those editors of "stalking" you; with any luck, a fool or two might even believe it.--G-Dett (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer doesn't ned your advice, G-Dett, and I do not see wha your comment has to do with this incident. I assume you are supporting Jayjg's complaint as you haven't offered any explanation for a disturbing pattern of stalking. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The G-Dett quote was added by TWilliams9. Addressing G-Dett is entirely to miss the point; he or she is probably unaware of this teacup-storm. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's G-detts' quote. Although she would probably be insulted that it's being put to use by some troll/sockpuppet. TWilliams9 (talk · contribs): What was your previous username?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I assume you are supporting Jayjg's complaint because you got all worked up you forgot to actually read the posting I made. Brewcrewer don't get your pantys all up in a bunch. As far as this tempest in a teacup I have been editing a lot of IP articles since I joined, so a person could think I was hounding Jayjg. I don't have any prior experience editing on wikipedia but have followed some history of wikipedia by reading the site wikipediareview. I don't think that site is looked kindly upon here but whatever, and there is sort of a go-after-the-new-guy mentality by some here. Ive been learning a lot this week of the ins and outs here, and if you edit articles others are attached then watch out boy! Reading up on wikihounding and then looking at this complaint, I was probably on the border of that for merger request for the Temple articles, I didn't realize that looking at a particular editors contributions when determining who made all those stubs was against the rules here. My proposals of merger were worthy of a discussion, and it is unfortunate that all of those proposals were deleted by the articles creator for an unrelated reason. Also, I was not trying to subtly put Jayjg's username into the CAMERA article, I was trying to expand the description of the events, you can see my discussion of the CAMERA on the discussion page Talk:Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and it is disingenuous to take one edit as an example of hounding. For the Labor Party donation scandal i added a source I knew of, someone reverted that. TWilliams9 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

However, your claims are not credible. You did not simply bump into the articles I had edited in the past simply by "editing a lot of IP articles", but quite obviously followed me to articles in which I was one of the most recent editors. Brad Delson is not an "IP article". In addition, new editors do not figure out how to add templates correctly, or what templates to add, by reading WR. And indeed, you were "not trying to subtly put Jayjg's username into the CAMERA article", you were quite blatantly trying to do, and five edits is not "one edit". Finally, your reverting me on the Labor Party article was a revert, plain and simple. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Plain and simple my edit on the Labor Party article was the addition of a source for the attempt at bettering wikipedia. Your entry [[17]] My Entry [[18]]. When you put "→Abrahams donations: remove unsourced original research)" and someone else comes along and puts the material back but adds in a source to back up the material don't get mad, read the source. Plain and simple it was an edit that was an attempt to better wikipedia. Also wikipedia has these neat features that describe how to use templates and then a nifty gadget called show preview so you can check to see if you did it right! TWilliams9 (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "get mad", and I'm not playing your game. You reverted me on that article, despite your dissembling. Go "attempt to better wikipedia" on the 3 million articles I haven't recently edited. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So the articles you recently edit don't need improvement? That is a pretty bold statement Jayjg. TWilliams9 (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not playing your game. Wikipedia has several thousand active editors and over 3 million articles. Go "attempt to better wikipedia" articles I haven't recently edited. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone involved to adhere to WP:CIVIL, especially on an AN page. THF (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry THF and Brewcrewer. I'm was frustrated that editing IP articles from a different world view but trying to stick to facts gets words like Troll thrown out at you, but that is no excuse for my comments to Brewcrewer, and Brewcrewer I am sorry. Just to get a clarifying on hounding, is it hounding that THF probably followed me over from the Talk:Eden Natan-Zada‎ article, or is that okay? TWilliams9 (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I put some direct and related questions to TWilliams9 on his talk page yesterday and he replied. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Would this be an example of hounding by Wikiwatcher, because I doubt he wound up on this article by any other means than looking at my edits or talk page? I have no disagreement that I looked at some of Jayjg's edits. My edits have been focused on the content, not the contributor, and that is apparent in my edits. The edits have all been to better help the project, not trolling as Brewcrewer put it, but positive edits that I have defended in discussion pages. TWilliams9 (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't "accidentally" show up at the articles I've just been editing, disingenuously claiming that because you've edited all of a dozen I-P related articles, it is somehow inevitable that you will show up at the articles I am editing, including non I-P ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a threat Jayjg and I have no interest in getting in a pissing contest. Are you telling me to check the edit history of articles to see if you changed them 2 months ago before I add a source in? [[19]] Maybe you need to calm down some. TWilliams9 (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite calm, and I'm not playing your game. Wikipedia has over 3 million articles. I'm one of the most recent editors on a few hundred at most. You'll have no trouble avoiding ones where I am one of the most recent editors. Feel free to report back to WR the results of your breaching experiment. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What defines recent? Would you consider this guy off limits from my editing because you edited in 2005? [[20]] TWilliams9 (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm not playing your game. Wikipedia has several thousand active editors and over 3 million articles. Go edit articles I haven't recently edited. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding how tagging some 18 stubs that Jayjg created on synagogues for deletion or merger isn't some form of hounding and/or wikistalking. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the edits you will see I put in a merge section on one of the temples [[21]] then based on this list [[22]] I put the template on all of the stub articles in the list. I used the template that allows up to 20 merge requests on one template and then placed it on all 20 articles to have a centralized discussion. What better way do you suggest? TWilliams9 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been here for nearly a year now and have yet to try to delete stuff. There are patrols for that. I thought new users would come here to expand and write articles, notto dump articles that someone (in this case someone whose name he has brought up in a negative way on Talk pages) else has written. Seems a pretty straightforward case to me. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't try to delete, I tried to merge. TWilliams9 (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

TWilliams tagged a bunch of non-notable articles with a merger talk and created a section to discuss it. Perhaps it's out of line, but he did what he was suppose to as far as the articles go. Just becaue Jayjg created them doesn't suddenly make them immune from TWilliams editing. If I saw them for the first time, I would have tagged them just the same. Grsz¹¹ 04:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously TWillams has been around before. Not just because Jayjg created them, but because anyone could have created them. He seems to be quite hung-up on Jayjg, though. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem TWilliams has been around before and is quite concerned with User:Jayjg's edits. Tagging eighteen of the articles created by the same user user with merge or delete seems not to be a coincidence.—Sandahl (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We have established that Sandahl, and if you read up a few lines you can see why I tagged 18 at once. TWilliams9 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish you were right. His very first edits to Wiki were to an article I work on (see his talk page for more details) and were neither newbie quality nor constructive: (his edits are in bold)

Kazan was a three-time Academy Award winner, a five-time Tony Award]] winner, a four-time Golden Globes winner, a snitch for the House Un-American Activities Committee, as well as a recipient of numerous awards and nominations in other prestigious festivals as the Cannes Film Festival and the Venice Film Festival.

Note how this so-called newbie inserted this text into a list of awards and within the lead itself. He's already hit four articles that I work on. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit to Richard Shelby is not the sign of an editor who wishes to contribute productively to Wikipedia. THF (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hit? Kazan was a snitch. TWilliams9 (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the 10 most famous spies and snitches in history [[23]] " Elia Kazan: Snitch to the stars" probably deserves that in his biography. TWilliams9 (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So what happens with these things? I will stay away from the Temple articles now that others have been informed. For the Camera page I disassociated myself from that a few days ago and the conversation seems to have died out. I will make a promise to try to get as far away from Jayjg's edits as possible, and will not check his edit history or talk page. Sound good Jayjg? Is this matter settled for you?TWilliams9 (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hopefully I will never see you again. . Not as a statement of illwill, but as a sincere statement of my plans to avoid your recent articles and hope the laws of probability hold out. Oh, and I picked that smile from a discussion page today [[24]]. Have a good life mate. TWilliams9 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not resolved

Even if he leaves Jayjg alone, this edit to Richard Shelby is not the sign of an editor who wishes to contribute productively to Wikipedia. Similarly disruptive edits are being made to Fatah[25] (where he is edit-warring against multiple editors' consensus) and Elia Kazan, and there's a systematic pattern of seeking out Israel- and Jewish-related articles and make tendentious edits. E.g., [26], though no other nominee for the Golden Globe has a footnote for this non-controversial information. The merger proposal to Beth Israel was deliberately nonsensical, and then he made remarks on the talk page for discussion of the merger that seem suspiciously like trolling. THF (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you are hounding me, great! I reverted like 4 attempts at vandalism from Richard Shelby including one that said he was in the KKK [[27]]. I made 2 consecutive edits to Kazan, and if you read above CNN has named him as one of the top 10 snitches of all time. The Blaumilch Canal article had no citations at all, it is appropriate to add a fact tag to that. With Fatah you keep lying and then reverting my well sourced information and trying to game the system. For the synagogue merger proposal I didn't realize initially that Beth Isreal was a name like St. Mary's, I thought it was some denomination. Once this was pointed out, my response was not trolling. You opposed as proposed, so I proposed something else, seems like the logical next step. It appears you are taking great joy in harassing me THF. Reverting other users relevant information [[28]] and your edit summary here [[29]] could leave people wonder if you are trying to push a POV. Its good that you point this out [[30]] AFTER you make edits to articles. TWilliams9 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That you make one or two non-controversial and trivial anti-vandalism edits for every disruptive edit you make does not make you a net positive to the project. That you come on to this page to defend your Elia Kazan edit and identify three legitimate edits I've made to complain about me further proves my point. THF (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree, THF. What's also not resolved, if not actively avoided, is the "?" in the heading of this entire section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

By avoid you probably mean only 4 responses by me. [[31]] [[32]] [[33]] [[34]]. TWilliams9 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2009

(UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not what I probably mean. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And now he's retaliating by arbitrarily reverting edits I make, complete with fake edit summaries. Why do we tolerate this? When does WP:DUCK come into play? THF (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FAKE edit summaries? What is a fake edit summary? Please calm down THF and lay off the personal attacks. [[35]]. TWilliams9 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, most of this dude's edits are to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Enough said. If not he's being outright disruptive he's being clingy to editors. A perusal of his edits indicates that he has no interest in being productive here at Wikipedia. In any case, his problems clearly outweigh any sort of benefit we can get from him. We can sit here at another ANI thread in a week or we can just get rid of this editor. I guess it depends on whether we want to improve this encyclopedia or not.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of my edits today and yesterday are on this one thread because I have been forced to defend myself. I try to add relevant information into articles [[36]] and [[37]] and for that I am called a troll, a duck, a POV pusher, and a anti-Isreal editor. [[38]]. I think I have remained remarkably calm and civil despite insults and personal attacks. TWilliams9 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you by any chance ever think about why you, and not other editors, are always being forced to defend yourself here? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well since this whole thread is about me that would be a good reason. I will not speculate on others motives. TWilliams9 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Restored after edited out, by accident? [[39]]

I will also point out that THF followed my to Fatah, Eden Natan-Zada, the US Senate, Richard Shelby, Sam Seder, Jeff Ballabon, Maxim restaurant suicide bombing, and Blaumilch Canal. If you think I am getting a little attached to him its because he won't get his hands off my butt, pardon the expression. TWilliams9 (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you didn't think about it.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it sort of speaks for itself. Did you think about it long before giving out this award? [[40]]. TWilliams9 (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeping focus

It seems that the key issue is the one that started this discussion and there is one logical next step. Much of the above discussion has shown obvious signs and as I pointed out to TWilliams9 on his talk page, he caught my attention when he edited the Sergey Brin article. Two sock puppets were banned over the last few weeks; another suspected one I spoke to stopped all editing; and the next day TWilliams appears. Duck? I think we may be dealing with a whole flock! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a link to these Sockpuppet reports?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For your duck files. NB also the WP:NPA violation here. Very tiresome. THF (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead an block me, brewcrewer it looks like you have the power to do so. I don't enjoy the hounding from people whose articles I edit and from the anti-newbie bias. Trying to put in a NPOV edit in an IP article is impossible once the POV pushing anti-Palestinian cabal. Its on to bigger and better things for me. TWilliams9 (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Notepad ready, Brewcrewer?

MichelleSBernard was the first to get banned, followed soon after by I5kfun. A week later MorningYoga appeared. Having by then become better at recognizing ducks, I asked him early on about his prior Wiki expierence, as I just did with TWilliams9. He soon stopped editing. The very next day, however, appeared TWilliams9. They were all doing annoying edits to the Brin article.

I should add that on two other articles, Herman Mankiewicz and Lee Strasberg, I5kfun also became a disruptive multi-tagger and edit warrior who quickly solicited and/or got the support of both Norton and Tom. Tom, I should point out, also engaged in edit wars with me on 9 out of 12 articles I was working on last month, including Sergey Brin. Their edit/disruption style and discussion language bore close resemblance. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom was also the first one to edit his Talk page and welcome TWilliams9 as a new user to Wikipedia.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a bit complicated. Weren't Tom and MichelleSBernard at each other's throats due to the latter's BLP-violative edits?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MichelleSBernard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), followed by I5kfun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), then MorningYoga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and later TWilliams9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), supported by Threeafterthree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? seicer | talk | contribs 01:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after comparing the edits of all of the users involved, I'm indefinitely blocking TWilliams9 as a likely sockpuppet of MichelleSBernard. seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Been following this thread and might I suggest a checkuser? Seems the logical next step. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 01:54

I argued for his block long before this sockpuppetry issue arose so I clearly support. I don't know how these blocks work but we should clearly block his IP, not just his username.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: brewcrewer's question, "This is getting a bit complicated. Weren't Tom and MichelleSBernard at each other's throats due to the latter's BLP-violative edits?"

They were. And it had me fooled for weeks! After reading up on sock puppets I learned about "straw puppets" and "meat puppets." That would have explained most of what was happening - a performance! I propose we add the term WP:Hydra to the Wiki dictionary since we may have discovered a new species.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re - block of TWilliams9 as a sockpuppet of MichelleSBernard

Note that MichelleSBernard was also a new user who claimed to not have any experience, despite submitting an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Kotecki as one of their first edits. Bernard was apparently not a puppetmaster, just another puppet IMO. Should we call in 007 for this one?

BTW, one of the aforementioned users twice last week sent me a virus posing as a Wiki "New Message" alert. The first time it took down my computer until I found and removed it. The second attempt I blocked and I also saved the source code, with the virus easily spotted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Post-block observations

THF pointed out to me on my talk page earlier about another user, Jabam (talk · contribs) and its potential connection to the above. Well, this morning I noticed that Threeafterthree (talk · contribs), aka Tom, edited two articles I just worked on, Jeff Bezos and Elia Kazan. He also just edited Jeff Ballabon, which, as THF noticed, was also edited by both Jabam (talk · contribs) and (now blocked) TWilliams9 (talk · contribs).

IMO, this has gone way beyond mere coincidence. Can anyone check on these links? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Antisemitic incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Resolved

 – the article has been restored. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

has been deleted by User:William M. Connolley, despite a deletion discussion that ended with a keep, see [41]. He claims that there is to much edit warring going on and that all those voting keep then go away and don't help keep the article in order, see [42]. That is absolutely not true, as several editors, including me improved the article and tried to enforce Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and neutrality. And since when is edit warring a reason to delete an article? Does this mean that I can get an article deleted by just edit warring on the article? Afroghost (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Connolley's account must be compromised. I would suggest blocking the account pending further clarification.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I can assume you that I'm still the same me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain where you come off deleting an article out of process, when the AfD resulted in a 'keep'. NoCal100 (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a POV fork. Process is not really as important as our core goal of neutrality. I did not see neutrality mentioned in the delete reason, but is sure is a good one. There is always WP:DRV. Chillum 22:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

did it not strike you as just a bit ironic to be suggesting to take this to the process of DRV, having just declared that process is not really important? why bother with AfD, if any admin can just delete articles he doesn't like? NoCal100 (talk)

Same happened with the article Pro-Turkism, also triggered by a 3RR report, see [43]. Afroghost (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete P-T William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just rechecked WP:3RR and WP:DP, just to be sure, and no, neither of them say you can delete an article to deal with an edit war. I see no way of escaping the conclusion that an administrator has violated Wikipedia policy and abused his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Where has the article gone? Chesdovi (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's a dreadful POV fork - amongst other issues - which probably shouldn't have been kept (precis should've been merged into the main article), but even given the ridiculous edit-war magnet that it's become, William shouldn't have deleted it over an AfD. That's what we have DRV for. I have restored it and fully protected it for 3 days to give some breathing space. Can editors please suggest some way of sorting the problems out on the talk page? I am prepared to extend the protection if necessary. Black Kite 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You should no more have restored it without DRV than William should have deleted it without AfD. Lets not have any more back and forth with this, I hate it when admins go reverting each other without a decent attempt to come to agreement first. Chillum 23:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. DRV is for review of in-process deletions and deletion discussions. This wasn't one. Black Kite 23:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DRV is only for "in process" deletions? Where is that written? What is process anyways? Chillum 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not always happy with Connolley's decisions (two to be exact), but then again I think he makes these difficult choices in order to retain neutrality, so I commend him for that. It is true the article is an edit war mess, we have had 2 AfDs. It is also true that the overwhelming majority of people voted keep yet most of them were not involved in the article and related articles before and after the AfDs. I do think Jalopenos and Afroghost have made an effort to fix the article but the article is a POV fork, it would be futile to salvage it. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a POV fork, it's reasonably sourced but 80% of it is a litany of news stories. I'd suggest that editors urgently look into merging a summary of the article (most of it could be condensed into "Anti-semitic incidents were reported from many countries") into the main article. Black Kite 23:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks BlackKite for the swift action. I completely disagree though with your claim that this is a POV fork. As it has been discussed during the deletion discussion, ending with at best no consensus whether it is one or not, I am not going to start this discussion again. This is not the right place for this discussion. And it is definitely not up to a single admin to make this decision and to delete (and in fact his reason was just edit warring). Doing so was a blatant abuse of admin powers, and the willingness to accept this abuse means that from now I will stop editing here. I tried my best to insist on good sources and neutral wording, and as my edits show I was willing to delete any edits regardless from which side they were if they did not conform to this policies. Good luck with your project, I am done. Bye. Afroghost (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish Wikipedia had the solidarity to keep obvious violations of neutrality out of here. Even the title makes it clear the article seeks to espouse a particular point of view and the content only supports that idea. Often these things are quickly and correctly deleted, but you get enough people arguing that it is a legitimate point of view and we are stuck with it. I got news, the only legitimate point of view here is the neutral point of view, that that article ain't even close. It is not a neutral presentation of ideas, just one that has enough support to let the vote override policy(which is should not). Chillum 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm Afroghost is going on a vandalism rampage. He is blanking random article pages. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Black Kite 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

