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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Canvassing

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) has canvassed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination) by notifying a group including ARS regulars ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) about the AfD renomination (some of whom weren't even involved in the previous discussion) without notifying everyone involved in the previous discussion. The user's response to notification of this has been wikilawyering with no attempt to notify further participants in the original discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

it should also be noted that all those alerted by Richard Norton are editors known for only !voting at bilateral article AfDs. This is one of the most blatant violations of canvassing I've seen in recent times. The fact that Richard Norton as an experienced editor pretends this is not canvassing with responses like this, shows that he is deliberately trying to conceal obvious canvassing and a deliberate disregard for WP rules. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This happened 48 hours ago and has already been raised at the AFD. Norton has already been warned for this and I briefly considered blocking him for it yesterday but decided that it was a little after the event for this to be anything other then punitive. Add another day and block looks even more punitive and I'm afraid you just have to wait for the AFD to be closed and for the closing admin to make allowances for the canvassing. If this doesn't happen then you have a prima facie case for the close to be overturned at DRV and the article relisted. Not really sure what else you can reasonably expect us to do here right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that he is a very experienced editor and knew exactly what he was doing. yes I warned him after this spate of canvassing, however the bigger issue here is his deliberate disregard of WP rules, when pressed on canvassing. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it wasn't reprehensible, it was was, but the time to raise a complaint is at the time of the event not 48 hours afterwards. Blocks are not punishments but preventative. What does a block right now prevent? If he canvassed further then I would block in a milisecond but unless he does that its really down to weighing the keep side against the fact of the canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea this far down the road might cross from preventative into punitive, but I found the "well everyone showed up anyways" response to be the troubling part. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