At least that one problem in Wikipedia has been swiftly dealt with. Afroghost has been blocked. Chillum 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Afroghost should not be permanently blocked. All he needs is a cool down block for say 12-24 hours. I kinda understand why he went a little nuts. An article that he has worked so hard on gets deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? If something permanent should be done it should be the removal of admin powers from User:William M. Connolley, who with a horrific display of power abuse deleted an article that survived two afd's because he decided it was a POV fork.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I indeffed, but I'm sure an unblock would be granted if he came back and said "sorry, got a bit pissed off there - won't happen again". I'd rather not limit it to a short block just in case he is so incensed he does it again. Black Kite 00:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock the guy vandalizing and desysop the admin who deleted a POV fork? good luck with that campaign. That being said if the user is apologetic, then indef does not mean infinite. Chillum 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bkite: That might be reasonable. But am I missing something here? An admin just displayed the most egregious abuse of admin-power I have yet to see here at Wikipedia and noone is saying peep? I must be missing something here. No? --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dudes, VfDs are not real votes or even polls, they are certainly not binding on admins. An admin has to use his ro her good judgmen in deleting an artcle. The importance of the VfD is not any vote, but a mechanism for eliciting reasons for keeping or not keeping it (a good reason that has one vote carries a lot of weight, a bad reason - I mean interms of policy - that gets 50 votes has no weight; it is the reasoning, not the quantity of votes, that matters) an artcle. Why would anyone thing this is a compromised account? Can we calm down and focus on policy here? A POV fork should be deleted practically on spot. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was not deleted as a result of an AFD, rather a violation of 3RR?!! Chesdovi (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that Admins get to use discretion when closing an AFD. However, the AFD was already closed as keep by another admin. Connolley came in after the AFD was closed, and went and unilaterally deleted it anyway despite the consensus to keep. It is a flagrant abuse of the tools, and although I usually agree with the decisions he makes, this is not something that can go unnoticed. I have seen William confirm that it was him that did it, but I have not seen him provide any sort of justification for going over the head of an AFD. Yes, it may be a terrible POV fork, but we have processes for dealing with that. Unilateral deletion overruling an AFD is not the way to go about fixing it. I agree that some sort of sanctions should take place. Maybe not permanently losing the tools, but something needs to happen to prevent such a flagrant abuse form happening again.Firestorm ^Talk 02:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately, we can not desysop without arb com involvement. I would suggest asking for it only in the admin involved declines to make a commitment to avoid such deletes in the future. DGG (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he should be desysop'd. Of course, i'm not saying he shouldn't, either. I can't suggest a course of action until he tells us exactly why he did what he did, which he has not done yet. A very stern warning at the very least is needed, and depending on his justification, pursuing a desysopping might be for the betterment of the wiki. That said, I would really hate to see that happen, because William has, in general, been a positive force on the wiki. Frankly, I was surprised to find out that he did this, because it just doesn't sound like him. So exactly what sort of sanctions I would suggest depends on how he justifies the deletion. Firestorm ^Talk 04:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometime things get closed wrong. Sometimes things that should be deleted are restored. Sometimes Wikipedia has non-neutral articles as a result. If an admin tries to fix that and then gets reverted for being out of process, it is not a failing, just a good attempt. Chillum 02:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

of course an admin can try to fix non-neutral articles-- just as any other editor-- through editing, the talk page, RfC, and the rest of dispute resolution. But he has no power as an admin to do anything about it, except to enforce what the community decides to do. DGG (talk) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: the deletion policy technically doesn't disallow unilateral deletion. I actually applaud WMC for taking a more proactive stance in deleting NPOV-violating content such as this. We need to be more proactive. It's all fine and good saying there's no deadline, and that all NPOV problems can be sorted through editing, but I always felt that was too optimistic. Sometimes, you just can't fix something. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If unilateral deletion of articles for AfDs that closed as keep is okay, then I hope unilateral restoration of articles even if an AfD closed as delete is also okay. :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing the AfD as keep was a unilateral move. It is not like the closing admin was relying on numbers here, s/he had to use her/his own judgment. Connolley probably disagrees with the closing admin's decision, so it is one admin's opinion against another. On a related note I think there should be at least three admins to determine what the result of an AfD should be.

An admin unilaterally deleting an article that has survived an AFD is violating policy. The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion policy is clear that "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." An admin like anyone else can argue in an AFD for deletion or take a decision to deletion review if they disagree that the closure was correct, they cannot just say my view is better than yours and delete regardless of what the community says in an AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

deleted by an admin unilaterally because he feels its a POV fork? - errm no. Where did you get that from. I gave my reasoning quite clearly on the 3RR page: Edit warring disaster area. I'm not sure I SD'd it either: I just deleted it. I wasn't claiming any of the SD criteria applied William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

William: Are we to understand that you will do the same in the future?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Just my 2 cents. Something that has bugged my since I first joined WP is this whole thing/process about "what stays" around here, be it articles, lists, "material" or whatever is that the ownous(sp) is on the parties that want to remove in stead of the other way around. I admitt I am a deltionist/minimalist, but shouldn't consensus be for what belongs here and not for what should be removed? Anyways, just my venting and I have no opinion on the amnins action or article per say. Thanks, --Tom 14:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than farting about here, how about if we work on that article to remove anything which is not explicitly identified as anti-semitic by a source other than Zionist newspapers and commentators? That's the fundamental problem with it, the assertion by Israelis that everything done to them is necessarily antisemtic, as if their actions against the Palestinians whose lands they illegally occupy in defiance of UN resolutions is wholly free of racist motives, while any retaliation by those they are rather brutally oppressing is motivated solely by racism. Or perhaps we should simply rename it to reflect the fact that these are actions against Israel, and reference the (no doubt equally problematic) Anti-Arab incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Oh, wait, that's a redlink. Who'd have thought? Guy (Help!) 19:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • or preferably, just chopping out the entire laundry list of events and merging the rest (not much) into the main article, which is where it should've been in the first place? I'm beginning to wish I'd left it deleted now. Black Kite 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Um what? This didn't have any original research issues. There were general articles discussing the anti-semitic nature of much of these attacks. This isn't about "Zionism." Nor if this at at all about whether or not the Israeli government's actions are motivated by racism. That's a completely separate topic. (No matter how racist the Israeli government it would not make any of these attacks any less anti-semitic) If there are sources for Anti-Arab incidents during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict by all means go write that article. In any event, this is besides the point. These are arguments for an AfD or a DRV. Oh wait. We had that. It was closed as keep because the community consensus was that it was possible to write a carefully written, neutral article on this topic and that there were sufficient sources. The issue here is that that article was then deleted out of process. That's not ok. If you disagree wait a month or two and try another AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion seems to be getting rather POINTY. I think we should wait until William can justify his actions in a detailed manner. I would like to hear him say exactly why he thinks that deleting what he sees as a battleground for editwarring over the head of two AFDs falls within policy, or at least within his interpretation of policy. William is known throughout the wiki as a good contributor and administrator, and something this radical seems out of character. I'm sure (at least, I hope) that he had a good reason beyond what he originally specified. The case might need a trip up to ArbCom, or it might just need a stern warning. Until William gives us more detail on his rationale, I can't be sure. Firestorm ^Talk 22:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I move that any arguments about the relation between anti-zionism and anti-semitism, or arguments as to whether such a relation exists, or arguments as to whether or not it is anti-semitic to say such a relation exists, or arguments on what is or is not an occupation, or what is or is not an illegal occupation, or what is or is not proportional response, what is or is not terrorism, . . . be banned from this page. Nableezy (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling the article a POV fork is incorrect. The 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is about an armed conflict. This article is about antisemitism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm frankly not sure what I feel about the article itself, but I think the best analysis was that of Mangojuice in the Deletion Review after the first AfD. [44], where--among other things--he dismisses the forking question as a side issue. The question is not whether or not the article can remain. The question is whether or not an administrator has the right to remove articles out of policy and against the clear and expressed consensus. the answer is fairly obvious, at least to me: the results of such actions if accepted would be chaos. I would have hoped the admin in question would simply admit the error, either explicitly or tacitly by agreeing that he wouldn't do such again even though he might still feel he was justified. I suggest we give him another day to think about the implications of his explicit refusal. I recall that the article in question is subject to arb com discretionary sanctions [45], and that on that basis alone, arbitrary action without any basis in policy was particularly unwise. DGG (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing with the previous comment: there is a lot of noise in this discussion coming from people who have issues with the article. The place to voice those issues is/was the article's talk page and the article's AfD page, which was closed as keep. The noise should not distract us from the actual subject of this noticeboard discussion, which is the fact that an administrator deleted this article to deal with an edit war, thus apparently violating WP policy and abusing his administrative powers. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

We just had an AFD a couple of days ago and it concluded with keep. Those who claim POV-fork should go to the latest AFD where most, if not all, of the popular criticisms were dismissed cordially. This is a clear breach in protocol for an administrator to simply delete an article after an extensive review which resulted in keep, overwhelmingly if I recall. I'm not disputing William's claims and perhaps they have merit, but they have all been thoroughly discussed at the afd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should try and keep this discussion limited to the question of whether or not William abused his power. I, and I think several other people, have been waiting for William to provide a detailed rationale for going against policy and consensus in this manner. As of yet, he has not given us one. He has been logged in and contributed to other parts of the project since this discussion began, and is clearly aware of the discussion (having already commented in it). Since he's such a big net positive for the wiki, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and give him one more day to provide a detailed analysis of his rationale. If he doesn't, then i'll take that as a refusal to do so. Unfortunately, in that case, I would have to take the incident up to ARBCOM. I really hope he gives a reasoning, because I don't want to report him to arbcom. As I have said several times, I have a lot of respect for William, and I don't want to slay one of the last WikiDragons left. I'll leave a message on his talk page, in case he is no longer watching this discussion. Firestorm ^Talk 03:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. It is completely possible to think that this deletion wasn't a hot idea and should be undone without having a lynching. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be taken very seriously is he doesn't apologize and promise not to pull this stunt in the future. I did ask him point blank at his talkpage about this. I got back a somewhat cryptic response, but it seemed like he agreed not to do this type of stuff again. See for yourselves: User talk:William M. Connolley#Question.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much that he deleted it anymore, it is now that he has not provided an explanation of it. There are quite a few people here that want to know why he did it, and he isn't telling us beyond a non-rationale about edit warring. Firestorm ^Talk 04:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided my reasonning: Edit warring disaster area. Do you want me to invent some other reasons? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

re: deletion policy WP:DP"If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." and "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to . . ." seems to allow quite a bit of room for admins to use their own judgment when deleting pages. wc did just that. another admin undeleted, and now there should be a discussion at deletion review if someone wishes to nominate it. there should not be a 'call for his head' as this discussion seems to be doing. there seems to be a tremendous lack of good faith here. untwirl (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl is a single purpose account, who has consistently engaged in discussing his/her negative views of opposing editors (ie WP:NPA) rather than discussing article content, while finding nothing but good in those who support this user's editing goals. Considered in that context, this accusation of "lack of good faith" against other users becomes rather amusing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, what you wrote about Untwirl may be more applicable to some other editors involved in this thread incl. the one who started this discussion, and you probably knew this Zencv ^{Lets discuss} 18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

malcolm, one only needs to review your block log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMalcolm_Schosha) and this comment in particular to discover who is "engaged in discussing his/her negative views of opposing editors." if you have a problem with the content of my comment, please say so. otherwise, i'll thank you to cease with your repeated attacks against me personally. untwirl (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When one of my daughters was in college, she had a friend who's grandfather was one of the Chicago Seven. That was far from his only arrest and trial either. Do you think that make him a bad person? And even if his crimes had been nothing better than break-ins, do you think that mean he would never deserve respect, and forever treated with disrespect? (And remember what occurs here is only wiki-crimes, and being sent into wiki-exile means nothing outside of WP.

Personally, I think that was a good friend for my daughter to have, and I have a lot of respect for her grandfather...even though I do not agree with many of his views, nor all of his acts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

admin noticeboards arent the place for personal stories or blog entries. stick to content. untwirl (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC) replied on your talk page. untwirl (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, remember when I brought a complaint here about edit warring, and you and another user, filled up a lot of space on this page with accusations about my bad character? That had nothing to do with the complaint, because I had not been edit warring. (If you do not remember I can give the link.) Why do you think it was good for you to do what you did then at length, and think it bad for me to now do something similar in in brief?

here is the discussion you misrepresent. [46] in it, you accused another editor of edit warring on an article in which your first three edits ([47],[48],[49]) were to revert info from the lead without discussion. i made no accusations about your character, only listed your actions. take this back to your talk page, please. untwirl (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the diffs you supplied make it clear that I was not edit warring, and that I tried to resolve the dispute by moving the disputed material to the talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Deleting against consensus -IS- wrong, but everyone deserves a bad day. An admin who makes one definitely wrong decision and backs down is a lot less worrisome than one who regularly makes questionable decisions and doesn't. If admins try to be better than human and never do the former, they risk becoming the latter.
(I'm not trying to make coy insinuations; I have absolutely no one in mind wrt the latter hypothetical admin in the comparison.) arimareiji (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that William has not backed down, has not expressed any regret, and has not said that he will refrain from doing the exact same thing in the future. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if an article that is plagued by constant edit warning warrants a deletion, Connolley thinks it is a valid reason and he has provided that as his rationale three times now. *If* it is not a valid reason as determined by Wiki policies, then one admin, preferably BlackKite, can reveal that to him and to ask him to refrain from making such deletions. I think the deletion was made in good faith, and it should be treated as such. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

216.165.12.158

Can someone please have a look at this report at WP:AE: [50] with regard to massive disruption across multiple articles in the arbcom ruling covered area? Armenia - Azerbaijan topics were a subject to at least 2 arbcom cases, the last one being Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. The anon user 216.165.12.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been edit warring across a large number of articles on these topics within the last two days. As one can see, his contributions are nothing but edit warring, replacing the name of the town of Shusha with Shushi and Russian empire with Nagorno-Karabakh. Urgent admin intervention is required. Grandmaster 05:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also chack if I (my IP is 83.217.248.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) have any connection with that IPuser? And I would be vary thankful if the result would be reported as an answer of Grandmaster's accusation here. --Vacio (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I never said that you were the same person as the anonymous user. I just said that it was very strange how this IP appeared out of nowhere and joined the edit war that you started over the name of the city. Grandmaster 12:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be connected to edit warring by Baki66, an editor who does few regular edits but seems to like making sudden busts of mass attacks on articles, removing valid material for POV reasons. Edits by 216.165.12.158 are mostly (maybe all) associated with edits made by Baki66. Meowy 23:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip

Resolved

...as much as it will be here. Until there's evidence of policy violation with consensus supporting the policy violations, there's nothing here not but You Said, No You Said, I Didn't Say, Spammer, No u, No U, and so on. This should go to RFC, linking back to this when it archives. rootology (C)(T) 23:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

---

File:TIME Magazine September 17 1951 cover.jpg

Is this the beginning of WikiWar III, or is it simply an indication of more senseless drama? Stay tuned!

The user Ikip is currently on a mass canvassing spree of the article rescue squadron. He has tagged dozens hundreds of user talk pages with an invitation to join the group. I messaged him about it before but he promptly reverted my edit without explanation. When pressed further, he engaged me in a discussion on my talk page. Just a few minutes ago he started again and I left another message on his talk page. ~50 invites later (which happened in the course of less than 10 minutes) I sent him another message. Clearly he is ignoring me so I'm coming here to report it. I'm not sure if this is the right place, so I apologize if this post is off-board.

Ikip has a clear battleground mentality here, and the ARS is often thought of as an inclusionist partisan organization. Ikip is sending out invites to the ARS to what appears to be everybody with a template identifying themselves as an inclusionist. This is clearly gaming the system in an attempt to flag down more "keep" votes to the articles that the ARS tags as being in need of "rescue". Besides being on a massive scale, his postings are biased (only "inclusionist" users get the message), and they clearly are meant as an attempt at vote-stacking. This behaviour violates nearly all of WP:CANVASS.

A sample edit of what he has been doing is here. Here's another. Themfromspace (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip should stop and address this here. I will write a message -- Samir 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well ARS used to be non "partisan." Just noting that it wasn't always to blatantly slanted. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed and troubled by this, and I'd rather see a decrease in the partisanship than anything else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it was slanted when I added a Userbox for it ages ago. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 06:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Note, Ikip just declined our conversation. Something must said to him before he continues tomorrow. This has gone on for several days now in hour long bursts. And no, in theory the ARS isn't biased, but just look at what happens when an article gets tagged for rescue: the same few people jump in and invariably vote to "keep" the article. In practise it's very slanted. Themfromspace (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what harm there is. I didn't even know about this organization until he stuck it on my talk page. MalikCarr (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The harm is that he's gaming the system. By sending the template only to users with the "inclusionist" template on their page, his posts are biased. Also they are mass-scale, and can be seen to be used to influence AfD debates since ARS is structured around those debates. Themfromspace (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Themfromspace, I am sure that you are only concerned about the project, and this has nothing to do with your userbox on your user page, err i mean views of wikipedia.

Please note that A Man In Black, like Themfromspace and LeaveSleaves, have polar opposite views than I do. A Man In Black and I frequent the same policy pages.

I have gotten nothing but positive responses from the editors that I have posted this invitation on. I love WP:ARS because we save articles by adding references, making wikipedia a better stronger encyclopedia. For example, I found and added 8 great references to Ndaba kaMageba and asked the nominator to close the AfD nomination today.

Ikip (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want WP:ARS to turn into Inclusion Squad Hyper Team Go. I want it to be the project that saves articles by referencing them. That's a Good Thing, and it's been a Good Thing ever since I praised ARS at its first MFD. Why are you spamming inclusionists only, when that's going to overwhelm any neutrality the project ever had? Why are you spamming anyone at all? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it is "spamming"? Is posting Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is canvassing? How about the other 260 templates that everyone here is ignoring? See the policy discussion about what is and what is not canvassing below.

Why does [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam post their tag to those editors who remove linkspam from Wikipedia?

Lets be honest A man in black, you vote mostly delete on the AfD circuit, I don't. I have never seen you improve an article when it is in AfD. I am sure you have done it, but I have never seen it. So your praise of ARS seems a little bit...you fill in the blank.Ikip (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That project is not politically controversial, and nobody has used it to advertise for political partisans. I have difficulty believing your intentions weren't political when your response to any criticism of your conduct is to accuse your critics of opposing your politics. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As another note (mostly to themfromspace), it is entirely legitimate for a user to remove messages without comment from their talk page. It may seem brusque or uncivil, but it is within his rights to do so and we shouldn't use his lack of a response to the original message as a hint of malign intent. Protonk (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I should point out a previous instance of such postings by Ikip. During the RfC at WP:FICTION, Ikip posted a number of messages on various talk pages of articles related to fiction. My request to stop did not deter him/her from continuing. ^LeaveSleaves 07:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

LeaveSleaves, you forgot to mention that the neutral message was okayed with two administrators before it went out, and that it was only posted on episode and character pages, no user talk page. Pages I might add which were going to be dramatically affected by WP:FICT. You also forgot to mention that you have polar opposite POV than I do on WP:FICT, and that you have been actively digging through my edits for dirt, and you attempted to get me in trouble not three days ago here. Ikip (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, for some reason, you are conflating LeaveSleaves and Flatscan. While we both approached you regarding the WP:FICT notices, we are distinct editors. My concern was not the wording of your notice, but the number of article Talk pages on which you posted it: around 165 notices when I counted, and more later, stopping just before Kww threatened to report you on AN/I. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As Flatscan pointed out Ikip, we are distinct editors. I have very limited involvement at WP:FICT. In fact, I did not even participate in the said RfC. My concern was with the speed and number of posts you were making on article talk pages. Unfortunately you did no deem it necessary to respond to my concern. My interaction with you is limited to that single message I posted on your talk page, until now. I have no interest in "digging through [your] edits for dirt". ^LeaveSleaves 07:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I gladly joined his group, and I'm looking forward to working with it. I don't see what rule he violated by sending me an invitation. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

According to his user page, User:Themfromspace is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Here is there template to invite new Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam users:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I used this very WikiProject Spam tag to design the polite template I messaged to select users tonight:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is one of 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates templates, which you will find on thousands of editors talk pages. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for turning the argument directly against me. The problem here isn't the templates themselves but how they are used. I have never once used the template you associate me with. You have used yours on a massive scale. Not only that, but an incredibly partisan scale. Wikiproject spam isn't partisan at all and gets next to no opposition from the Wikipedia community while the ARS has been subject to deletion discussions several times. You have an agenda behind your postings, thats what makes it canvassing. Themfromspace (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I'm sure inviting indef blocked users to join the cause really helps</sarcasm> --Versageek 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed, please let me know if there are any other cases. Ikip (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly don't understand the need for this page to begin with. After all, the obvious places to go for expertise and/or input regarding articles on obscure and/or specialised subjects in need of expert help to bring them into compliance with Wikipedia standards should the boards of Wikiprojects which are directly related to the subject matter. From the looks of that page, it might be better re-titled the 'Every Sperm is Sacred Article Vote-Stacking Squadron'. And with the blatant canvassing, even more so. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's unfair and a violation of WP:AGF. I have no particular association with the Article Rescue Squadron, but I've seen a few AfD's in which they've tagged an article for rescue; most recently, Perley G. Nutting. I don't recall ever seeing a problem with vote stacking in such a case (and may I remind you, AfDs are not votes); what I have seen is improvement to the article under discussion, from a point where it looked plausibly speediable to a point where it was obvious that it should be kept. I think such efforts should be greatly encouraged. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's perfectly fair and an observation of actual behaviour. The reaction to criticism and personal opinion, by the way, ought not be the knee-jerk misapplying of initialisms like WP:AGF to stifle view-points you don't like. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • It's possibly an observation of a tiny minority of editors' actual behaviours. But it's far from the purpose of Article Rescue. One of the fundamental principles underlying article rescue is that if one doesn't edit the article to make it better, one isn't actually rescuing it. One is simply being an AFD discussion participant. Article rescue is article work, and it doesn't require discussion participation, especially if multiple rescuers are collaborating. I've rescued several articles without making any contribution to the AFD discussion other than a horizontal rule to show where in the timeline of the discussion I Kerrrzappp!ed the article. Indeed, at NEAT chipset (AfD discussion) I rescued an article with no edits to the discussion at all.

        Article rescue isn't an "-ism" of any flavour except "encyclopaedism". (On a side note I observe, again, that I've never seen a use of "deletionist" or "inclusionist" that wasn't involved in calling other editors names.) One rescues what can be rescued, at times taking joy in the amazement of others at what turns out to be possible. If the actions of one editor, or a group of editors, turns Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron into a ballot-stuffing mob, intent on flash-crowding AFD discussions and doing no article work at all, as existed (much to the detriment both of Wikipedia and its community) in years gone by with a few subjects before we settled down with reasonable ideas about notability, that doesn't mean that article rescue is the problem. It means that those editors will have ceased to be article rescuers, and the instigators of that change will have not served the encyclopaedia, or AFD, well.

        I suggest that you don't observe the unrepresentative, albeit vocal, tiny minority of editors whose focus is to call other editors names with "-ism"s, and start observing the actual article rescues peformed by article rescuers, from Lampman's work at List of United States presidents by handedness (AfD discussion) to those listed at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#Selected previous rescues. That is what article rescue is, any and all of the hot air from "-ism" name callers notwithstanding. Uncle G (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip and WP:ARS advertising

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard, as User:Neutralhomer suggested [51] where User:A Man In Black was ironically advertising this issue. Ikip (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't exactly place my finger on why, but I'm troubled by Ikip (talk · contribs) advertising the Article Rescue Squadron project on dozens of talk pages of users who have inclusionist userboxes on their page. I don't want to turn this into a whole inclusionist/deletionist hairball, and I would appreciate it if people would stay away from "Inclusionism is okay, so this is okay" or "Inclusionism is bad, so this is bad." That said, I'm troubled by the warping affect on AFD.

The project maintains a widely-transcluded list of borderline AFDed articles. Unlike topical lists, there are no criteria for placement on that list other than a member of the project wanting the rest of the project to look at that article. This wouldn't bother me so much, except that "throw out the deletionist" rhetoric is common on the talk page, the project page links a variety of inclusionist essays prominently, and Ikip just advertised the project to everyone he could find that self-identifies as an inclusionist.

I brought up similar concerns at WT:Canvassing and the project's talk page, with little result and mostly unreassuring scorn from the same people doing the things that concern me. I'm not opposed to this project in theory, but I keep seeing signs of it turning into a partisan canvassing project. Could I get some input here? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of swift input would be appreciated; Ikip has now tagged hundreds of talk pages in the last fifteen minutes or so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed another user has brought this very subject up on AN/I. You might want to combine the two posts on the high-traffic AN/I. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 23, 2009 @ 06:39

This is ANI. Might want to fix your copy-and-paste. =P —kurykh 06:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:AN, and we can discuss this further at WP:ANI#Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I posted at the wrong place. Now I look like an idiot. —kurykh 06:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It is this - "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." that is disturbing. If that was deleted, it might be acceptable along with all the other Project invitations. The bottom line is either we remove the project or we let them have a project invitation like other projects. I am in favour of not removing the project but hoping it will get more NPOV, so the invitation needs cleaning up. Bduke (Discussion) 07:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I will happily remove it, if you wish. I added that line because of a suggestion from User:Themfromspace: "The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization (in theory)."[52] I added that in the hope of appeasing him. I am very open to new suggestions and criticisms. Ikip (talk) 07:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here. ARS has the express purpose of improving articles - why is that bad? And who would you invite to join - expressed inclusionists; expressed deletionists; every possible editor? Obviously inclusionists might be more inclined to look at the project and decide to make significant contributions to poor articles. This is not a matter of winning the keep/delete !vote, it's about getting lots of quality articles. Any "canvassing" is not designed to achieve any result other than improvement. That's still a good thing, right? Franamax (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For me the canvassing would be OK if everyone who got a message only improved the article and did not vote - in the end let the closing admin decide if you had done enough. If they vote it is obvious they would only vote one way and that is illeagle canvasing.Giggles4U (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not in what the ARS claims to be, but in what it is. Looking at the talk page, it's quite clear that whatever the initial goals were, this has become a "political" organisation. Posts such as this, this and this are what worry me. There's nothing wrong with editors having opinions, but a semi-offical (there's a link to their WP:RESCUE on the AFD page) club used to organise "pushes" is more worrying. yandman 08:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before with the ARS - it certainly does good work on rescuing some articles, but it wouldn't be helpful to have the situation recur where AfD-closing admins were having to discount reams of Keeps on AfDs of clearly non-notable articles because people had got over-enthusiastic. Black Kite 08:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting tht closing admins simply count votes abd discount the discussions? If An admin sees 5 unadorned or ILIKEIT keeps, and one cogent and well discussed reason for delete, whi is the admin going to pay attention to? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't happen, but yes it occasionally does. My point is more that it shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Black Kite 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, ARS specifically gets a wide berth because their goals are to save articles and their methods are to (ostensibly) improve the article rather than simply join the debate. When that second point ceases to be the case, we need to look at them just as hard as we would look at a "Deletion squadron", noting borderline AfDs which might benefit from some deletionist input. Protonk (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's ironic that Ikip is canvassing [53] [54] this very discussion to users who have given him positive feedback about his template, also labelling me a "deletionist" at the same time. Will the battle ever end? He is urging people to come here and voice their support. Themfromspace (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Those two users just joined ARS, I wanted to let them know about the wikidrama you are stoking, and that you were opposed to me letting them know about WP:ARS. I am adding perfectly permissible invitations to other editors talk pages, which have nothing to do with you, and you are causing massive wikidrama, and creating the WP:BATTLE. As I wrote on your talk page: "I am indifferent to what you do in your free time, including contacting deletionists" Ikip (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Your words: ":Looks like there is an ANI regarding my posting this template on your talk page, by a self proclaimed deletionist" I can't imagine that this was a productive post. What did you intent to accomplish with it? Protonk (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Refactored 2 minutes later: "Looks like there is an ANI regarding my posting this template on your and other editor's talk page, by an editor who has the deletionist tag on his talk page" Let me repeat what I wrote above I wanted these two editors to know about the wikidrama that Themfromspace was stoking, and that he was opposed to letting them know about WP:ARS. I hope this clarified things. Ikip (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, I can't continue this discussion any more. Hopefully a consensus can be established as I sleep and hopefully it will determine what you are doing is wrong. I highly recommend people read over WP:CANVASS and see how it applies in this situation. These edits are biased, intended to stack AfDs, and done on a massive scale without regards for the individual editor the posts go out to (even indef blocked users are welcome!), except that they have to be "inclusionist" editors as "deletionist" editors are bad. Peace out. Themfromspace (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets cut and paste our discussion we had about this already:

WP:Canvassing first sentence: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion."

Where is the community discussion? No community discussion, no canvassing.

Should Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam members such as yourself not be allowed to post Template:WPSPAM-invite-n? Should the other 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates be deleted? Ikip (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We're wading into wikilawyering territory, but here goes: I invite you to take a look at the note attached to that very sentence you quoted: "Any kind of solicitation may meet this definition, including, for example, a custom signature to automatically append some promotional message to every signed post." —kurykh 08:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: you're conflating three things: one being the existence of the invitation, second being the message contained in said invitation, and third being to whom the message is targeted. The first is not a problem, the second being the major issue here, and the third is the straw that is breaking the camel's back. —kurykh 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that getting people to join ARS is *not* about saving articles, although that might be a side-effect, it's to ensure that another people are standing by the next time they try and get notability deleted or marked as a failed essay. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Possibly - I have always tried to AGF regarding this issue, but this by Ikip, linked above is troubling - " I am troubled at how we, rescue squad members, are focusing so much on the symptoms of the disease, but not the cure. It is all about organization, and getting the word out. I think the key is finding powerful wikipedians who support the abolition of notability." This isn't about rescuing possibly saveable articles, is it? Black Kite 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Also, this AfD for an article tagged with ARS is the type of thing I'm talking about. Look at all the Keeps with non-rationales, some from ARS members who haven't tried to fix the article at all (it's still completely unsourced). Then, compare the Keep from User:DGG, who as usual has it exactly correct. Black Kite 09:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a common sense approach be to establish the harm done, or harm to be done. This is a hugely constructive effort by Ikip, to organize people who would be willing to throw time into rescuing other people's work, because their work might be deleted by wikipedians, who argue for deletion because the article has some sort of problem, but will not spend time to fix the issues themselves. I'm asking: "what's the harm done?" by organizing people to fix endangered articles, so they conform to Wikipia's high standards. Alternatively, what is the harm done by stopping Ikip in fixing endangered articles. I see no attempt to influence AfD discussions here, this critique is ill conceived. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  The harm that was done was that a project that needs to walk a bit of political tightrope in order to do its work, work which is a net good for the wiki, was just advertised to hundreds of people who have self-declared their partisanship in that political circle. At best, this complicates focusing the project on article improvement and not politics. At worst, it marries tools that stand to do a great deal to overwhelm AFD with bloc action with self-declared political partisans. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If an article is improved to meet concerns at an AfD, is wiki not itself improved? I'd hate to think anyone in this discussion will disagree. There are thousands of articles at AfD at any one time and only a handful of volunteers at ARS able to get to them in our continued efforts to improve wiki. And many of these require input from willing experts in certain fields. So... Ikip is asking help from editors in order to continue improving the project by improving articles. Would it have made any kind of sense to send a request to save artilces to anyone who do not show interest in improving other's articles? proudly displays a "deletionist" tag? All he saying is "want to help improve wiki?" Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone is arguing against your initial premise. More of a problem is the possibilities of AfD spamming (which has happened before) and the canvassing on policy issues. I'd also take issue with your last point - I probably veer towards the deletionist side on many issues, but I have fixed articles that I have seen at AfD plenty of times, which is why I think the "inclusionist" vs. "deletionist" argument is one to avoid. I doubt if there are many "hardcore deletionists", or what would be the point in them being here? Black Kite 09:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Right. There are two steps here. One is arguing that ARS is becoming less and less about making substantive improvements to articles scheduled for deletion and more and more about organizing arguments against deletion. The second stems from the first. If we accept the first premise (we don't have to, but roll with it), then we have to treat much of the "communications" made by Ikip et al. as canvassing of some sort. Again, ARS gets treated differently from "inclusionist" or "deletionist" projects because their stated mission is avowedly non-partisan. Once the mission comes into question, that status has to be questioned as well. I mean, we can agree that ARS =/= Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion and that ARS =/= Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion. Let's pretend that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion decided to have a central location where they could discuss AfD debates which were on the margin. Let's go further and say that once they did this, they determined that they didn't have enough people commenting, so they went out and found people who had "deletionist" userboxes or people who had voted to make WP:N policy and invited them to that discussion. Would we consider that somewhat untoward? Also, I should note that this isn't the first time a partisan slant has been added to ARS. Ikip previously attempted to merge Wikipedia:WikiProject Inclusion with ARS and WICU, and was stopped only when Banjiboi and User:Realkyhick started an AN/I thread about it. In the ensuring drama, he accused reallyhick of being a radical deletionist, accused me of being a meatpuppet for a banned user and flared out. I see this as a somewhat more subtle continuation of that previous attempt. Protonk (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tempered that sentence. I have voted delete at many AfD's and only "keep" when I think there is a chance the article might meets standards. Do the deletes nake me a delitionists? Do the keeps make ne an inclusionist? Or is trying to do the best for the project just make me an "editor". Hmmm... okay. I gotta give Ikip credit for doing the utmost to bring fresh blood to the ARS... as we feel quite overwhelmed at times. His tag, if to ever be used again, might best be an invitaion that states "The ARS promotes a non-partisan efort to improve Wiki. If you'd like to join, leave the politics at the door." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Innoculating ARS against politics would be a Good Thing, although I think it'd need more than that if problems persist. I think ARS in concept and more or less in practice is the opposite of WP:POINT: improving the wiki to prove a point. Overt political efforts are a threat to the project, but not a problem of it unless they are tolerated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But the problem is that you're not leaving politics at the door, Michael. How is this leaving politics at the door? "An interesting debate that should interest Rescue Squad members....". How is this not vote shopping? Ikip's answer to the latter says it all: "not officially"... yandman 09:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this whatsoever, as long as he's doing it manually and not by bot. I can certainly understand why you, A Man In Black, who is a deletionist, would be irritated by him mostly selecting inclusionists for his group. Let's just say that your complaints about this ring slightly hollow.

If you're worried about what direction the organization will take, join it yourself and keep an eye on it instead of trying to squelnch it. Jtrainor (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This comment is a preview of the response to any concerns that WP:ARS is becoming a partisan task force if this sort of advertising is allowed to continue. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's pretty poor form. AMiB's complaints about this are pretty reasoned. If you want to accuse someone of playing politics, pick your targets better. Protonk (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is going off tangent now, and I don't see any reason for admin intervention at the moment. Should this thread me moved to WT:ARS or somewhere similar? Black Kite 10:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No harm encouraging people to join the Article Rescue Squadron if they are going to rescue articles by improving them; but I would be concerned that Ikip may be trying to convert the ARS to his own rather combative anti-AfD approach where nominators he disagrees with get intemperate attacks at AfD, and threats such as "If necessary, I can request to see the history of the other 15 articles you put up for deletion" so that he can decide whether they were "Abuse of the AfD process." JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(Note: comments linked to above have since been refactored by Ikip. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

And restored per #Editing a closed AfD to refactor one's intemperate comments. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2)Please yandman, go to any policy page and you have a group of like minded editors who push there own agendas on how wikipedia should be. Don't hold WP:ARS to a standard that no other policy page or Wikigroup follows.

I suggest that this ANI be closed too. (refactored out) For once I agree with Black Kite, lets just close this topic.

(AKA User:inclusionist) Ikip (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ikip. Not useful. THIS is what ARS is about. The time we are spedning here... you included... is time better spent fixing what's broke instead of arguing about how it got broke. I'd rather fix the damn pipe that stand around complaining about having wet feet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Only 106 AfDs in over 2 years? I must be slipping. Note however that a number of those are procedural noms or moved across from PROD/CSDs that I wasn't sure about deleting (you'll find this with the stats for a lot of admins), so such figures can be misleading. Black Kite 10:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Only users I consider sufficiently inclusionist are allowed to criticize me" is a problematic attitude. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...please add the edit diff on that quote. :) Ikip (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Everyone who is criticizing is actually doing it because they don't like that I'm an inclusionist, whether they know it or not" isn't much better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit diff please?

As I mentioned below, yes AMIB, you are here to improve wikipedia and make the project better, we all are. As wikipedians, we leave all of our biases at the door, and we change into enyclopedist outfits, ready to make the project a better place. We are always fair and unbiased in our judgements as enyclopedists. Ikip (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Come now, look at the header of this section. It clearly says that AMIB isn't sure something is actually wrong here, but feels bad about it and wants something done anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The edits that JohnCD has linked to are very worrying. I would suggest renaming the page to something a little less "The Incredibles" and simply not allowing canvassing/spamming. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 10:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for input because I am uncomfortable acting because I don't know what to do and feel any action I take could be mistaken for partisan action. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes dear Jtrainor, AMIB, like everyone here, only wants the best for wikipedia and the project. Ikip (talk) 10:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, nothing to see here and is starting to get heated. Tea for all, fifteen minutes for the brass band to play and then lets get back to improving the encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Edit I just performed: Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Members#Code_of_conduct. Not too bold. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron#So the ARS are wild-eyed inclusionists? was already there, on the main page, notice. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Having that statement about inclusionists/deletionists on the ARS template has a very unfortunate connotation, as you can see if you try substituting other words: what about "Rescue Members are not necessarily white people, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." or what about "Rescue Members are not necessarily Hindus, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." - do you see the problem? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed?