and to everyone, this is his most recent comment on this [7] and [8] which seems more disregard for WP process. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that this report is too late to be valid, but I did not become aware of it as it occurred, and after looking around this morning I felt that it had not been raised in an appropriate forum after the lack of a meaningful reply on his talk page (as AfD should be about the article, not other actions). Personally, I'm a fan of blocking purpose #3: "Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated", but then that's what's used most often (as far as I can tell) when it comes to copyright violations (where policy violations are often not immediately discovered) which is where I usually work. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite many people pointing out to Richard it was clearly canvassing, he continually tries to pretend and deny it was canvassing. If he said, "sorry I won't do it again" then that would be end of story but he persists with this attitude that such "notifications" (masquerading blatant canvassing) are acceptable. LibStar (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article canvass squadron permitted space to exist? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it was started with he best of intentions and was not intended to just be a hardcore inclusionist voting block. Somewhere along the line most of them lost their way and became obsessed with keeping any old piece of junk as a "tactical maneuver" as opposed to actually improving articles so that they meet our basic criteria. I've been knocking around an essay on this at User:Beeblebrox/Adding sources as a tactical maneuver, maybe I'll move it into project space... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it was started with the best of intentions, but I've been wondering for a while, having seen it on other AfdS, if it has changed to the point where it is no longer helpful to the project. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that some of the people who actually do the work of constructively improving and adding sources to savable articles have gone it alone. There has always been a 'turn up and vote "keep"' element within the ARS and that tends to be people's perception of the project.pretty preppy prose, pablo!   pablo_hablo. 20:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• To ensure a representative sample is drawn, the remaining participants from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations not already canvassed (if any) should be contacted in a suitably neutral fashion. –xeno^talk 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  I've done this. –xeno^talk 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard A Norton has been given final warning. I don't monitor AFDs often, so editors that notice further behaviour along this line should drop me a note.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• When I wrote "let the wars being" in your near-unanimous last RfA, I was anticipating something like this. Glad you haven't let me down. Popcorn! Pcap ping 05:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Wikipedia: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?) -- llywrch (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• I believe he only contacted people who were involved in the previous AFD for that article. Libstar is nominating the same articles he failed to get deleted a year ago, we having the same AFDs over again. Everyone from the previous AFD should be contacted, regardless of how they voted. If he failed to contact some of the participates who hadn't already found their way there, then I believe it was done in error, he not understanding the rules, they not all clearly written. I don't know if everyone contacted was a member of the Article Rescue Squadron or not, but that wasn't the reason they were contacted so isn't relevant. Dream Focus 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus you are clearly wrong, here is the original Afd, I can note that Richard canvassed these users who did not even appear in the original AfD: Namiba, AlanSohn, MichaelQSchmidt. Richard failed to contact any of the delete voters in the original AfD. clearest case of canvassing I've seen. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The best rule of thumb for this is pretty simple: don't talk to anyone about AFDs anywhere but on the AFD and the talk page for the article that has been nominated. That way, no one can ever accuse you of canvassing. There's no reason to invite people from similar AFDs, previous AFDs, or even people that have edited the article. The goal of an AFD is to get an unbiased cross-section of editors, not one sorted by any criteria, no matter how objectively reasonable that criteria seems to be.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Did they give you the power to impose new policy by fiat in your RfA? I missed that part... Perhaps you should speedy delete WP:DELSORT as well, because it attracts editors that might care about certain articles as opposed to completely random ones. I've been "canvased", and have "canvased" myself w.r.t AfD a good number of times. The guideline seems to be WP:CANVASS, last I checked. Pcap ping 06:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's my advice, not policy. Norton violated WP:CANVAS, and that's what he was warned about and that's what he will be blocked for future violations of.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuse-making. This is an experienced editor, not a green-thumbed newbie, and WP:CANVAS has a very easy to read table to help determine the difference between proper and improper notifications. Norton only notified noted inclusionists such as yourself, and quite clearly knew what he was doing. Tarc (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dream Focus, the only reason Richard Norton contacted those people is because he wanted them to come and vote keep. He selectively contacted only people he felt would vote the way he wanted, but excluded people who voted to delete last time. That's pretty obvious canvassing, and to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone who responded has missed my point. Richard is a long-time & experienced Wikipedian; he knows about canvassing & that he can be sanctioned for it. Yet he felt this issue was worth risking a ban for doing this. Why did he do this? The reason is obvious: the unresolved dispute over "notable" bilateral relations. So it is reasonable to suspect that even if Richard is permanently banned from Wikipedia, this dispute won't go away. Attempts to resolve it by finding a consensus have been unsuccessful, to put it mildly. Yes, WP:AN/I should focus on behavior over content, but unless the deeper cause is addressed -- lack of an explicit standard for notable bilateral relations -- other parties in this dispute will become featured guests here. Which I assume no one wants. -- llywrch (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We did have consensus--we had an approximate standard, much less inclusionist than I would have liked, but a moderately self-consistent set of decisions nonetheless, at the original rounds of discussion on these. The recent afds are renomination of the articles that survived, and I see them as an attempt to disrupt the admittedly fragile tacit settlement that had been achieved . DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the "don't talk about AfD anywhere but the AfD discussion. It is permissible to inform Wikiprojects with a neutral notice that "article X" has been nominated for deletion. Members of that WP then have the opportunity to look at the article, and decide whether it should be kept, deleted, merged or turned into a redirect. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why the simpler approach of indef blocks for those users who continue to turn AfD into a battleground (there are less than a dozen, and three of the most high-profile have thankfully left the project recently anyway) is best. Then people can continue to argue for a more sanguine approach to notifying other editors of AfDs without acting as useful idiots for the hardcore disruptors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy Break