Let me ask this simple: Where is the need for admin intervention in this? The thread starter claims, he does not want another inclusionist-deletionist discussion but that is exactly what happened. What harm can come from more people joining ARS, even if they may be mostly inclusionists? Right, none! Because and this is important to remember: Even if there are more people minded to keep an article in ARS, that does not make their AFD arguments any stronger. Any user, or even admin, who is concerned that more people !voting keep at AFD because of more people in ARS should remember what AFD is: A place to determine consensus, not to vote. If the keep-arguments are weaker than the delete ones, then it does not matter how many of them there are.
So, if ikip wants more people to join ARS, who cares? It's not canvassing because all he says is "come and help improving articles". Everything else is pure interpretation of his motives and, as I outlines above, not really a problem. I wish we could avoid such unneeded discussions here. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 10:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip was spamming hundreds of talk pages, and by all indications intends to resume doing so tomorrow. If his message or intent is problematic and he doesn't desist, that is an issue that requires admin intervention. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• He has desisted for the moment. If he starts again, then I would suggest starting a new thread at ANI, with a link to this one. I don't believe advertising the ARS to sympathetic users is problematic; wikilawyering or focusing the ARS on politics would be. Black Kite 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  And if he advertises to 400 more users then stops, will we simply say, "Well, what do you want us to do now?" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  I doubt if there are many more users with inclusionist userboxes that he hasn't contacted. If he expands that canvassing to other users, then that clearly fails WP:CANVASS. At the moment, I am wary of characterising this as disruption. If those who join up with ARS fail to follow its guidelines and are disruptive, though, that is a separate matter. Black Kite 10:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, leaving your personal views aside, how exactly is he breaking Wikipedia policies by doing so? Hundreds of Wikiprojects do the same to get interested people to join them, it was never considered canvassing before. Posting neutrally worded invites to editors has been found acceptable even when done on a larger scale, as long as there is no intent to sway people to a certain position / point of view. That position may exist if one makes the connection ARS => inclusionist "cabal" => mass-keep-!voting on AFDs but that connection is not in the message and thus we cannot say ikip does that to create an inclusionist "cabal" or to change !voting on AFDs. As Black Kite puts it very correctly: Advertising the existence of a project itself is not the problematic thing. To read a larger political intention in that message is one. Regards SoWhy 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

These invites aren't neutrally worded, and only people of a stated point of view were solicited. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it is long-standing practice that invites are sent out to those people where you can expect they will be interested. I would not send a WikiProject Star Wars invite to someone I know likes Star Trek - that would be stupid. And all the invite really says is a.) that the user is likely to be interested in ARS and b.) what ARS does. Would you mind telling us how exactly that is not neutral? It does not say "ARS is an inclusionist 'cabal'", nor does it say "ARS is to spam AFDs with keep-!votes" or "ARS is to battle deletionism" or anything... No offense meant but I think you are reading something into the message that the message itself does not say. Regards SoWhy 11:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad example; someone with a Star Trek template on their talk page is already interested in decade-old mainstream science fiction franchises with cult followings.

Why did Ikip choose self-declared inclusionists and only self-declared inclusionists? Why did he send only inclusionists a message saying "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia"? What shared visions do the people with the AIW and inclusionist userbox have besides inclusionism? He doesn't have to say "I want ARS to be an inclusionist project" outright when he tells inclusionists and only inclusionists that the project matches their vision of Wikipedia, and when the talk page has clearly slanted calls to various article standard discussions elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Contrast what Ikip did with advertising ARS to WP:CSB members, with a mention of the FUTON bias. Or to whatever the music WP is, since bands and albums step up to the bat with two strikes against them if notability is even slightly unclear. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you kind of have to read between the lines. No one is going to be so stupid as to say "please join this project so we can disrupt the deletion process because we are all inclusionists who think notability is bad" If you are holding out for that, you might be waiting a while. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a bad idea to move this to a less visible venue which is going to naturally be inclined to defend any effort to advertise it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Black Kite 10:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm gunna go with SoWhy on this one. The invites themselves aren't canvassing, now if they start rolling around like the "Keep brigade" without actually adding references and proving notability, then there's a problem. But that bridge has not presented itself yet. –xeno (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno; it seems several editors here are second-guessing what other editors intend to do, and guessing that those intentions are bad. That seems to me the polar opposite of WP:AGF. If there's a problem here, it's the lack of good faith being assumed by User:A Man In Black et al. Certainly no admin action required (yet). waggers (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Help me out, then. What's the good-faith reasoning for advertising a non-partisan project to (and only to) self-identified partisans of one side with the message "I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia"? I admit I can't see it, but I came to WP:AN because I believe I could be missing something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Because that group is more likely to join ARS than a group that self-identifies as one that wants to delete articles? Because he thought inclusionists are more likely to want to keep borderline notable articles by improving them? As we have already (see above) ruled out that he can't have done it to manipulate AFDs (because they are closed by strength of argument and not numbers), I don't see any good-faith reason to assume anything other than maybe an unclear writing style. It is quite sensible to believe that a project which attempts to rescue articles rather than to delete them might be more attractive to editors who have self-identified as willing to work on less-prominent topics and it is thus more logical to invite those users than all users. SoWhy 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"He canvassed inclusionists because canvassing deletionists is a dumb idea" is a false dilemma and based on false premises, although I suppose it makes for a good-faith misguided reason to advertise to that group. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

He's advertising to those most likely to join, in an attempt to drum up support for a project that ultimately improves articles and by extension, the encyclopedia. (Perhaps he will broaden his invite set at a later date, at this point, he's going for low hanging fruit). I think there is no action required here unless the ARS starts canvassing eachother on actual deletion debates. –xeno (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing in general is frowned upon. "Frowing upon" at wikipedia has all the deterent effort of frowning at your television. However, I see this as an attempt at a countermeasure to the typical bullying tactics employed by the deletionists, who I'm sure watch the AFD nominations pages with eager anticipation, so canvassing them would be redundant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And they sacrifice cats, too. Sheesh. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, right now, the tools for that canvassing exist, for good-faith purposes. The project already has a template to add an AFDed article to a list of AFDs transcluded on the user or talk page of most of the project's members. That's why I have some qualms. A partisan Wikiproject isn't a big deal. A Wikiproject that keeps broadly-defined, criteria-less lists of borderline AFDs isn't a problem, as long as there's a reason for them to do so. A partisan project that keeps such lists is a problem, and it's much easier to head off efforts that would make that project more partisan than to close the barn doors afterward. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

this isn't canvassing , "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." –xeno (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep reading down the page. I even use the same terminology as that page; I picked up "partisan" from the last time I re-read it in depth. This is a mass posting to self-declared partisans, and with an outlined possible negative effect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the invitations are not an invitation to participate in a community discussion, which is the crux of canvassing. –xeno (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. The invitations are to go to WP:RESCUE, on which there are several invitations to participate in community discussions, such as this. yandman 15:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If someone from the ARS setup a mailing list, or posted all over their "members" pages something along the lines of "Oh my God ... article WP:Foo is at AfD, everybody go !vote against its deletion now!", then that would be canvassing. Inviting people to join is common across many groups...targetting specific people makes perfect sense. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The project has an automatic template for "Article Foo is at AFD, give it your attention" with no practical criteria for addition to this list. It is intended for use on user pages or talk pages, and any time an article is tagged for the attention of the project it is automatically linked from the user/talk page of everyone with this template.

This is why efforts that would make it a partisan project are problematic; if the project is Inclusionist Task Force, then this is automated partisan canvassing for borderline AFDs. (I realize I've shifted here from Ikip's intent to the effects of his actions, but both would be cause to end the advertising to people with partisan userboxes.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As unpopular as it might be right now, I would have to say I agree with AMIB's concerns. This is clearly WP:CANVASSING to get more inclusionist Wikipedians involved in the project. At some point WP:TINC has to come into play, though. For what purpose he is canvassing, we can't prove. Perhaps he wants to involve mroe editors that he feels might be interested in the project, as he claims, or perhaps he actually does want to stack the votes at AFD in favour of keeping borderline articles. Only time will tell for certain. However, his attempts to notify users who responded to his invitation about the thread at AN/I is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. That act in itself diminishes my capacity to WP:AGF, as i'm sure it must for others as well. Saying "Hey, there's a discussion to block me from inviting more editors like you, you should look at it" poisons the well. That said, AMIB's concerns are, in my opinion, valid and logoical ones. Firestorm ^Talk 15:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was never notified about this thread; I stumbled upon it when I checked my Talk page history, and subsequently looked at Ikip's Talk page, since Ikip didn't sign his invite - all I got was four tilda's. Anyway, iit's good to know about the ARS, I think it can be a useful tool in building an encyclopedia if it results in consensus and improved articles, and I have no problem being "canvassed." Radiopathy (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, when I took a closer look at WP:CANVASS, there are some violations, and admin intervention, if any, should only focus on those, specifically, the issue of neutrality and "cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages." I don't think vote stacking is an issue here, and I still don't consider this to be disruptive canvassing. Radiopathy (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Not needed. If anything we have a stunning assumption of bad faith here in a thread initially started by someone from the category of deletionists against someone who was once named "inclusionist." More unnecessary partisanship. Someone (Ikip) is trying to get more participation in a project that seeks to improve articles. Aren't we here to do that, i.e. improve articles? Isn't that the whole point? Now, granted not all members will actually work to improve articles, but some like myself do and will. I for one would appreciate greater participation in those efforts as there are times where I am the only one doing the actual referencing and revising and my hope, like I believe Ikip's, is not to just get a bunch more keeps in AfDs, but rather to get help from those who are willing to actually work on the articles. If the end result is that articles nominated for deletion are actually improved, then what the heck? AfD is not about trying to win arguments and get articles deleted at all costs. Rather, it's about deleting those for which improvement cannot happen. As such nominators should not be bent on seeing it deleted, but should be happy and open-minded when their concerns are addressed and the article is saved. Thus, Ikip is taking a proactive and good faith effort to improve our project's content. He is being considerate to his fellow editors by notifying them of something that may be of interest to them and a way for them to help our project. That should be encouraged if anything. Calling the Article Rescue Squadron some kind of inclusionist tool would be akin to calling Articles for Deletion a deletionist tool. Why don't we assume good faith all around and get back to actually building an encyclopedia? Are we here to do that or play inclusionist versus deletionist war games? I'm hoping the former. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue isn't inclusionist vs deletionist (for the record, I am neither). The issue is whether or not this user violated WP:CANVASS by first inviting only inclusionists to the project, and then notifying some of them that this thread existed, so that they could come comment on it. If it were just the first incident, then it would be easy to WP:AGF. However, the second occurrence after he knew about the policy does seem to diminish our capacity to assume that he is acting in good faith. Firestorm ^Talk 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I am of the opinion, based upon what I've read most people saying over the years, that the ovrewhelming majority of editors are neither. I espouse no "-ism" other than encyclopaedism, and I know that not I'm a lone voice in that regard.

      See also Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 17#Prominent inclusionists?. Ikip, previously Inclusionist, has been here before. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the above comments have lost sight of the basics of deletion policy. Deletion is a las resort, and it is always a good idea to try to improve an article. The effort will not always succeed. For more than half of what comes to Afd, it will not succeed, because the articles are unimprovable. People, as they get experience, will try on only the improvable ones. If the banner is used excessively, the effort will be wasted altogether. I do not consider everything on which the banner has been used as a good choice for improvement--but then, I've sometimes been wrong and seen something I think hopeless actually get sourced adequately. If there is concern that the project is being used wrong, then those with such concern should join to see it used better--I have sometimes joined projects I think are being too partisan in the effort to encourage objectivity.

As for notification about the project, the project was not hidden from people of different views. The banner was used, and anyone who follows afd must have been aware of it. It is fair to assume all people interested in deletion follow afd. I see it more of an appropriate challenge: OK, you say you're an inclusionist--let's see you do some actual work to improve articles.

As for notification about this thread, while it is policy that discussions here should be notified to those affected, going by deletionist/inclusionist userboxes, was ill-advised. But I do not think it serious, as AN/I is not subject to vote stacking the way Afd is. DGG (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a quick point - of what I was talking about further up - at least one of the users that was "recruited" to the ARS today has been through the list of tagged articles and !voted "Keep" on every single one except the two that are irredemably doomed. Most of the Keeps have non-rationales, the majority being "per above". He was obviously paying so much attention that he also !voted Keep on the wrong AfD for one article that had been closed since 2006. Now OK - most admins will ignore such !votes, but with the knowledge that you will be carted off to DRV if you so much as close any AfD which has numerous Keeps as Delete, then is it no wonder that there is an increasing tendency to go for the safe "No Consensus" option? Black Kite 19:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Butting in a bit late but I don't see a problem here. A self-declared inclusionist is someone who wants to save articles. The ARS is there to save articles from deletion. Makes perfect sense to me that an invitation to join ARS would be sent to inclusionists. Asking them to put their money where their mouth is - so to speak. It's not as if AfD is a vote (if it is, it shouldn't be) and, presumably, after the ARS has done with its referencing or editing, the result would be judged purely on its merits. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 19:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• However, if it results in editors - as I've pointed out just above your comment - blitzing AfD with Keep votes with poor or no rationales, and making no attempt to actually improve the articles, doesn't that suggest that there might be a problem? If people recruited this way actually follow the guidelines of the ARS, then that's great, but ... Black Kite 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oh boy, this is exactly what I did not want this to turn into. I posted a request about WP:CANVASSING, not a referendom on the ARS or an attempt to spark a debate about inclusionists and deletionists. I posted here in an attempt to get an immediate decision on what Ikip was doing was right or wrong and to have action taken against him while he was canvassing. It seemed like a clear-cut case. I didn't actually expect people to defend what I see as a major and blatant violation of the behavioural guidelines. I'm very disturbed that a large amount of users here are defending him just because they agree with his cause, even though his cause was never my issue, it was his behaviour. Themfromspace (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, back to what I said: he didn't need to make reference to inclusionists in his tag, and should not have "personalized" each one - or mine, at least - with the editor's user name. Bring him up to speed on policy with regard to the actual hard issues. Just because I'm not outraged by what this editor has done doesn't imply that I'm defending him; I'm assuming good faith with respect to getting articles improved and don't anticipate (or anticipate participating in) "Keep spamming." Radiopathy (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is a bit unfair. I do have a slight philosophical inclination toward keeping articles but I'm hardly an inclusionist. Practically the only admin things I've done is to delete lots of articles! However, I can't really see a bias here. Inclusionists are the natural population for members of the ARS and inviting them to join is only natural. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 20:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite, I'm calling you out. Either prove that ARS exists specifically to spam keeps or stop posting about it. I expect better than crappy straw man arguments. Jtrainor (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Did I say that? No. In fact I specifically said that if people followed the ARS guidelines then that would not be the case. However, did I say that there was a danger that this could happen? Yes. Did I point out that one editor had done exactly that today? Yes. So, your point is? Black Kite 21:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Those who are arguing that all projects do this should consider that the template used is not like those from other projects. The problem is with the current wording of the template that is being used:-

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

If this was changed to:-

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rapidly improving articles that have been nominated for deletion, saving articles that might otherwise be lost forever. ~~~~

it would be similar to those used by other projects and quite acceptable. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bduke, Thank you. This is a good suggestion which I am doing now, I have begun the arduious task of changing all of the postings, along with grammatical errors,Thanks User:TimVickers and confusing links. [55]

As I mentioned, way, way, way above, I added "Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join." because of a suggestion from User:Themfromspace: "The ARS itself says that it is not an inclusionist organization (in theory)."[56], in the failed hope of appeasing him. I am very open to new suggestions and criticisms. Ikip (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• ...but to not be in conflict with the "cross-posts that initially appear to be individual messages" clause at WP:CANVASS, delete all the code between the brackets after "Hello" - then it complies! I agree, even as an "inclusionist" who got the invite, that the template in its original form goes over the edge in several areas. Radiopathy (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit more. Importantly, it's saving articles "from deletion", not saving articles "for deletion" (which is nonsensical), I also tried to emphasize that people need to edit the article, not just turn up and vote at the AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I see no harm in inviting someone to consider participating in a project. Besides, I have not seen any evidence of Ikip's actions resulting in a mad stampede for ARS membership. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

ARS membership increased from 134 to 164 (roughly, Ikip and perhaps others forgot to sign-in previously) since Ikip started his recruitment drive. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this certainly got political quickly. Still, all the more reason why an organization like ARS should be more broadly advertised - if allegations of cabals and partisanship are being thrown about, much better to do it in the open with wide participation that in small groups on notice boards. MalikCarr (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like CANVASSing to me. Ikip needs to stop entirely. Further, the implication by Ikip, and the entire ARS, that only Inclusionists believe in improving articles, or that Deletionists ONLY hang out on AfD, are both idiotic notions. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip should be encouraged and applauded for his friendly effort to inform his fellow editors of a project that may interest them and allow them to help build our project. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there a partisan group for us deletionists to join? purely to discuss knitting patterns and the like. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's AfD. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean New Page Patrol  ;-) Catch'em when they're young! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Putting my finger on the problem

My problem with Ikip's solicitation is that he recruited people to a project that should not be about partisan rhetoric, based on the fact that they had partisan rhetoric on their user pages. Admittedly, this is based on my feeling that [inclusion][deletion]ist is partisan rhetoric. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. WP:CANVASS reads "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive."

Now, in choosing to select only "inclusionist" editors to send the template to, he is trying moreso to influence the outcome than to improve the quality. Inclusionist editors are more likely to vote "keep" at an AfD. As has been pointed out already, editors from the ARS routinely vote "keep" at AfDs even when they haven't helped the article out at all

There's a table on WP:CANVASS that I invite everyone to see. It shows the difference between properly informing editors and inappropriate canvassing. Ikip's behaviour falls in the inappropriate category for scale, message, and audience; while only being appropriate for transparancy. If Ikip were to be fair about advertising the ARS (which, as has been pointed out, does have a strong inclusionist bent, which he relies upon), then he would have to solicit people on a small scale, in an unbiased manner (ie: not just to people with inclusionist tags), and make the message neutral (which there was a discussion on doing so earlier in this thread). Only then would his behaviour be appropriate in the way that I read WP:CANVASS. Once again, this is a problem only with his behaviour, and is not meant to be about the ARS, nor about inclusionists and deletionists. Themfromspace (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." ARS is not a community discussion but a project, so the whole point is moot. The assumption that this will lead to more keep !votes in AFDs is just that, an assumption, as is the idea that this will influence admins to start counting !votes instead of judging by strength of argument. So if this problem is a.) just assumed and b.) clearly not in the message, then we should tackle the problem if and when it arises (i.e. if XFDs are really manipulated) and you should really let it go here. It was concluded multiple times now that all these assumptions about possible discussion manipulation are just a "feeling" that cannot be found in the message itself. We have to assume good faith that this feeling is incorrect. SoWhy 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be excessively literal here. This was problematic, but it was problematic in misguided good faith. The message about advertising neutrally, both in message and in people solicited, is relevant. It seems to have been learned Ikip's stopped advertising and is rephrasing the messages, and hopefully nothing like this will happen again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me recopy what I wrote above:

According to his user page, User:Themfromspace (the person who created this complaint) is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Here is there template to invite new Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam users:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I used this very same WikiProject Spam tag to design the polite template I messaged to select users tonight:

Hello, Administrators' noticeboard. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. ~~~~

Template:WPSPAM-invite-n is one of 260 Category:WikiProject invitation templates templates, which you will find on thousands of editors talk pages.

AMIB has in the past couple of weeks attempted to:

1. demote WP:PRESERVE, which asks editors to use deletion as a last resort
2. has accused editors of canvassing by using the {{rescue}} tag on AfDs
3. Raised a stink about a list of articles marked as tagged for rescue

These tedious, baseless attacks are getting really old.

AMIBs own extreme bias is clear:

"On cruft: When referring to unreferenced plot detail, made up nonsense, fanon, speculation, and the like, make sure you call it crap. This is much clearer, without the emotional baggage of the word "cruft". (emphasis my own).[57]

Did't you used to be a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion before AMIB?