• It is time for an unequivocal ban on ARS canvassing. They can use a transcluded notification page and/or watchlist a noticeboard. This keeps happening, keeps causing drama, and keeps being an unacceptably one-sided form of canvassing. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thought there was an "unequivocal ban" on canvassing, period. Or is this a proposal along the lines of the old warning, "Offenders will be shot. Repeat offenders will be repeatedly shot"? -- llywrch (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've never understood the long-standing battle over these relations articles - they don't seem to warrant the fuss that is made over them either way. Anyway, the comments of the usual hard-core deletionists above seem neither helpful nor unbiased as they just seem to represent one side of this battle. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAMEcup? Pcap ping 08:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is ridiculous canvassing. Getting inclusionists to vote on that AFD is definitely not neutral, and especially because Arthur is very experienced around here, this is clearly canvassing. Wonder why he hasn't posted here yet. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the "usual hard-core deletionists" are getting just a wee bit tired of the ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs? You can't shoot the messenger just because someone got caught so red-handed. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Call a spade a spade. Whatever the intentions when created, the ARS has beomce, to a degree, the Canvass squadron. Posting a notice there invites dozens of "the usual hardcore inclusionists" to run to an AfD and start claiming that "one source passes GNG" or something like that. If there was a Article Deletionist project, it would be the same thing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• And if someone did start a hardcore deletionist wikiproject, you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• At this point, although members occassionally improve article, I regard ARS as little more than a subtle canvassing project. Just my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• You & I both, Colonel. I was hoping that the discussion I linked to above would have created some kind of consensus about the matter, even if in a negative manner -- e.g., "If two countries do not have diplomatic staff resident in each others countries, nor any explicit reason why this is not so, then their bilateral relations are not notable." Instead, the two camps remain at loggerheads. -- llywrch (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Has it been canvassing? Yes, perhaps. However when AfD's etc. are discussed here, for example, and armies of deletionists come consequently to sink articles, canvassing complaints are immediately dismissed (see [9]). Double standards? Also: I am an outspoken inclusionist, yet I've still to see "dozens of the usual hardcore inclusionists" in any AfD discussion. I would absolutely love to see examples of that, it would give me back some faith in the WP process :) --Cyclopia^talk 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  Anyone with more than a brief experience of XfD who claims to be unfamiliar with the dominant clique involved with inclusionist disruption is being wholly disingenuous. Full stop. This goes double for anyone who reads enough of Wikipedia Review to be linking to discussions of the subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  I have more than a brief experience of AfD, and I really see no "dominant inclusionist clique". I instead see a dominant deletionist bias, especially (but not only) in dealing with BLPs. Perhaps we read two different AfD's? --Cyclopia^talk 01:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, I've just seen Jimbo's comments regarding your attitude towards unreferenced BLPs. I rather think we're on different planets. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia Review has been tremendously helpful for identifying and focusing editors to flock to discussions and greatly sway events regardless of the disruption and invasion of privacy. In fact it's so very helpful to disrupt Wikipedia time and time again to make a point, right? We don't need a deletion canvas squadron as Wikipedia Review does that quite effectively with zero accountability and unencumbered by our pesky policies. Comfort shoe (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Our"? An odd word to use for an account's first edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comfort shoe is clearly somebody's sock. A Nobody/The Pumpkin King/Elizabeth Rogan/Wikipedian, Historian and Friend has been socking again so it may be him. But it's definitely somebody'sBali ultimate (talk) 11:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bingo ;) Jack Merridew 11:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So, all that's needed is another web site, Wikipedia Unreview, for inclusionists? Pcap ping 08:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every aspect of Wikipedia gets criticised on Wikipedia Review anyway, so one has to do some pretty selective reading to suggest that it's some deletionist holdout. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a Wikipedia Review Reality Check would help or a template warning that specific discussions are poisoned by offsite canvassing. We can pretend it's all noble to critique editors and policies on other websites but when editors show duplicitous signs of disruption and defend banned users making a point it gets tired. Eroding the academic work of volunteers may be great sport however the end result remains the degrading of human knowledge by intimidation rather than utilizing the consensus processes worked out over years. Comfort shoe (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not saying anything which hasn't previously been discussed. Indeed, even the "Wikipedia review is sending people to delete our articles" trope is a well-walked road: Le Grand Roi was fond of that one for a while about a year ago. I'm still curious as to why you chose this thread as the location of your first registered contribution to the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, with the exception of a very few (i.e. Everyking), I'd say most WR regulars are leaning on the deletionist side. While I can link lots of WR threads where successful AfD's are collectively cheered with smiles and hoorays, I've yet to see WR actively taking side to keep an article. --Cyclopia^talk 11:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that you believe that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to link me some example of the WR community being happy and relieved of an article being kept at an AfD. --Cyclopia^talk 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Discourtesy break

The discussion in the section above is a perfect example of why this canvassing has to stop. It stokes persecution mania and militancy and reinforces the false belief in "inclusionist" and "deletionist" as mutually exclusive opposing camps when in reality there is a spectrum of inclusionism and a broad range of personal views on where the threshold should lie for any given topic. Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom. Was that intended? Probably not, but it happened anyway. So: no more ARS canvassing. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What about no more canvassing in general? Skewing consensus is bad either way, isn't it? I am not an active ARS member, but ARS has a noble objective at least -improving articles to make sure valuable material is not deleted. How can this cause "division and venom" baffles me -all what I see in this disgraceful thread is venom thrown against ARS. --Cyclopia^talk 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are more than welcome to rescue articles (Uncle G is one of my favourite Wikipedians of all time, and he has a long history of doing just that). The problem is canvassing. By ARS, by WikiProjects, by anyone. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the issue is not that the use of the ARS is inherently bad, but that the ARS is open to abuse, e.g. where the article was already well written and referenced and so had no need of rescue. It's cases like this where rescuing an article could be considered votestacking as it then only serves to attract !voters as opposed to editors to improve the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2) Bingo! This is my sentiment as well. To the extent that ARS members canvass (as is alleged here) they should be reprimanded. To the extent that NON-ARS members canvass, to whatever end, they too should be reprimanded. The anti-ARS rants are pointless. I reiterate my position that ARS should be a core, volunteer function like 3O, not a wikiproject with membership and leadership. Everything that CAN be improved instead of deleted should be; that which cannot, should not. ARS should be a tool to that end, and neither anyone's pet canvassing forum nor anyone else's pet punching bag. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango. This really isn't about the ARS at all, since the concern is canvassing of individuals by R.A.N., not the addition of a rescue tag to the article. If/when ARS volunteers simply vote keep without explanation, the vote should be suitably discounted as any other similar vote would be, and votes with valid reasoning should be considered; when ARS members actually improve an article, then it might be worthwhile for editors to consider the changes in the AfD when !voting.

llywrch has one of the few constructive comments that could solve the real problem here: "What I see here is Yet Another Chapter in an ongoing saga between two camps on how to handle bilateral relations. One side wants to keep all such pairings, regardless of their usefulness, while the other immediately wants to delete any pairing they have not heard of. This WikiDrama is not going to end unless (1) all bilateral relations are assumed to be notable (one could argue that informing a user that two countries have no relations with each other is useful information), or (2) a criteria is established which allow an objective judgment to be made. (Along those lines, whatever happened to Wikipedia: WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force?)".

It appears that LibStar renominated an article for deletion that they had nominated a year prior, and which was kept. The renomination makes no mention of the the prior keep. When that happens it tends to irritate people because there's no explanation for why there is a new AfD -- it smacks of a simple deletion canvass (because every AfD asks editors to consider whether an article should be deleted, that's the nature of the AfD process). Renominating articles without a rationale for it invites drama. R.A.N.'s response is more understandable in that light, though not excused. It takes two to tango (tangle?). In any event, I'd prefer we solve the underlying problem -- the lack of consensus on how to treat these bilateral articles, because areas like this will consistently cause AN/I threads with varying labels.

Since I am an active ARS member, I should disclose that I was not canvassed for the AfD--I noted it independently while scanning recent AfDs (not even those marked for rescue), and !voted about 12 hours ago. Cyclopedia recently noted the existence of this ANI on the ARS talk page.--Milowent (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

LibStar has been doing these renominations for a long time now. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philippines–Romania_relations_(2nd_nomination) for instance. Pcap ping 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering that s/he has two barnstars that were given for the exact reason of having nominated for AfD, what I would assume to be, numerous bilateral relations articles. Silverseren^C 21:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