Several editors have attempted to close this ANI. Black Kite even moved it to the WP:ARS talk page, but AMIB, determined to beat a dead horse, reverted this. I suggest AMIB read: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and spend more times contributing to articles, instead of wikilayering ad nauseam.

UNININVOLVED THIRD PARTY >>PLEASE<< CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION

Ikip (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, you really need to work on that temper. On another note, you yourself have just pointed out the problem here. Wikiproject Spam invites were sent to editors who have reverted spam, therefore equating Wikiproject Spam with reverting spam. Seems logical, no? You sent WP:RESCUE invites to editors who have declared they are "inclusionists". Therefore, you equated Wikiproject Rescue with being inclusionist, i.e. trying to redefine what that project is about. Add to this the fact that under your previous incarnation you attempted to merge WP:Rescue with WP:Inclusionists, i.e. the same thing only more blatantly, and AMIB has good reason to be worried. yandman 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think administrator SoWhy said it best:

What harm can come from more people joining ARS, even if they may be mostly inclusionists? Right, none! Because and this is important to remember: Even if there are more people minded to keep an article in ARS, that does not make their AFD arguments any stronger. Any user, or even admin, who is concerned that more people !voting keep at AFD because of more people in ARS should remember what AFD is: A place to determine consensus, not to vote.

AMIB has good reason to be worried. Just like AMIB is worried that the {{rescue}} template is canvassing? There is a fine line between concern and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

As I also mentioned above, there is absolutly no rule broken by adding one of those 260 templates inviting a user to join a group simply because they have an inclination towards cleaning up spam, or an interest in Africa, or an interst in the Falklands War. The same goes for adding a template on an editor's page who seems to have an inclination towards saving information.

I kindly request that a third party close this discussion. Ikip (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As somebody who has received that invitation, I do not find it uninvited, nor do I feel it to be some kind of 'call to war'. I joined the group because I want to help rescue articles, and probably on a very casual basis. If anything is warlike, I find it to be the aggressive deletionism in which articles AND their histories are wiped out, before anybody is made aware of the issues. Tyciol (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Man. #1 and #2 are completely made up. In fact, I even came to your talk page for advice for rewriting WP:PRESERVE for elegance without changing its meaning. As for #3, it's is a misgiving I also expressed here, and connected with the spamming. This is more than a little sad.

I'm disappointed that Ikip hasn't learned any lesson here, that making things up and begging questions and hurling accusations in every direction are his substitutes for simply ceasing or amending problematic conduct. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

← I don't have the time, energy or dedication to read through all of the preceding commentary, but I would like to echo what User:Tyciol, whom I do not know, said just above. I also was glad to be made aware of the Rescue Squad, because I agree with its aims, and share Tyciol's concern about aggressive deletionism. I have commented in favor of deleting articles from time to time - I support the concept of notability and do not want to see the encyclopedia's value diluted by nonsense or POV pushing - and always view each article, AfD or discussion on its own merits, not slavishly following a principle of inclusionism or any other. But I have seen a rush to delete based on a small coterie of opponents all too often, and find that trend troubling - very often the article in question is wholly save-able. The aim of the rescue squad, it seems to me, is to do just that - improve articles and rescue them from oblivion. It is implicit that they be worthy of rescue. All Ikip did, by bringing this group to the attention of like-minded people, is to let us know that there is an active ongoing project dedicated to the improvement of Wikipedia. This was not canvassing in any way, shape or form - no one has asked me to weigh in on any AfD as a result of this invitation - and I suspect that accusation was a form of forum-shopping designed to address something entirely separate. When I was invited to join the Beatles project I didn't think I was being recruited to some kind of army, and although sometimes the discussions there veer in that direction, overall it was a helpful advisory to me that such a project existed. The same is true for the Article Rescue Squad, and these accusations seem absurd on the face of it. Tvoz/talk 21:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For me the canvassing would be OK if everyone who got a message only improved the article and did not vote - in the end let the closing admin decide if you had done enough. If they vote it is obvious they would only vote one way and that is illeagle canvasing.Giggles4U (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Moved to where most current readers would be. Giggles4U (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder here, AMIB has yet to show any actual violations of policy. Close thread.

AMIB, if you actually think something's wrong here, take it to RFC rather than rabbble-rousing. We have procedures for this kind of thing, procedures which you should follow instead of trying to start a lynch mob. Jtrainor (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Please help with disruptive editor and WP:3RR

Editor Paul Siebert is engaging in numerous WP:Edit Wars in a number of articles, and is now violating WP:3RR by three times reverting -- one, two, three in eight hours -- the addition of properly sourced material in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations. I won't bore you with the details of it, but not only has he reverted the addition three times in eight hours, but he claims that the underlying text should be moved to another section (by the way, it shouldn't, but that's beside the point at this juncture) and doesn't even attempt to do that -- the revert involves a straight up deletion. He was repeatedly warned regarding WP:Edit War and WP:3RR, such as here and here.

Unfortunately, this is hardly the beginning of such disruptive edits for this editor. He also:

• Makes outright overt threats of committing WP:Vandalism in an aritcle if portions of an article are not deleted, such as: "If these, as well as other similar pieces of text will not be removed or briefly summarized in one (very short) sentence, I will fill the article with numerous equally (or even much more) important details regarding Triple Alliance negotiations (with all needed references)." This one included an odd addition of a statement resembling dialogue out of a bad terrorist movie that: "The responsibility for the dramatic inflation of the section will rest on those who introduced the pieces of text similar to those mentioned above."

• Edits other users' talk page comments against their wishes.

• He falsely claims other edtors lie and purposefully manipulate articles.

• Falsely characterizes other editors such viewpoints such as refrring to them as "nationalistic Central European editors" or following an "adherence to the 'German school' tradition."

• Repeatedly shows an WP:NPOV stance, such as complaining of articles being "anti-Soviet". This is another article he claimed contained an "anti-Soviet statement". Moreover, in the latter instance, he openly claimed he would violate the article policy by unilaterally reverting a prior edit that was made after an already resolved (for weeks) issue "to balance the biased anti-Soviet statement with the moderately pro-Soviet one", directly admitting to changing an article for non-WP:NPOV purposes.

• On the the World War II article, despite a mediated settlement providing for a rule that "all significant changes should be discussed on the article's talk page BEFORE they are made", he unliaterally deleted a sentence, falsely claiming "False statement removed." As an aside, the statement removed relyed exactly what the source stated, and what nearly every source states about the this repeatedly discussed issue.

• Repeatedly takes WP:Fringe stands on topics about which zero historical debate exists. Some truly odd ones, such as:

• an adamant insistence against any mention of the fact that the Soviet Union Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov was fired beccause he was Jewish (along with a Ministry purge of Jews) before doing a deal with Hitler, and accordingly, deleted countless sourced sentences on the subject, including this one that the Soviet Foreign Minister was fired, in part, because he was Jewish before negotiating with Hitler, despite that it was pointed out to him that 25+ sources all describe this entirely histically non-debated even in great detail (it's in pretty much every book on the subject).
• An inexplicable adamant insistence that even the implication that the the"Soviet Union conducted simultaneous talks with France, Britain and Germany" before entering the Moloto-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. A notion that so cuts against every known historical fact on the subject recounting the voluminous comments made over months to BOTH sets of parties in detail (repeatedly) that it's not even debated. It's not exactly in the category of denying the Apollo moon landings, but it's getting up there.

He also makes repeatedly disruptive edits in the article, such as this addition of this nassuve 100+ word 1934 Hitler block quote at the very top of the background section, before the section even discusses the events of World War I. He will often rearrange sections out of chron order, deleting large numbers of sources. After such disruptive massive edits deleting numerous sources (none of which are even controversial) and taking sections out of chron order, he will often edit war back insisting in the edit summary "let's keep this version until consensus is acheived" without any other explanation, repeatedly. I honestly have no problem with the language barrier and correcting basic grammar issues (I make more than enough of them and it's my primary language) or typos in ref cites (I make enough of those too), but in the rare instances where substantial material is added to an article, for example, the additions can be badly disfigured by every source tag being erroneous or flat out non-existent, such that I had to somehow figure out the sources he was likely referring to from all of 5-6 ref tags he added in one such instance, and fill out proper source tags. I have also repeatedly added material, sometimes in large quantities, to the article in response to his suggestions, some of which I don't even think really belongs, frankly, just to avoid having to go to ANI.Mosedschurte (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure the accusation in violation of 3RR is correct. In first two cases I provided explanations for changes I made and proposed to move the disputable text into another section. I got neither negative nor positive response on my proposal. The third case wasn't a reversion. I didn't remove the disputable text, just fixed the factual error (wrong date), re-worded, added one more citation and moved the text the into different section of the same article. The present text is[58]:

"The last document is a German State Office memorandum on the telephone call made on June 17 by the Bulgarian ambassador Draganov. In German accounts of the Draganov's report, Astakhov explained that a Soviet deal with Germany better suited the Soviets than one with Britain and France, although the Bulgarian ambassador "could not be ascertained whether it had reflected the personal opinions of Herr Astakhov or the opinions of the Soviet Government".

(-continued-)

"These documentary evidences of early Nazi-Soviet rapprochement were questioned by Geoffrey Roberts, who analyzed Soviet archival documents that had been de-classified and released on the eve of 1990s. Roberts found no evidence that the alleged statements quoted by the Germans had ever been made in reality, and came to a conclusion that the German archival documents cannot serve as an evidence for the existence of a dual policy during first half of 1939. According to him, no documentary evidences exists that the USSR responded to made any overtures to the Germans "until the end of July 1939 at the earliest"."

whereas the old one was[59]:

"On June 15, Soviet ambassador Astakhov held a discussion with the Bulgarian ambassador in Berlin, Purvan Draganov, who served as a kind of unofficial intermediary for negotiations with the Germans. In German accounts of the meeting, Astakhov explained that a Soviet deal with Germany better suited the Soviets than one with Britain and France, or a inconclusive negotiations, which Draganov promptly told the German Foreign Ministry. Soviet accounts of the meeting state that it was Draganov, not Astakhov, who cited the benefits of a Soviet deal with Germany."

Let me point out that during the long and interesting, although completely fruitless discussion I was trying to convince Mosedschurte that this article, as well as its mother article is dramatically biased. I didn't introduce appropriate tags into the article to avoid escalation of the conflict, however, I'll probably will have to do that in close future.

With regards to other accusations, I doubt they were justified. I believe I already provided exhaustive explanations elsewhere.
Briefly, to my opinion Mosedschurte is a good and productive writer, however, he sometimes fails to cite the sources correctly or directly misinterprets them. More seriously, he is a biased writer and performs WP:SYNTH. An example of my analysis of his biased writer's manner is presented here. Unfortunately, it is very hard to fix a situation, because Mosedschurte behaves as an owner of all articles he edited or created.
Nevertheless, in attempts to establish a productive dialogue with him I posted a following message on his talk table [60], and, according to my first impression, the situation started to normalize. I also tried to involve other editors to resolve the dispute (by the way, the third editor, Renata, generally supported me in that dispute).
In conclusion, I am glad that Mosedschurte reported on the issue to ANI, because, to my opinion, involvement of a third party would help to resolve the situation.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I am not sure the accusation in violation of 3RR is correct."

--one, two, three

--And that was after getting warned for WP:Edit War and WP:3RR, such as here and here

--Not only that, this editor claimed the revert was a move -- which is still WP:3RR and WP:Edit Wars, but didn't even do that at first. Rather, he just deleted it straight up. He finally actually moved it elsewhere, without the straight up delete 'After this ANI section this was started. Still WP:3RR, of course, it was just that the prior reverts went even beyond what he'd prior claimed they were (full deletes, not moves).

Re: "for changes I made and proposed to move the disputable text into another section. I got neither negative nor positive response on my proposal."

Not only was there no prior proposal, but he didn't even just move the text. He deleted it. In any event, both the repeated insistence on moving it (which was actually even a full delete before getting caught) is WP:Edit Waring and WP:3RR.

Re: "Briefly, to my opinion Mosedschurte is a good and productive writer, however, he sometimes fails to cite the sources correctly or directly misinterprets them. More seriously, he is a biased writer and performs WP:SYNTH."

--That baseless accusation is not even worth a response, but it is the sort of attack that is unfortunately par for the course. Usually accompanied by some kind of threat to vandalize an article unless sentences he does not like are deleted accompanied with statements like "The responsibility for the dramatic inflation of the section will rest on those who introduced the pieces of text similar to those mentioned above."

In short, along with the WP:3RR, WP:Edit War and WP:Fringe issues, I've been repeatedly attacked by this editor, with over-the-top accusations that differ such as spreading lies andhaving an "adherence to the 'German school' tradition." (don't even ask what he means by that).

Moreover, he repeatedly admits to making non-WP:NPOV such as adding a sentence to "to balance the biased anti-Soviet statement with the moderately pro-Soviet one", as he repeatedly believes himself to be battling "anti-Soviet" sentiments in a multitude of articles (e.g., Joseph Stalin, World War II, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, etc.) In addition, I've had to repeatedly clean up after disastrous adds, and I'm not taling about the language barrier issues (I have no problem with that), but, for example, somehow figuring out the sources he was likely referring to from all of 5-6 ref tags he added in one such instance, and fill out proper source tags. It's pretty much a disaster.

Lastly, lest anyone think this is just some "it takes two to tango" incident with no attempt at cordial dealings, it is most certainly not. I've avoided going to ANI with the various violatios (and there are many more than the above, those were just ones I remembered) for a long time, attempting to work through difficulties of this editors' attacks, deletes and massive article disruptions. I've repeatedly added material, sometimes in large quantities, to articles in response to his suggestions, some of which I don't even think really belongs, frankly, just to avoid having to go to ANI. I don't attack him back. I regularly have to clean up his own edits (like I said, I really don't at all mind the language issue, I'm talking about other material).

At some point, with that many attacks and policy violations, I've just grown weary of dealing with it, and shouldn't have to on Wikipedia. Which is one of the reasons I finally decided to just open an ANI section on it for help.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mosedschurte,
Try to think about the following. I never had such problems with other editors before. You had[61]. I never cited the sources unaccurately. You did.
However, we have something in common: we both are growing weary as a result of fruitless disputes. As I already pointed out several times, a third opinion would be helpful to find a way out of impasse. If you don't like this idea, maybe informal mediation, or formal mediation, or arbitration would better satisfy you?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: " I never cited the sources unaccurately. You did

--Not that this is particularly new, but it is yet another completely baseless accusation. I actually just moved another editors' sentence to another article at his request.

--Note, with all of the other baseless attacks from this editor above, that this baseless attack is not particularly new. Rather, it's become quite expected. There's not much more that can be done working with him, as I've shown above (I'll save the re-linking) I've done repeatedly.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "we have something in common: we both are growing weary as a result of fruitless disputes."

--Any attempt to now at this late hour -- after all of the violations -- to make this look like some "tit-for-tat" dispute between two editors isn't going to work. This editors' repeated violations are cataloged at length above (I won't bother re-linking), as well as my repeated attempts to work with him (also linked above) and repeated cleanups of his work (also above). Along with just the latest (the 3RR here).

--As mentioned, I've repeatedly kept myself from coming to ANI with the various threats, attacks and edit warring in the hopes of avoiding that hassle, sometimes including agreeing to add material I don't even think belongs into articles (I won't bother re-linking the above). This was a last resort with this editor.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You did". Didn't understand. Explain, please.

Re: "I actually just moved..." etc. I meant the reversion made by Stor stark7.

You didn't answered my major question. Whatever interpretation of the issue you proposed, in actuality it seems to be a content dispute. I proposed a way to resolve it. Do you agree, and, if not, what is your proposal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to add that WP:DE#Refusal to 'get the point' is one of the signs of a disruptive editor, although it is hard to formalise. Since during our discussions the arguments are being repeated almost without end, we definitely need in something like a third opinion. I would be greatful if someone proposed a suitable way out of impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "You didn't answered my major question. Whatever interpretation of the issue you proposed, in actuality it seems to be a content dispute."

--That's not accurate, and I think me not originally bringing your various violations to ANI upfront may have caused the misunderstanding that this continued editing practice was okay .

--It's not a content dispute at this point. Rather, it's long series of threats, false accusations, 3RR and other Wikipedia violations that require administrative action. Were it just a content dispute, it would be for the Talk page, not the ANI board. In fact, pending this ANI issue, I haven't even bothered editing the various grammar mistakes in the latest paragraph you inserted, much less re-entering in it's actual chronological spot. (note: Stor Stark didn't know when he made that comment that I'd just moved another editors' sentence to another article at his request -- not I expected you to actually check up on making a baseless allegation about another editor, as you also falsely claimed other edtors lie and purposefully manipulate articles and "adhere[ to the 'German school' tradition"] as well as the other various claims of nationalism accusations above). Mosedschurte (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I got your point. Let's wait what other users will say.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible death threat from IP inserted into article

Jane Addams received this edit that mentions the death of someone occurring in a certain amount of time. I usually stick to FAC and its snug little circle. I reverted the vandalism and blocked the IP for a week, though I'll wager something stronger is warranted. I'm unfamiliar with the way the IP or local police are contacted, if at all in this situation. I would appreciate a brief "this is what we do" so I can do it. I have to do it to learn it, so if I need to contact the provider because that is what admins do, I'll do it. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like nothing more run-of-the-mill vandalism. That block should suffice. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, WP:TOV has some thoughts on this type of incident. --Rodhullandemu 14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing a closed AfD to refactor one's intemperate comments

Resolved

 – Consensus seems clear here; thank you for commenting. Skomorokh 18:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Teodorovich as a snow keep yesterday. The nominator then altered their comments, which I reverted, pointing out that the debate had closed and advising them to raise any ongoing issues on the article talkpage. Another participant then refactored their comments as an apology to the nominator, which a third participant has requested I revert. Now usually we do not allow closed discussions to be edited, but we do encourage the refactoring of unnecessarily hostile comments. There would be a precedent in allowing alterations in courtesy blanking nasty RfAs, for example. What do you think ought to be done in this case? Skomorokh 17:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I feel that allowing people to alter their talk page comments would be a bad idea. There's a reason we tell people not to modify the archived discussion, in big red lettres. The archive is a record of the closed discussion, preserved for all to see. Records of discussions should not be removed or altered except with a very compelling reason, such as an Oversighter might have. altering archived discussions juse because they were a bit uncivil has never been our way. Firestorm ^Talk 17:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The first diff was unnecessary and you were right to revert it. What's the point of adding a comment like that to a closed discussion? The edit by User:Ikip should also be reverted, because it takes responses to his comment out of context. I'm not opposed to striking the offending sentence instead of removing it outright though.--Atlan (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was closed - my comment was made 4 minutes after the discussion was closed, so I probably never got the red sentence. I'm surprised this became an incident though: I expect all post-closure edits to be reverted. --Carbon Rodney 00:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The combined diff shows no apparent overlap, so an edit conflict would not have been generated. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Striking stuff is fine imo, but stuff should not be added, removed, or refactored. If you want to make some kind of amends, or additional comment, do so on the talk page. –xeno (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If you were angry enough to write WP:DICKish comments on an AfD in the first place, then they probably also led to further comments based on it. Refactoring should not be done, else context change. Strikethroughs make no sense in that case either - at least once the AfD is closed for archive. Make amends elsewhere. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Changing comments on an archived AfD makes the readable decision-making process misleading. Apologies and other WP:CIVIL reconsiderations after closure should occur on the AfD Talk page. Strikethroughs should be allowed on Talk pages in general, but not on closed/archived discussions—the latter lends itself to bad-faith edits, such as sanitizing one's edit history, and outweighs any potential WP:CIVIL benefit.