And considering that the last two of the three nominations of that article were "keep", the barnstars only show that an extreme deletionist camp exists, and that they frot barnstar each other. Pcap ping 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Try and tone down the language a bit, please. :/ Silverseren^C 21:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction The result of the previous AfD for the article in question was "no consensus" not "keep," so accusations that Libstar's nomination is somehow ill conceived are ill conceived. A year ago we couldn't find consensus on the notability of this article, so it seems perfectly reasonable to come back a year later and try again. Community views may have changed in the meantime, certain disruptive editors may have left or been blocked/banned in the mean time, new sources may have become available, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Philippines–Romania relations, which lists 3 noms, as I said (the first was part of a group nom.) Pcap ping 07:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another more recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Norway relations (3rd nomination); previous two nominations were "keep" as well. Pcap ping 09:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Milowent's comment, not yours. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shame on all of you

• I am deeply, deeply offended about comments made above about the ARS. I would have thought that such long-standing members would have even a hint of civility. What, just because you're talking about a group of people, instead of individuals, it's okay to use personal attacks? That's one of the worst cases of Wikilawyering i've ever seen. I, for one, have always tried to improve an article, if it's something that does need improvement to be worthy of inclusion. If I can't improve an article at all, I don't vote, there's no point, I believe it to be non-notable. The insinuations and comments made above by other users have been absolutely reprehensible. Though I suppose it's not surprising at all, since the comments are composed by the usual outspoken critics, the deletionists. I'm just shocked that other users have just let them go on and on and not say anything about their incivil remarks. If this is the state of Wikipedia, where we just allow crass remarks and titling of sections with "Discourtesy break" to be said by established users, just because they are such, then the project is far closer to crumbling than I imagined. Silverseren^C 17:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While heated, I think this thread is already going along just fine without the dramamongering. --Smashville^talk 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean the entire section dedicated to spewing abuse on ARS members? How is that "going along just fine"? I would think that an administrator would actually want to stop incivility. Silverseren^C 18:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to counter anything they said or are you just going to go on about how "offended" you are and "reprehensible"? That's what I meant about dramamongering. Would you mind giving us some diffs of personal attacks and abuse? --Smashville^talk 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

[10] "ARS cheating and manipulating AfDs"

[11] "you'd be able to hear the ARS's outraged shrieking from the Moon. "

[12] "Once again, the ARSes have caused division and venom."

All of these comments I find offensive and laughable, especially the insinuation that this is the ARS' fault, when it was Richard who contacted individual members. Taking that to mean the entire group as a whole is incredibly offensive. Silverseren^C 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you any diffs that you haven't pulled out of context? Granted, Tarc is pretty abrasive sometimes, but the fact of the matter is that you're not exactly disputing the validity of these claims other than repeating how horribly offended you are that someone dare question ARS. --Smashville^talk 20:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out and discussing behavioural problems from a group of editors is not a personal attack. The fact is that the ARS has frequently been used as a keep vote canvassing vehicle. You yourself used it that way not so long ago. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a method of getting more people to look at the changes I had made. Would you say that the article is non-notable after my changes to it? Silverseren^C 20:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it was canvassing. That's why it ended up being redacted by WereSpielChequers as obvious canvassing. Whether or not you made changes to the article is irrelevant: asking people to turn up and vote your way is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:CANVAS. The fact that hardly anyone in the ARS has a problem with it is embarrassing. As long as the Article Rescue Squadron tacitly supports inclusionist votestacking, they'll continue to be regarded as a dubious phenomenon and any good rescue work they do won't get the respect it deserves. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• The ARS' initial goal of article cleanup and retention may have been a noble and well-intentioned goal, but that got lost along the way. The current squad, the one who rallies the loyalistas to keep the most horridly abusive BLPs (Miriam Sakewitz, Eric Ely, Bigoted woman incident), the blindingly-obvious WP:NOTNEWS (2008 Passover margarine shortage), and the amazingly crystal-clear case of fucking a non-single song with ZERO 3rd party coverage (Money (Michael Jackson song)...yea, the current wikiproject is a cancer upon the project. A dangerous mix of blind devotion and extreme short-sightedness. Disband this fiasco for the good of all and to prevent further harm. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • • LOL. What rubbish. The very idea that 'bigotgate' was even given the chance to be 'rescued' is absolute bollocks. It was deleted and salted within the hour, a decision rightly condemned eventualy at Drv as an abuse, not that that has reversed the damage or rescued the article. If those other examples are even remotely comparable, the "cancer" is not the ARS. Still, shut your eyes Tarc, don't look!. don't look!. She never existed, yesterday's chip wrappings, not notable, beneath contempt, yadder yadder. MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Might I suggest that folks calm down a bit? Anyone can join ARS, and anyone can participate in AFD, and no one's being shot at... --Nuujinn (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Nuujinn's valid comment aside: Oh, what drama. I think Tarc is the cancer. Nanny nanny hoo hoo. (Shall I be blocked for repeating Tarc's slur?) BTW, I am one of the most active ARS members and fought hard to get Ely deleted, and though that AfD had a few 'keep' votes, there was no unified ARS opinion there, not even a colorful Dream Focus-signatured keep. Stop using the ARS as a proxy for attacking inclusionist viewpoints with which you differ.--Milowent (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• It's a shame that there's no Deletionist Squadron to counter the influence of the ARS. Of course, there was one, but they unanimously voted to delete it. Just so you know my intention is to be constructive: Here's a question to consider: What is the difference between the ARS and institutionalised canvassing? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I can really only speak for myself and not the group as a whole, but I know that I go into an Afd with the intention of improving the article first. If the article already appears to have reliable references and is notable, then I will vote Keep, with policy backing. But, otherwise, I will do my best to make the article better so that it fits the notability guidelines. If there's nothing I can do for an article, I leave it alone and stay out of the Afd. In a manner, Afds I don't participate in, at least the ones I look through, have an unofficial delete vote from me, because I would be voting keep if I thought it was worthy. I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not remove content from it. That's my viewpoint, at least. Hope it helps. Silverseren^C 21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"I just never bother voting delete on anything, because I find it a waste of time. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, not remove content from it." Srsly? That's one the most shortsighted comments I've seen in a long time. What about nationalistic POV monuments, businesses nobody has ever heard of, hoaxes, or even plain gibberish? Even DGG !votes delete once in a while... Pcap ping 22:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Then others will vote delete. Almost all of the time the AfD is already tending toward delete as it is, what's the point of voting delete? I just move on to things that could use my help. Silverseren^C 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, there is an institutionalized deletionist group, its called "Articles for Deletion." Yes, my comment is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but AfD is deletionist by nature, because that is its purpose. (I recall seeing comments from long time editors about how they opposed AfD even existing, or that it should be put on hiatus. I wish could find these right now, but the process is now institutionalized.) AfD works generally well, only a small percentage of discussions become battles. And over time these battles lead to working rules and guidelines to eliminate battles.--Milowent (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Such as this one, hopefully. I remember the guideline discussion surrounding Wikipedia:Software notability after some mass nominations that also led to a WP:RFAR (somewhat inaptly named Tothwolf, after one of the participants). Pcap ping 07:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians apparently got moved to meta and discarded some of its operating procedures. I remember laughing at the wp version because it was basically inclusionist despite its name. AfD is not remotely a deletionist institution by the way. It operates within a highly incluionistic framework and makes no attempt to contest that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, make an Association of Überdeletionist Wikipedians, for great justice. A more appropriate name would be the Association of G11 Wikipedians, though. I've managed to have deleted articles with over 100 potential references with a well placed G11 tag. Others have done much better, managing to rid us of article with potentially over 1000 references, but they had DRV help. I haven't graduated to that cabal, yet... Pcap ping 11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Association of Überdeletionist Wikipedians...or as members of Anonymous call it DELETE EVERYTHING!!! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"Delete fucking everything" is the correct terminology. I'd give you a link to it too (ED), but it's on our WP:BADSITES list, and the software won't let me enter the URL. I'm sure you can find it using the google. (Apology for the foul language, but it's part of the official canon.) Pcap ping 11:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Re {{rescue}}-tagging an article at AfD