Full disclosure: I have been irked by different editors radically changing comments I had replied to (in AfD's and other discussions intended to be public), making my replies look pointless or foolish; I try not to do this, and would prefer others play by the same rules. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Restored to version as of Skomorokh's close.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• If we're not going to allow people to amend intemperate comments then we should allow them to request courtesy blanking. We should not be in the business of erecting monuments to people's foolish moments, should we? Guy (Help!) 19:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The few times I've ever edited an archived page I try to make it clear that it is an after-the-fact edit rather than rewriting history. For example, you could strike a hasty comment and then add in italics: Note - I am striking my own comment now that the matter is closed because I believe it was unfairly harsh. Sorry for any inconvenience - second signature ... I can't see how anyone would object to that. Wikidemon (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking is different from selective refactoring because a reader will not be misled – clearly the discussion wasn't originally blank. I only strike, and when I do, I label them with a new signature in <small> tags, sometimes with a note per Wikidemon. WP:Civility#Removal of uncivil comments allows for striking, removal, or rewriting. I agree with the consensus that archives should not be altered without good reason. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits

Vintagekits and I seem to be having a problem. I think he's making biased edits and he thinks I'm removing referenced material. That's fine, content disputes are normal. However, his actions during this dispute involve things like calling me an "idiot," a "dick,"[62] referring to my edits as "moronic"[63], "fuck ups" [64], "ill-informed bullshit"[65], etc.

I bring this up because he's had a long history on this site and has been blocked in the past for similar name-calling. He's also been blocked because of his problems dealing with Irish issues. The issue at the heart of our content dispute involves Irish nationalism -- i.e., it's about a boxer who was born in Northern Ireland and whether or not he's Irish or British. In fact, it's not even about that, it's about how a website reports that. He uses unreliable references to push his point-of-view and, when I attempt to clean it up, I get vitriol from him.

I'm tired of dealing with his profanity and his inability to see his biases. He seems to have been unblocked on the condition that he play nice with others. I certainy don't feel he's doing that in this case.MKil (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

This discussion here will give you some indication as to what kind of brick wall i have been banging my head against. Profanity was entirely justified.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

More background here - my head hurts!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No, being civil is not optional. Kevin (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply calling a spade a spade, I stayed as civil as possible - read the moronic arguments of the editor for evidence as to why he IS moronic. Maybe you should be more worried about an editor that refuses to adhere to wikipedia editing rules then focus of some extremely minor as this. Sheesh sometimes I wonder!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you get it, so I'll be clear. The next time you refer to another editor as a moron, dick, idiot etc you will be blocked. Regardless of any perceived provocation, you must remain civil. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a little perspective my man - look at what I am dealing with - someone who REFUSES to abide by editing rules. What are we hear for? What are you going to do about that?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at his block log. He's been blocked a number of times for doing this type of thing. He's even been blocked indefinitely and then reinstated. How many times can he continue to flout the rules?MKil (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Vintagekits, you know that kind of language doesn't serve you well; it gets people's backs up without solving the problem. You wouldn't appreciate it at all if someone called you a moron if you made a bad edit. On the other hand, MKil, that is indeed a poor edit. The information was correct as of a specific date and time, and the more correct edit would be to include a phrase such as "in 1996, the site received xxx visitors a day..." Removing the information was not the preferred option here. Risker (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not just today its been going on for months with this guy. this is his idea of a good article, this is mine. How can you deal rationally with someone who says ""If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined." - that is more uncivil than any swear word.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

VK, you're absolutely right IMO (those unfortunate enough to remember 2007 will know this isn't something I say very often). I really can't see what the fuss is about here. – iridescent 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I'll admit that it could have been a better edit. When someone mentions that civilly, I can see the point. However, I don't believe I broke a rule here. I do believe that Vintagekit broke a variety a rule in this instance and in the past. Why do administrators continue to enable his bad behavior? I tried to discuss it civilly with him, I presented a compromise option, and he ignores it and continues to push his point of view using his unreliable references.MKil (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Is this your idea of a civil and rational discussion - I see one person trying to sort stuff out and once person basically saying "f@ck you".--Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you are the one who resorted to name calling there, I'd say you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

However, let's take the BoxRec edits. In my version, which I wrote after a discussion with you, I accurately and without bias describe the issue: "Some users have also raised issues with how certain boxers' nationality is represented on the site. For instance, there is a dispute over whether John Duddy, who is from Northern Ireland, should be listed as being from Ireland or the United Kingdom." Your version is this, in which you use "references" to support your opinion, not source your facts: "The Boxrec team changed the nationality of Irish boxer John Duddy to British on their boxing record database after it was initially listed as Irish.[8][9] A number of Boxrec members raised the issue with the owner of the website and Boxrec were contacted by members of "Team Duddy" to inform them that Duddy held an Irish passport. However, the owner of the website, John Sheppard, refused to accept Duddy's nationality as Irish.[8][5] A petition was then created objecting to Boxrec's refusal to amend Duddy's record.[5]" That gives undue weight to a minor controversy and takes sides in the issue. Why not a simple description like mine, which is free from bias?MKil (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

I give up! its impossible to have a straight discussion with the guy - impossible! One subject to the next without a thing ever getting resolve - he hurts my brain I tells ya!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Is my version an accurate description of the issue? Is there any bias in it? Two simple questions. No need for profanity or dramatics.MKil (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

There is a time and place for that discussion - this is not it. Lord give me strength!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to have this discussion with you elsewhere, but your reply, when you weren't swearing, was that your insertions had references so they cannot be touched. You refused to discuss the content of your edits and instead relied on your interpretation of the rules (which I feel are incorrect, btw) to avoid addressing your bias issues. So when and where do you want do discuss the actual issues? I'm happy to take it to mediation.MKil (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

Hence the reason that I took the issue to the Boxing Project so that I could get other editors opinons on the issue. Seriously man you need to understand the VERY basics of how wikipedia works before you start opening your mouth. Read WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS and then you will have the basics. I'm now finished here. Can some moderator please take this guy under their wing and explain to him some of the procedures before I throw my computer out of the window.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wasn't there a parole when VK rejoined the community? - I am uncertain if it were to do with areas of editing or use of colourful terminology (or both). Has it lapsed or been put aside? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed long ago. – iridescent 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

VK's editing of boxing related articles was also never part of any parole. - Galloglass 22:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The restrictions Vk is currently under is listed here. The ring-fenced civility parole, resulting in an immediate block, has expired. That said, a reversion to aggressive, abusive language of the past should not be tolerated either. We don't want to go back there. Rockpocket 22:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I purposefully tried to avoid the guy with this edit - gimme a frickin break for god sake!--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A number of people are supporting your content edits, but no-one is agreeing with the way you addressed the other editor. That should tell you something. If you find yourself getting wound up, you can always turn of the computer and walk away. Rockpocket 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the discussion before this report and see if there was any abuse and see who was trying to approach the subject in a rational and policy based manner.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've read it all and don't really see the problem with your version of the article. However, the very fact that this discussion is at ANI should tell you that your method of dealing with the disagreement was ineffective. Believe it or not, admins deal with fucking morons on a daily basis, yet how many of them do you see being called that? Very little, because doing so tends to be counter-productive. How many times is this going to happen before you get it in that skull of yours: using abusive or incivil language is only going to backfire on you! Rockpocket 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find that I went about it right - I disengaged with the guy, posted on the Boxing Project page but then the editor that has the balls to report me hounds be on my talkpage just because I wont get into an argument with him. If I used some of what you think was incivil language then it was deserved at the time and then I dropped the discussion where it belonged in the trash!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are keen to remind MKil of our policies (on his talk page: Listen I dont make the rules, I am not telling you how to edit - I am telling you to abide by wikipedias rules.), so heed you own advice and abide one of our key rules yourself: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." There is no acceptable justification for calling him an idiot just because he has a content disagreement with you. Drop that sort of language, and people will help you deal with content issues, continue to use it and you become the problem. Rockpocket 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If have been perfectly civil with the guy for months on end, and constantly trying to inform him of wikipedia policy with regards editing articles - I care a lot more about the content of articles then the odd fuck, bollocks or moron on a talk page - great your priorities straight! If you spent even one eight of this effort advising User:MKil of wiki editing policy then we wouldnt have this issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Section deleted, unacceptable for undue weight and soapboxing reasons. Find something else to write about and be nice to each other unless you want a time-out. Thatcher 15:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's nice to have a rational and neutral admin come out of retirement to give his opinion and then scurry off - I'll be reverting your illogical edit in 10,9,8,7,6,5............--Vintagekits (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Scurry off? Excuse me for not being online 24 hours a day. Thatcher 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems Vintagekits is trying to get me in trouble for bringing his uncivil behavior to light. He has reported me for violating 3RR [66], which I certainly did not do. The edits I made were not reversions but attempts to clean up the article and make it more accurate. And, violating the procedure for reporting me, he failed to notify me on my talk page of such a report. As his complaints below about me illustrate, it's clear he's trying to shift the focus from his uncivil habits.

His response to Thatcher (calling his/her edits "illogical") and his vendetta against me should illustrate that Vintagekits still has problems playing nice with people here.MKil (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

I am merely hightlighting your bad behaviour - in a perfectly civil manner to I might add. Have a read of Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions to see what exceptions there are to WP:3RR - an attempt "to clean up the article and make it more accurate" is not one of them!--Vintagekits (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They weren't reverts, for one. One was a revert and the other three were edits designed to clean up the article and remove your original research and outdated references.

You ask below what opinion you are promoting. You have called the labeling of John Duddy as a Brit a "racist" action on the Boxrec talk page. Your views on Irish nationalism are well known. You've been forbidden to edit certain Irish-related topics because of your trouble keeping a cool head on the issue. Your action pushing your opinion on the minor BoxRec dispute about John Duddy illustrates your trouble keeping your biases free on this issue.

I'd invite anyone to look at the edit history of BoxRec. A variety of editors have tried to remove or modify the section in dispute. Vintagekits always returns to insert it. Only he seems to want it in. Most other users recognize that it is not only non-notable but biased and sourced with unreliable sources.MKil (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

• Vintagekits has been pushing this soapbox issue since October 2006, according to the talk page. Respectfully suggest he has made this article into a Troubles-related article under the terms of his probation, by his own persistent actions. His probation does not appear to be an Arbcom sanction, who enforces it? Thatcher 18:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Soapboxing is about promoting ones own opinion - what opinion am I trying to promote?--Vintagekits (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps your opinions about Irish nationality. Or perhaps merely your own opinions about the unreliability of this web site. Wikipedia is not your soapbox nor your coatrack. You can't tell us that the web site is unreliable, nor are you allowed to prove it by pointing to inconsistent data on the web site itself (as that is original research). You may report what reliable sources have said about the web site. Your sources to date include anonymous people posting to the web site's internal forums and to the editor of a blog for a particular boxer. Neither of those are reliable sources, and you have been told this on the article talk page since 2006. 2-1/2 years is more than enough proof that you are trying to use the article as a soapbox for something. Thatcher 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have explain this before but you are choose to ignore it (Thatcher is an apt handle for you and possibly explains your bias) - it is not my opinion that Duddy is Irish OK!, it is everyones except BoxRec.

You choose to ignore the validity of the sources provided - Thatcher by name and nature!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Duddy's nationality is not at issue. The issue is that the web site is claimed to have problems with reliability of national identification of its boxers. For which proposition you have offered original research and a single blog posting. Drop it. And by the way, making ethnic insinuations based on my user name does not help your cause. Thatcher 20:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No YOU are missing the point. Also "ethnic insinuations based on my user name" - I dont know or even care what ethnicity you are. This is becoming moronic!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

VK, you are violating both the letter and the spirit of WP:NPA by commenting on Thatcher's user name, and no amount of "it's not ethnic" wikilawyering can obfuscate that - and that's before we ever get to your use of the word "moronic". Lapsed parole or no, if I see any sign of continued personal attacks from you, I'll be issuing a block. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:MKil

This editor has been causing distruption for a while and it seems to have gone under the radar without a word being said.

1. With this edit he removes references and replaces it with a fact tag and also removes a sourced full section and replaces it with unsource OR. 2. Removes sourced material. And when asked to provide a source for the edit and to justify it he states that "If I think information is outdated, I can delete it. I don't have to get a reference to prove it". and when informed of the rules of Original Research he went on to say "You're not the boss here. I can edit how I like. Unlike you, I've never been banned. If you want to find the updated material, go for it. Perhaps I could do so, too, if I were so inclined."

This is a blatant breach of WP:OR and WP:CIVIL and is a threat to continue his disruptive editing pattern.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a response to a completely uncivil user who has been banned in the past for his abusive behavior. I stand by my edits to remove inaccurate and biased material from Wikipedia. If any of my edits were inaccurate or a violation of policies, let's discuss.MKil (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)MKil

1. What had my previous blocks (no block for my actions in over a year) got to do with your refusal to provide references?

2. You were told your edits where we original research, you said you didnt need to prove anything you said was right - that is a breach of WP:OR - have you ever read this policy?

3. You threatened to continue this distruptive pattern which is blockable in itself and was also a breach of WP:CIVIL.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointy Tit-for-Tat isn't going to help you here, VintageKits. ThuranX (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pointy!!!! You are having a laugh right!! Its nothing of the sort. What do you want me to do just ignore the behaviour and blatant disruptive editing that has caused this BS? Address the issue or dont post!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a coarse person, and prone to describing low-quality content how I see it. I still manage to make myself understood without calling anyone a moron. I'm guessing you're at least as articulate as I am. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to comment on my actions then there is a discussion above - if you want to comment on MKil's actions do it here. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalous deletions by admin

Resolved

 – Drama taking place at another venue.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride keeps deleting people's secret pages for no real reason, all written in LOLtalk (see here [click on the red link!!]). Other users have been complaining about this and I think that this will turn into (if it not already has) a problem. Thanks for reading and dealing with this!! Montgomery' 39 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Already being discussed on AN: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#MZMcBride_and_deletion -MBK₀₀₄ 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Russavia's "re-direction"

Resolved

 – nuttin doin.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this edit by Russavia [67], which, while ostensibly putting a redirect, effectively demolishes the entire article (whatever its merits) without so much as discussion, and could be qualifed as WP:Vandalism.

Russ's edit summary seems to display an interest in further discussion if users object to the change. Absent some pattern of ongoing or past trouble, calling for admin intervention based on this one edit seems a bit much. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; this looks to be a content dispute, nothing admins can do just now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

User ignores Image warnings

Resolved

 – warned.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC) ... and blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Warden987 is uploading lots of files without source information. Despite the vast amount of warnings on his page they don't seem to stop. Judging by where the pictures are taken russian may be their first language. --DFS454 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just gave them a final warning, in both English and Google-translated Russian. If anyone actually speaks this language, please try talking with them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Since they went and uploaded another 26 images without any information, I've blocked this user indefinitely until they read through the image use policy and promise to abide by it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Cmstrand1988

Resolved

 – blocked--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Cmstrand1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), recently unblocked after a name change (previous name was promotional), returned, and resumed spamming for the same firm ("Mack's Prairie Wings" )as previous to his block/name change . Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the situation was being resolved as I was reporting the incident. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

IP block needed, possibly oversight removal of content, 24.243.4.2

Resolved

 – IP blocked short-term and material oversighted.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This user is repeatedly inserting unsourced information about the current employer and (I think) workplace location of a former adult film performer. The information has been removed several times, but the IP keeps reverting. The IP is clearly an SPA and only edits to do this. See Annabel Chong and Strand Releasing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

School shootings?

I thought this might be worth reporting here. An IP posted something about school shootings in Zionsville, Indiana [68]. I rolled back the edit as vandalism at first, because there has never been a school shooting there. But then I got to thinking, maybe this is some sort of threat? What do you think? Just to be safe. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you reported this to the FBI or the local police department in Indiana. Someone should contact the Foundation. ASAP. Rio de oro (talk)

No I have not done anything like that. Does someone here do that? Charles Edward (Talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't really a threat (in fact, it doesn't even make much sense in that context). It can't hurt to refer it to the local police, of course, but informing the FBI seems like overkill. Moreover, a review of the other edits from that IP suggest he or she is making more a childish point about school rivalries, than any violent threats. Finally, if anyone does wish to pursue this further there is a fairly large clue in the contribs, as to the name of the person behind it. Rockpocket 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me, it's borderline. Now if he said "there will be a lot of school shootings", that would be a threat. This could also be regular unsourced commentary. Anyway, it's better to be safe than sorry and I think there's nothing wrong with a friendly notification of the local authorities. Themfromspace (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• A Trusted Source search shows the post in question came from Zionsville, Indiana. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 24, 2009 @ 02:24
• I emailed the State Police on their website, but they say they only check emails during regular hours. If someone feels so inclined to call feel free. I am off here for the night. Charles Edward (Talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SgtAvestrand1956

I don't know what to make of SgtAvestrand1956 (talk · contribs). The editor makes the same couple of minor changes, and then self-reverts them, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again at Physician assistant. The edit summaries, when present, have nothing to do with the edits.

The page has had previous problems with sockpuppets of User:Nrse, but this is a different type of editing. I doubt that a single user making even a dozen edits a day is going to annoy the servers that much, but it's... very odd. The user, who has been blocked once for edit warring, is uncommunicative and nonresponsive. Should anything be done? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very...interesting. In all my time at Wikipedia, I don't think i've ever encountered something like this. Although it doesn't tax the servers, it does screw around with the page's history. I'm hesitant to say for sure what should be done, but I would think this would be treated like a violation of WP:3RR. Maybe? Firestorm ^Talk 03:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of him. A fundamental aspect of this encyclopedia is that it is built through a collaborative effort. Editors should have to respond to other editors and not just blank their talkpages whenever anyone makes a comment there. Especially when the edits are clearly unproductive/weird. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, they shouldn't just blank their own talkpages, but they can. Blanking one's own talk page isn't grounds for complaint (an exception or two exists), though flooding article histories with useless edits might be. -kotra (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Its not so much the blanking per se, but the blanking is a further indication that he has no plans of discussing his weird edits with anyone. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

True. -kotra (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically 3RR doesn't apply in this case: self-reverts don't count. However, the other half of their edits are vandalism, so perhaps a block is in order (as a vandalism-only account). -kotra (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is rather tempting to block this account as none of their edits are really productive and it certainly looks like an attempt to swamp other editors' contributions to the page... but there is still a plausible case to be made that the user just can't decide which version of the text is best, and is editing in good faith. If anyone would like to extend a hand to this editor and offer advice on editing/previewing text, that would be great - otherwise, I don't think any serious harm is yet being done, so I'm not going to intervene. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad employee

Resolved

 – user warned and next time AIV

Bad employee (talk · contribs)

Bad_employee seems to be a deliberate vandal - this page is being flamed against the current President of Pakistan, have cleaned up the bilge in revision 272791543: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aacool (talk • contribs)

Warned him. If you want to block him as a vandalism-only account you won't run into my protests.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In the future, WP:AIV is a good place to report stuff like this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

211.179.112.158

I have been referred to this board by the help desk board. I will just cut and past the discussion from that board here, as I think the whole discussion can be relevant from your consideration. Thank you.

Please let me know how to handle this case.

There is an IP user who refuses to adhere to the Chinese Naming Convention in relations to naming. In particular, the naming convention says when the name of the country is used, use "Republic of China" and when the location is used, use "Taiwan".

The edit dispute relates to Developed country and High income economy, when this IP user keeps changing the name of the country to "Taiwan". I have asked this IP user to use edit summary and the related discussion page, but he or she has refused to. This IP user keeps on giving me warnings when I reverted his or her edit.

Can Wikipedia rules be used to resolve this? Can blocking be used on this IP user in this case? If it is possible, what are the warning templates to use? Thank you.--pyl (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

{{uw-3rr}}, WP:3RRN.. Although in most cases IP editors like these are not editing in bad faith, they are just not aware of the policies so unless the editor is being totally non-responsive its best to try and discuss things with them on talk pages first. –Capricorn42 (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

This IP user is totally non-responsive. I left a message on his talk pages referring to the Chinese Naming Convention. But he still reverted my edit and left warning messages. Please see User_talk:211.179.112.158. As you can see, this user has a series of warning messages from a number of other editors.

Are there any other things I can do other than the 3-rr rule? Does his behaviour constitute vandalism or removal of content? Is it possible to get an administrator to leave a message on his talk page and ask him to use talk / discussion / edit summary? Thank you again.--pyl (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this is not vandalism but a content dispute. You can get quick administrative attention at WP:ANI or WP:3RRN–Capricorn42 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• The naming convention doesn't say editors are forbidden to use the term Taiwan. In fact, it says the term is often more accurate and Republic of China has a note at the top saying: "The Republic of China was commonly known as "China" or "Nationalist China" until the 1970s when it has since been commonly known as "Taiwan"." In light of the higher 'use the most common name' policy, I don't see any violations here except perhaps 3RR but they'd have to be told about its existence too. - Mgm|^(talk) 05:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a convention, which means users *should* stick with it. What you are doing is exactly the type of discussion that I would like to be involved with the anonymous IP user, which he has so far refused to do.--pyl (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• As I said, the convention clearly lists possible exceptions so it arguable still sticks to the guideline. Not discussing it, is unforgiveable. A single comment is the very least required in such a heated disagreement. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I will refer this matter to the administrator's notice board and see if they can do something about this.--pyl (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think forum-shopping is going to help, nor is it a wise idea. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not forum shopping. I came here because another editor above suggested this:-

"You can get quick administrative attention at WP:ANI"

And I thought this is the better forum to deal with the matter.

I agree with Mgm that discussions are required to reach consensus, and that's why I am here to see if administrators can provide us with some advice on handling users who do not response or discuss. Since the report is filed, I finally got some sort of response from this IP user and I will see if we can reach some sort of agreement.--pyl (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

About to lose my mind...

Because apparently, merely providing a source for a BLP violation, even if the content is completely unsupported by it, makes it a content dispute. You can read for yourself the claim made at Rodrigo Ávila#Controversies, which implies that Avila supports mass murder. But the source cited doesn't support anything of the kind: Avila is asked if he knew the man referred to in the controversies section, and he replies merely that he met the man as a teenager and vaguely that he supported what his own party did to fight communism. That source is given here. And beyond that, the IP that keeps adding it rapidly changes address and completely refuses to discuss the matter, except for asking me to clarify my position on my talk page (after which he continued to institute the BLP violation). So maybe a controversy does exist, and maybe a source actually exists for it, but as far as the given source goes, this is a violation of WP:BLP, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR (I love alphabet soup). And with regards to the title of this section, I really am about to lose my mind, after having this turned away twice at RFPP and being completely ignored in a previous ANI post. Per DGAF, I'm never going to edit the article again (seriously, only 1000 people a month even read it, so I probably shouldn't care), but I'm going to ask that someone else actually bother to look into this. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Also, we shouldn't be dealing with guilt by association. I'll continue to revert per BLP as long as I can. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week per IAR. --Carnildo (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think IAR is a good rationale to wheel-war my decision. You could have at least asked for my input, not just ignore my decision. And I still maintain it was correct to decline protection because blocking the IP is still the easier option that does not shut out all anon editors (per WP:PROTECT this should be preferred). SoWhy 10:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

...Except that in this case we have a determined edit warrior with a dynamic IP address. Semi-protection was appropriate, more so than trying to play whack-a-mole, especially since there is a BLP violation. Horologium (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And the evidence is where? I see no tries to block the IP first and I still maintain that it was perfectly possible to ask me before ignoring my decision. That would just be good manners... SoWhy 11:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree that you should have been (at least) notified; I would have asked, but that's because I tend to be process-oriented. But as to the first, the duck test pretty clearly establishes that all of the IP addresses are the same individual, or a small group working together, since the only edits they have are to (re)insert the same defamatory and synthesized allegations against a living individual. Blocking any of the IPs would not have had any effect, as simply logging off and resetting the modem would have established a new IP address. Horologium (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree here and for bringing the content dispute here, but on my reading of the interview that was cited as a source, there seems to be a solid basis for saying that this guy "supports" d'Aubuisson. I was about to revert, but I don't want to risk getting blocked for BLP violation without discussing first. Could the admins who have mentioned BLP please register that there is some substantial disagreement here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you translate it? Either way, Wikipedia doesn't do guilt by association. Well, it does, but shouldn't. We can say he supports d'Aubuisson, and/or which parts of him, but what d'Aubisson does is strictly off-limits for the biography of Ávila. Doubly so, because he's a presidential candidate. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is going on at length about how D'Aubuisson "would be pround of him" and how he has been following D'Aubuisson's model and why he is proud of having photographs of D'Aubuisson in his office and how D'Aubuisson was generally a great guy. As for whether this attachment (his, personally) is a topic for public "controversy" in the country, I can't say much; I have no idea about the political life of that place, but foreign media certainly do stress the heritage of D'Aubuisson when talking about the role of his party, and you can easily find things like this [69] (a political comment whose status as a "reliable source" is certainly open to debate, but you get an idea of the potential for controversy.) Quote: "His [i.e. Ávila's] immediate imprecation to the ghost of the death squad founder and intellectual author of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, Roberto D’Aubuisson is a chilling reminder that the structure of power in El Salvador will not give up their privilege [...]". By the way, "guilt by association" is a red herring here. If A likes B, although B is widely agreed to be evil, and I take that as grounds for a negative judgment about A, that's not "guilt by association" but an entirely rational judgment. "Guilt by association" would be if I negatively judge A because B likes him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Incitement to Suicide as a Personal Attack

Resolved

 – Editor given the rules and warned

User: MikFantastik, a new contributor, recently vandalized the article Too Beautiful to Live by removed an unflattering, but verifiable (22 source citations), section titled "Controversies" (which is a normal section for radio hosts entries, see Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, etc.). Following this he started lodging frivolous complaints about me everywhere. This is all being dealt with through normal channels such as dispute resolution, editing, etc., I mention it just for context and background. (Apparently he is a member of the fan club of the article topic, which may explain his edit.)

However, as part of his - apparent - extreme irritation at my additions to the article, he edited my userpage with a note that suggested I was psychologically impaired and suggestion I call a suicide hotline. (I don't understand his comment about "trolling" "the website", unless he meant my edits to their article, but I could be mistaken, I didn't understand much of it.) To wit:

Can you explain why you're so angry at the show/Luke that you'd spend almost five hours vandalizing its Wikipedia page and that you'd return frequently to the TBTL website to Troll its comments section? Is it just because you think it upsets other people and you're enjoying that process? I'm just trying to understand. As I've said before, this is fascinating! I also feel a little sad for you. Please feel free to call 877-870-HOPE (4673) if you'd like to talk. I've definitely worked with people who have psychological profiles similar to yours and though I don't know you, I worry.

I hope MikFantastic can be a long and fruitful contributor to the community, but I fear that will never happen unless some type of sanction is imposed on him as a corrective action in lieu of this early warning sign of potential disruption. Clearly suggesting someone call a suicide hotline - especially when left on a UserPage, not Talk - goes far beyond a simple personal attack and could be construed as a death threat.

A temporary IP block or even a written warning would be nice. Thanks for your time and assistance. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see this as a "threat". It is patently uncivil, and would generally be a WP:WQA issue. I have done 2 things: a level 2 NPA warning, and left my version of the Welcome Template that explains the Wikipedia rules, but is focussed on someone who has been uncivil {{subst:User:Bwilkins/welcomecivil}} (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the complainant. 249 edits. Recently returned "former" wikipedian who claims to have "forgotten" his password. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be construed as a death threat because the user is not implying that someone is going to kill you. It's clearly not a particularly nice thing to write because it implies some sort of mental illness and is clearly a personal attack (for the time being, glossing over the using mental illness as an insult). MikFantastic ought to receive a warning for that. However, unless you can be certain that it was MikFantastik who removed the information, then you can't state it as fact. The only sourced content I see MikFantastik removing is here, which I agree with because it isn't neutral. I see several single purpose accounts here who did remove critical comments.

• User:Deadcow13 - who has only been removing critical statements from the article
• User:Tbtlfan - who has been removing critical statements from the article as well as Luke Burbank
• User:98.247.33.124 - who has removed critical statements from the article
• User:Radiocop - who has removed critical statements as well as blanking pages, as well as stating "troll are very sad a frustrating. TBTL is a really fun radio show and podcast that suffers from one sad person who stalks the comments section of the website and even tries to set up fake wiki pages about it. this is one of them." [70]

If you feel that there is a connection and want to take it further then you can file a request for checkuser. However, there is always the possiblity that it will say that they are all independent users. Something else that I am puzzled about is your editing. For instance, here where you made a lot of edits before then requesting speedy deletion. Edits like this one where you added several potentially disputable sentences without any citations. In future, if you are adding controversial statements, then make sure they are added with citations. Don't add the statement and then try and cite it later on. Without citations, it looks as though both sides have an agenda when editing this article.

You state that you are dealing with this via dispute resolution - do you have a link to the page? Readro (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to your questions (I apologize in advance for several syntax and grammar errors in below, I'm in a remote area with a limited, slow internet connection at present that makes editing and typing rather slow and tedious):

Multiple User Vandals - Yes, most likely they are multiple users. I've previously noted the topic of this article may have requested his fan club begin "patroling" his wikipedia page, which strikes me as tampering. At the present time I think it would heighten tensions for me to pursue that so, in the spirit of trying to difuse tensions, have elected not to do so. In addition to editing my personal userpage, these users have insinuated various scurrious things about me, note above mentions of me being a "troll" [sic] on "their website", which I assume means they believe the topic's wikipedia entry is off-limits? (I really don't know.) In any case, my interst at this point is simply to diffuse tension and allow everyone to take a breather but I'd still rather not be called mentally unstable on my own userpage. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do.

"potentially disputable sentences" - were added with 22 citations, not "without any citations."These were immediately deleted by above new users without discussion or explanation. The article now stands as a 3-page long article on a local radio show with 1 citation of dubious quality. Requests for citations by myself and others on the vandalized version of the article have been deleted without discussion. Notability and ad tags by myself and others have been deleted without discussion.

re speedy deletion - that was, frankly, an error on my part; one which I have no problem in admitting and taking responsbility for

dispute resolution - please see the discussion page for this article for further clarification; as I've noted I'm OOT at present and unable to commit the time to initiate the process for formal mediation as I've never had to do it before so there will be a learning curve for me -- in my note on the discussion page I've explained that - to avoid an edit war - I will avoid undoing the vandalism and replacing the, fully cited, sections that were deleted without discussion or explanation by users registered less than 24 hours whose only edit history is on this article until I have the opportunity to begin formal mediation; I believe this is a congenial, proactive and respectful way to handle this matter - I have no desire to engage in the type of unilateral action the vandals did or to perpetuate ill will and have both voluntarily placed the onus for reconstruction of the article on myself and indicated a willingness to voluntarily suspend corrective editing until mediation can begin ... in the interim I'm simply asking the vandals not edit my actual userpage as well as the article or, if they do, at least please don't post numbers to suicide hotlines - I don't believe that's an unreasonable request and it's the only one I'm making in this incident report

Thanks for your input. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) They've been warned about incivility - nothing blockable from that right now. Is there anything else you need out of this for resolution? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks very much for your assistance. I don't even think the comment, despite being loathsome, warrants user blocking and to do so would just further inflame tensions in what, inexplicably, has become a tense situation for reasons I still don't fully understand. Thanks for your swift and tempered action. Notabilitypatrol (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Harrying a Move Request

Goran.S2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Goran.S2 has posted a link to a Talk:Ana Ivanović#Requested move at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Serbia, a group he knows to share his opinions. He had previously done this with a similar discussion at Novak Djokovic, which has since turned into a battleground between Eastern Europeans and WP:UE supporters. I asked him to remove his message as inappropriate canvassing at the Move Request discussion and at his Talk page, but he has refused.

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

In a similar vein, User:Biruitorul alerted a friend to the same Requested Move to votestack the opposition, as seen here. When brought up on the Talk page, the friend, clearly misunderstanding votestacking, says it's okay because 'Biruitorul knows that I have taken part in all such "let's drop the diacritics" debates in the past, and I have made my opinions clear for each and all to read.', which confirms that Biruitorul was contacting someone he knew to share his beliefs.

I hate to see this discussion turn into a war beyond its worth, but the canvassing is clearly meant to turn it into such. It seems like a common-sense example of WP:UE to me, but the discussion so far has not been very constructive, and with the latest developments, it appears to have lost any chance of being so. Any advice? --Yano (talk) 13:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see myself hauled before this tribunal again. Neither Göran nor I told anyone how to vote; we were merely informing parties we knew to be interested of an ongoing debate (which, I might add, is itself being conducted in rather sly fashion by Yano, taking one article after another and proposing that diacritics be removed thence, instead of centralizing the discussion somewhere). Surely there's nothing wrong with that? After all, no one can know what's going on across Wikipedia at all times. Dahn even confirmed I did not canvass him, and no one has bought the canvassing charge in Göran's case (on the contrary).

So can we dismiss the case already and move on to more substantive arguments? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul, I think you've misunderstood votestacking. This seems like a clear example of it, and I included you here in the hopes of making it as clear to you as it is to me. If I am mistaken, then I apologize. As for your second point, there is already consensus on Wikipedia to follow English usage, so accusing me of being sly for enforcing that guideline seems a little over-the-top. --Yano (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is not a vote, and I've read the canvassing guidelines many a time, thank you very much. Regarding the second point: it would be more straightforward for us to have one central discussion rather than bringing up the same issue every week. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UE and the other naming conventions were all discussed by the Wikipedia community before they were adopted through consensus. That central discussion you wanted already took place, and it was in favor of common usage. If you want that to change, then renew the debate on a wider scale. --Yano (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't have much to do with ANI, and in any case, we use diacritics routinely, regardless of usage. Nothing wrong with that, provided redirects exist. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Baselessly claiming that readers of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Serbia cannot or will not support WP:UE and framing this dispute as "Eastern European vs. upholders of WP:UE" is both offensive and only serves to poison the editing atmosphere around the discussion.

The message left at the wikiproject was a single neutral notification at a general venue, and thus not a breach of WP:Votestacking. That you happen to believe that the audience of this message will not respond to it in an unbiased fashion is a personal prejudice, and nothing more. The only admin intervention required is a watchful eye on the discussion, to prevent a discussion on the quality of sources being recast along nationalistic lines. Knepflerle (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your response is hinged on the idea that my claim is baseless, but we have seen from evidence that it is not. Your choice of language in characterizing me is also rather extreme: "poison," "offensive," "personal prejudice," etc. I don't believe any of that is an accurate reflection of the issue or my concerns. --Yano (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if you personally perceive a correlation, this does not imply cause. Extrapolating your observation into stereotyping based on nationality is unfounded.

Just because an editor comes from Eastern Europe does not mean they can not or will not understand and uphold WP:UE, and stereotyping them as such is offensive. Just because an editor reads a certain national WikiProject does not mean they can not or will not understand and uphold WP:UE, and stereotyping them as such is offensive.

Framing an editor's interpretation of policy based on their nationality is not an accurate reflection of the editor. Claiming all cogent dissent in this discussion is entirely based on nationality is not an accurate reflection of the issue or their concerns. Knepflerle (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Members of that Project who responded to canvassing in the past prefered the Serbian spelling. It follows that the same person who did the first canvassing would expect a similar turn-out. In essence, User:Goran.S2 was calling for backup. We do not want Talk:Ana Ivanović to turn into the same perennial debate that Talk:Novak Djokovic did following its broadcast at Serbian Wikipedia and Project Serbia, but this is exactly what will happen if these simple matters of WP:UE keep turning into battles of national pride.

Your exercise in logic is also too elementary to accurately reflect the entire situation, because there is more at play than you consider in your scenario. --Yano (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Perceived) past correlation is not a basis for permanent stereotyping. The closing administrator will weigh the quality of argument presented, but in doing so is not going to assume a priori bad faith of a user based on nationality or membership of a WikiProject. Until then, it's far from clear what administrator intervention is needed right now. Knepflerle (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action might be to make User:Biruitorul aware of his votestacking and to rectify the inappropriate canvassing by User:Goran.S2. Ideally, the move request would also be settled before it explodes. --Yano (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I confirm that I am aware of your opinion that I votestacked. No admin action is needed to make me aware of that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Being willfully quarrelsome is not helpful. --Yano (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Digwuren has arrived to strike out some of my and others' comments, in addition to accusing me of assuming bad faith in the edit summary. The discussion is starting to focus on individual editors and larger causes rather than on how to comply with guidelines. --Yano (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to argue with no one, but Yano mentioned my name at least five times, so I must say something. This articles are part of Wiki project biography, Serbia and tennis. Before, we had discussions on Wiki project Tennis, calling people from project to help with some tennis articles; so what is problem for calling people from project Serbia (which is articles part of) and asking then if they want to participate in open discussion? I didn't say "vote for this, or that", and I didn't "recruit" people from some other part of Wikipedia community, I just ask people for their views from project Serbia (as same I would ask from project tennis), which is article part of. I know, people from project Serbia don't share the same views as Yano, but everyone have a right to vote in survey; and I think there lies the problem. --Göran S (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Impersonated by disruptive IP user

Resolved

 – Blocked by a handy-dandy admin

Recently a the page Boy or Girl paradox was protected because of disruptive IP editing. Now that IP user has created a new user, "Thesoxlost2", and is making personal attacks [71]

What is the proper course of action? Thanks --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The section that WP:Impersonation redirects to doesn't have anything on the subject any longer, but in the past it said they could be blocked immediately. –xeno (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting it here was a good course of action. Indef. yandman 14:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I edited the original poster's comment to fix the article name. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a nazi

Resolved

 – Blocked for 72 hours by User:Seicer — Aitias // discussion 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. 70.137.146.36 (talk · contribs) has called me a nazi more than once now. First time: diff, second time: diff. In the second edit they also called me Roland Freisler and said “Wieki-Heil”. Could someone please block them immediately? Thanks in advance. — Aitias // discussion 14:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 14:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. — Aitias // discussion 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User is still going at it on the talk page. Talk page protection might be necessary. It's also funny that the IP mentions "Wiki-Stasi" as that has nothing to do with nazism but rather communist East Germany (since the IP is so fixed on nazi-labelling). MuZemike 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Seicer protected the talk page. –xeno (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Monshuai and ARBMAC

Hi all, just a query involving WP:ARBMAC. I dealt with this 3RR report and noticed that the user had been warned for revert warring and had received an ARBMAC sanction warning back in August. Just wondering if this should be carried out as this is the 2nd time the user has been blocked for edit warring on the Bulgarian article. Thoughts and suggestions welcome. Thanks in advance. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because it was me who brought it up: Yes, I would say something from the ARBMAC repertoire – preferably a revert limitation – would be useful. This is a user motivated by a strong POV issue, certainly editing in good faith and quite possibly with some kernel of a legitimate concern somewhere, but pushing rather stubbornly against an established dominant view, and so far he has shown no other strategy than to revert-war when he finds opposition. This is exactly the type of user whose only chance of ever editing more happily is if he's forced to stop the reverting. (And if he can't do that, it will soon show and he'll have to go.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

(Re: "Just because it was me..." etc.) - No sir, please don't feel that because I brought something up that was indirectly "between us" before a while ago that I'm out to get you. That last sentence might not make sense, but here's a summary: I brought the ARBMAC request here because I haven't had much experience dealing with these things in the past so I'm seeking guidance. I don't mean anything bad by this at all, friend :-) I have absolutely nothing against you whatsoever! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't mean to imply anything like that. :-) That was more like oh I'm so sorry I'm barging in on a discussion at ANI again when I ought to be doing other stuff... Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai is not here all that much, but when he is here, he is an ethnic POV-warrior of the first order, usually on articles related to Bulgaria. Discussions seem to make no impression on him whatever; he knows he is right and that is all that matters. Look at a few of the items in Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Monshuai to get the flavor. He was warned on 5 August 2008 that he could be sanctioned under WP:ARBMAC, but made no appropriate response. He simply removed the notice from his Talk.

Since Monshuai causes trouble only in brief bursts, and then disappears for several months at a time, a short block or topic ban would have little effect. I suggest a *permanent* topic ban on Balkan-related topics. He would be allowed to request removal of the ban after three months, and editors could judge the sincerity of his reform at that time. The ban would be announced on his Talk page by an administrator, and then listed at Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Support per Ed's great reasoning. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What to do, what to do.

Today I found a userpage being used to host the user's list of self-created "Thomas the Tank Engine" episodes. I knew I'd seen this behaviour before, so after blanking the page with a note that WP is not their personal webhost, I went on a little hunt. Seems User:TurboJ=User:TurboJ Produce=indefblocked User:TurboJUSA. I'd already warned him about the impropriety of having two accounts editing; now, it seems, I'm dealing with block/ban evasion as well as socking. Should I just block the whole mess of them? GJC 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would. Any application for unblocking should be on the original account. --Rodhullandemu 16:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

User:TurboJ is already indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ignacio Don

A range of IP/anon editors (possibly all the same individual) have been adding a bio of an Argentinian footballer to Talk:Ignacio Don without there being an associated article. I have flagged the page three times now for speedy deletion but the 186.9. editors persisted. Would it be possible to WP:SALT the page on a temporary basis to encourage them to do it properly (ie. either request page creation, sign up and do it themselves, or try first in a sandbox then request a move). Many thanks. Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You put the deletion notice on the wrong page. It should have gone on the User's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page deleted. I think the IP is trying to create the page there because they don't realize that they need to register an account to create an article in mainspace. If they recreate the talk page, they should be directed to either a) post the article to WP:AFC or b) register an account. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 18:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion notice in the wrong place? I don't think so: I put {{db-talk}} on the page to be deleted. Perhaps the {{uw-create1}} should have gone on the user talk page, but since I had seen three different IP addresses involved in creating the page, I felt it was more likely to be seen by the user(s) if it was on the page they were editing instead. Astronaut (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning blocked editor, it seems

Resolved

 – Never mind, already blocked.

Grandstanding 101 (talk · contribs) just got here today, and his first edit [72] appears to show he's a returning banned editor. From there, his fifth edit was this [73] lovely snipe, where he called another editor "stupid" and "playing retard." Admin attention, please? It seems he's not here to do anything but push his own view and make enemies. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, he's already blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, blocked as another sock of Manhattan Samaurai. Wow. the self-proclaimed "Lex Luthor of Wikipedia" lasted a whole two minutes this time. We did him quicker than Al Bundy. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1

Resolved

 – Well, not resolved as such, more that there is nothing to resolve. Silly spat, go out for a beer and come back tomorrow, it will all seem trivial. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And I'm striking this through because it isn't resolved, this thread was created to have other eyes look in upon the disruptive editing, and incivility, by the two aforementioned users. Just because the thread on Gwen's page is closed does not make the issue resolved.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

All involved parties have been notified, please give them the chance to comment on this issue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although I would just love to try and summerize events.. Well, I don't exactly trust my fingers with such at thing at this very moment, so instead, I'm going to ask for the extreme patience of several admins and users to just look over this thread at the admin Gwen Gale's talk page.

Besides that page, I would also like to point out these last two diffs, which first show Ohconfucius changing his name to Osomething, clearly making fun of me when I couldn't remember his name during a thread creation, as seen here. Secondly, please look at the following diff, which shows Ohconfucius responding to another user in a mocking manner: Oh, quelle surprise to find you here. In need of friends perhaps?.

This is all I have to say for the moment, I'm going to go take a break from anything in regards to this thread, so I can force myself to calm down.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you upset that Ohconfucius posted the Wikiquette alert? You need to brush that off. People were clearly in your camp; you should have read it and laughed it off. Posting this to yet another forum is simply giving Ohconfucius and Tony - trolls, as far as I'm concerned - more loudspeaker time. Tan | 39 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And you want us to do... what? seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I am sliglight miffed at that, that is not the reason for this thread, but, as stated, their behavior at Gwen Gale's talk page. Apparently they seem to have the idea that on wikipedia, a user is guilty until proven innocent, and they don't have to provide any evidence at all to back up their claims.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To Seicer, I would at least like to see some comments on the matter, at most, a short block for the obvious disruptions on Gwen's talk page. Either way, I want some outside opinions on what transpired, and if anything should be done about it. In my opinion, this behavior is outright disruptive, and shouldn't be allowed to take place again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally went to Gwen Gale's page this morning to ask a question, and saw the exchange - it reminded me of 2 coyotes and a deer I saw yesterday. Gwen's patience is incredible. The actions/interactions on Gwen's page and their continued actions on the WQA are truly not the type of actions we want to see on Wikipedia. Oh, and someone should teach them what "Plaxico" means - they seemed to think that was a serious warning of some type. Gwen Gale's comments on this are vital. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Does User talk:Praveen4nes strike anyone else as kind of odd?

User talk:Praveen4nes (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) just came across my radar. It is chock full of personal e-mail addresses, phone numbers, names, etc. Does it seem a mite strange and rather delete-worthy to anyone else? --Dynaflow babble 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Only 1 contribution by the owner, therefore nothing that needs preserving. Kevin (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Harvest09

The following concerns WP:TE, WP:DE and maybe WP:COI.

Intro

• 1) Harvest09 (talk · contribs) is the same editor as JScardilli (talk · contribs). After four months, is a WP:SPA working on one article.
• 2) This editor's first edit was on 11 October 2008 on Don Stewart (preacher) and has continued making edits to exclude critical information and include promotional material on miracles.
• 3) In four months the user has not edited a single article except Don Stewart (preacher).
• 4) This editor says he is in personal contact with the preacher/association and is writing a book on the subject/Stewart. ("it will be in my book".)
• 5) This user's motivation is clear and his edits as well as discussions are unproductive.

As the diffs show, this user is attempting to white wash established facts on an article he is personally tied to. The material below starts with simple obstructing edits and misquoting policy to flat out lies, vandalism, and WP:TE. To keep the material off he simply says its "controversial" then misstates wikipedia policy without giving any specific or clear reason. I have not found one productive edit by this user in his four months of editing on wikipedia. As such, I think the adminstrators should provide sanctions for his disruptive behavior. I recommend at least barring him from editing the Stewart article per WP:COI if not a stronger punishment to keep this behavior from happening again. BBiiis08 (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Examples

• Attributing motives to other users
  • 1) First edit on the talk page claims "There seems to be an effort by some on the internet to criticize ridicule, and demean ministers of the Pentecostal culture..."
  • 2) Speaking to another editor: Mike Doughney "undid at least 5 edits at one time, but hid at least 4 of his edits so it looks like he only did one. (How does he do that?) Aren't you only supposed to undo 3 at one time within 24 hours? He is using a non-NPOV web site to reference his edits, (Trinity Foundation), that only criticizes Pentecostal ministers." And near the bottom of the diff, "I don't like to see Wikipedia used to just smear someone even if they are kind of odd or unusual."

• Accuses the sources (organizations and living authors) of lying
  • 3) In this diff he is told not to call a living journalist a liar/Ayatollah.
  • 4) In this diff "following statement was made up by Fisher and attributed to the Dallas Morning News..." (Fisher is a living journalist.)
  • 5) In this diff he cautiously does it again calling a living author/journalist and an organization "...Fisher and Trinity don’t accurately quote the news articles that look so officially referenced in their theological dissertations." I read the articles, and in fact inserted the Dallas Morning News article and this editor is incorrect--as explained below. Furthermore this same Dallas Morning News is the one he wants removed below (see #12-15)
  • 6) In this diff, without evidence, claims "I'm reading the cited articles on this page and many of them are misquoted, don't link to the sight listed, or only give one point of view." They were not misquoted or mislinked. But yes sources have views, but that's not reason for exclusion.
  • In contrast, he says Stewart's autobiography (a book by the article's subject) "seems like the most NPOV."
  • 7) In this diff he states: "In the section "What Wikipedia is not,” it says something about people using Wikipedia as another web-site for themselves, I think the Trinity Foundation is doing this with Stewart and many of the ministers they don't like."
  • 8) He wrote: "The Trinity Foundation also puts itself in as many Wikipedia articles as it can, in an apparent attempt to create links that help boost its web page’s rank on Google. When Wikipedia defines itself, “What Wikipedia is not.” The use of the Trinity Foundation in this manner is a violation of this policy."
  • 9) He wrote: "I’m not fond of the Trinity Foundation, because I feel they are biased against Pentecostals and ignore abuse by all other ministries who do the same things."
  • 10) He wrote: "The Trinity foundation only criticizes Pentecostal Ministries and is not NPOV. There is no criticism or even on going investigations on the Trinity Web page of non-Pentecostal ministries such as Catholic Priests who molested young parishioners, and the money spent to defend and settle these cases..."
  • 11) He wrote: "...the only source cited that had anything to do with Stewart was provided by a service using an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned."
  • He is wrong the other sources have everything to do with Stewart. As for the "old photo copy," it actually google's online archive. You be the judge: "Arson Could Be Cause". Kingman Daily Miner. September 22, 1982. Retrieved 2009-05-17.
  • 11.2)Repeated again: He wrote: "The newspaper source BBiiis refers to wasn't Google. He may have been lead there by Google, but it is a low budget internet newspaper photocopy service."

• Exhaustive effort

He tries to get material removed by first claiming its false(see #3-11) then its misworded then just wants to remove it. The whole several day discussion is about one or two sentences (depending on the context) currently included:

In 1996, the Dallas Morning News noted that some of Stewart's fundraising letters were written by Gene Ewing, who heads a multi-million dollar marketing empire, writing donation letters for other evangelicals like WV Grant, Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts. Included in some of Stewart's fundraising letters was Stewart's green "prayer cloth" with claims that it has supernatural healing power.

• • 12) In this diff makes several claims says the article clams Ewing was the creator of the green prayer cloth (which is incorrect). Then he asks "Why not say Rex Humbard or Oral Roberts they are mentioned? Why is it important to drop a random name here anyway?"
    • He is told what he wrote is incorrect. Yet, editors agree to add Rex Humbard and Oral Roberts to the sentence.
  • 13) Subsquently, in this diff, says "An editor has said the prayer cloth was a direct mail piece written by someone other than Stewart." (This is untrue.)
  • 14) In this diff, asks "Where does it say in the Dallas article that the Green Prayer cloth is a direct mail piece by Ewing?" (It doesn't.)
  • No such thing was ever said [74][75]
  • 15)In this edit he nows realizes that wasn't stated, but still wants a WP:RS-newspaper article on one who wrote some donations letters removed. He asks "but wouldn’t it be better to just not mention the prayer cloth"?

This is a good example of showing how this editor is not being reasonable and is very disruptive. After two and a half weeks of discussion, the user wants to ignore the sources and discussion to remove a sourced sentence. The sentence wasn't even critical either.

• Exclusion of material because its/could be critical
  • 16)Second edit on talk page says "You could criticize almost any church or ministry for fund raising and lifestyle...This kind of criticism does not fall under Wikipedia NPOV guidelines." (Shows an attempt to exclude material simply because its critical and misunderstands WP:NPOV policy.)
  • 17)Claims a link from google news is "an old photo copy of an article who's reliability could easily be questioned." That is his reason for removing a paragraph with several independent newspaper sources (as you can tell by the different footnote numbering in his quoted block). Ignores all the independent sources mentioned here to make a broad and unapplicable usage of BLP.
  • 18)In this diff he wants the same paragraph removed now because "it described very serious events of murder, riots, racial church burning, implied mail fraud, etc. in a way that didn't make it clear who was involved." No explanation of what's confusing or unclear despite the several. Another broad BLP claim to white wash material.
  • 19)Based on his misunderstanding over the one or two sentences(above 12-15), he wrote "I think the solution would be to remove the paragraph as it stands, with the inaccurate material and add the paragraph as follows with just the facts from what Stewart is doing and saying." (If a one claim is wrong then you remove that sentence not the whole paragraph.)
  • 20) In this diff, "Better Business Bureau doesn’t endorse its members anyway so it seems to be included only as a negative comment violating Wikipedia NPOV." The BBB wasn't a "negative comment," but simply said Stewart didn't disclose his finances so they couldn't judge him.

• Unproductive discussions
  • 21) In an attempt to move things forward Another editor asks "Harvest09, are you suggesting that this sentence word-for-word needs to appear in the reference?"
  • Harvest09 doesn't answer the question, but brings up another (and incorrect issue).
  • As the editor pointed out, "In the webpage which quotes the Dallas Morning News article, the phrase you quote does not exist, so the charge that it was "made up by Fisher" seems questionable at best."
  • As stated above, nonetheless the wording was changed and Harvest09 still wanted all mention removed.

• Removes cited material
  • 22) Removes a cited fact that he lost his tax-exemption.
  • 23) Removes the cited sources again.
  • 24) he removes a source ("Watch where you make donations," USA Today, February 3, 1992) with a summary "No link to verification removed for WP-V and NPOV."
  • 25) Wholesale removal of paragragh his given reasons "it isn’t supported by the reference cited and seems to be there only as criticism WP-V NPOV" aren't true. As anyone can visit the refs/links.

• Misleading edit summaries
  • 26) Summary marked "Corrected improper use and non-use of a comma", but is was a deletion of a name.
  • 27) "I corrected language that was NPOV" was an entire white wash. Once the white wash was complete his next edit removed the word controversial from the lede. This left the article a halfiography.
  • 28) Summary read "Removed random name in statement. WP-V NPOV" The name is mentioned in the context of the article and the source is link WP:V/RS.
  • 29) Summary says "Corrected information found in Bussiness Journal article", but if you look below he added "and no charges were ever filed" to a sentence sourced to the IRS, which is not made in that source. Also note he undid the other change a little while later leaving in the false IRS claim.

• Promotional material
  • 30) First edit includes promotional material it gets removed then added again then deleted, and added for a third time.
  • 31) Maybe not too promotionally but this uncited OR gets added repeatedly by him.
  • 32) He wrote: "I don't think anyone really cares that much about this page, but it is a good one to practice on." Later, its clear the article is not wiki-practice because he's writing a book on the subject!
  • 33) Wants material removed, but "it will be in my book."

An example attempting to work with user, most recent issue

• • 34) I sought opinions on this at the AN/I board for opinions, but got little help. Seeking to add mention of police shoot out (and the resulting three deaths) as well as riots and fundraising issues that happened related to Stewart led me to create Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph section (also mentioned in my AN/I thread). Another editor responded that it sounded good for inclusion and there was no response from Harvest09 for three days (though he kept editing the talk page). This lead me to add the paragraph assuming there was no issue.
  • A few hours later Harvest adds some material to the article.
  • Then he posts a question about the sources and I respond.
  • His next post calls the paragraph "offensive" and wants the material removed citing "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."
  • Then he writes on another editor's talk "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?"
  • I asked for my for any "specific sentence/source ... concerns". Again he gave no specifics. I asked again for specifics quoting myself. He again gave no specifics.

Violates WP:CIVIL

• • 35) He wrote: "Is it possible he is that poor a writer that he can't see what he is doing?"

Okay removal of warnings?

Hello! I just noticed this terse removal of warnings, which appear to refer to such comments as this. Is that an appropriate response to the warnings? I'm reluctant to ask the editor on userpage given the way he removed the previous comments. Anyway, there seem to be some other hostile comments elsewhere, such as this. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Editors are allowed to remove warnings on their talk page. This person does seem to have some rudeness issues though. Reyk _YO! 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is uncivil, but the removal itself permitted per WP:BLANKING. –xeno (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking warnings on one's own talk page is not considered grounds for sanctions, unless they're being used to hide a pattern of misbehavior - we presume that the warnings were read and acknowledged. It may be considered rude if they're blanking personal messages from other users with legitimate concerns. Dcoetzee 00:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There may be a history of less than civil edits in AfDs. See also this (what's with the Yahoo group link?), this (is "crap" really necessary?), etc. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

USers Willking1979 & Marek69

[76] [77] [78] [79] [80]

i deleted a section on mongoloid article with an explanation in my edit summary, then USer:Marek69 came along and accused me of blanking without explanation. i left a note on his talk page expplaning what had happened, and reverted him on mongoloid article again. USer:Willking1979 came along and reverted me, and accused me of blanking without explanation, which i did explain. i left a note on his talk page, and then reverted him. he removed my note and totally ignored it, and reverted me, and i reverted him back, and then admin J delanoy accused me of vandalism.

i suspect these are trigger happy users who use huggle primarily to increase their edit count, rather than genuinly fight vandalism, as willking1979 and marek69 totally ignored me, and willking accused me of the same thing twice, thinking that since i am an ip, no one would beleive me and everyone would beleive him, and thinking i woulnd take this up this far. these usrs should be stripped of their huggle tools and blocked for a period of time.