There are obviously divergent views on whether ARS is a net positive or negative to WP, and further discussion here on the project's merits is probably only going to raise tension. But what about the following, which is perhaps a more clear cut abuse of the ARS's {{rescue}} tag? The first time Iceland–Mexico relations was AfD'd, the tag was added to the article. Maybe this was "stealth canvassing," maybe it wasn't, but I assume it was done in good faith to improve the article. But when the article was reAfDed, the tag was readded. Here, the purpose of tagging seems more obviously to be about canvassing--after all, the article had already enjoyed the ARS's attention a year earlier, so it's less likely that the squad is going to be able to do much with the article. (In addition, the tagging editor's very next set of edits was the canvassing that is the subject of this thread.) So anyways, I guess what I'm suggesting is that applying the {{rescue}} tag to an article that's previously been tagged with it should be discouraged or perhaps even disallowed, and any editor should be allowed to remove the tag. In other words, re-tagging carries the high potential for abuse (i.e. canvassing) but low potential for additional, incremental article improvement, so articles should only be eligible for ARS improvement once. Thoughts? Yilloslime ^T_C 23:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The same arguments can be used for almost any tags - the tag per se is not a problem AFAICT. The problem is that any group which "believes" in its purpose on WP can be just as culpable in making a false consensus. WP is ill-served by any such group (whether formal or informal in nature), and admins who view consensus set by any such group should ignore any improper consensus. A few of the ArbCom findings are at WP:False consensus. Collect (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I wouldn't see this as a problem in itself; I'd rather {{rescue}} were given a concrete overcoat, but while there's no consensus for that I don't see the harm in applying it again if it could theoretically help. The bigger problem is that the editor who re-tagged happens to be engaged in regular brinksmanship regarding the boundaries of canvassing, much like Ikip did (when not simply flagrantly overstepping the line), and even editors like user:Silver seren above (who are strongly in favour of ARS even though they aren't part of the infamous bloc of inclusionists who follow each other from AfD to ANI to RfA) appear to be neither concerned about said canvassing nor even particularly aware of what the point of participating in an AfD actually is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Chris, would you mind clarifying who are the components of this vague "infamous bloc of inclusionists" are? Apart that being inclusionist and following AfD is not a crime (yet), it seems something vaguely existing only in your mind. What are exactly the problems? --Cyclopia^talk 00:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A crime no, but it skews AfD if you're not being truly objective about the article and simply voting to keep it because you !vote to keep everything. Frankly its a disservice to the community for anyone to !vote without being objective.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said I wasn't concerned about the canvassing. I was just saying that Richard is the culprit in this and the ARS shouldn't be blamed just for the mere fact that he canvassed some members. Blame Richard, not us. Silverseren^C 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not the tag, it's the culture. The group is well intentioned but has morphed into a separate identity outside of being a Wikipedia Editor. It's Esperanza all over again, and it will end the same way. To invoke and paraphrase Twain 'History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.' --M^ask? 23:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The "rescue tag", like most processes at WP, works well most of the time. It alerts people that an article, which currently is so bad it may be deleted, might be especially worthy of inclusion. Most articles tagged so do in fact need some help. Please do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I do not know of any responsible editor who misuses the tag. Bearian (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The question I posed is not about the tag in general, but rather about re-tagging articles with it. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think retagging is a significant problem. A lot of articles are kept on the basis of the idea that an article has implicit promise. A second AFD occurs because that promise has not been fulfilled. There really isn't anything saying that sources didn't appear in the intervening time period, and perhaps a second rescue attempt will be successful. Rescue tags aren't immoral or evil, and the worst of the abusers have left the project or been blocked. Hopefully, the image of the ARS will be rehabilitated as a result.—Kww(talk) 01:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally a sane comment. There's nothing wrong with ARS in principle. Many of the editors there are actually improving articles instead of trying to rally some kind of political force. Focus on the canvassing by Richard Arthur Norton. Even then I'm sure that only a clear warning is necessary to improve his behavior. Arskwad (talk) 04:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all he received, and I haven't seen any signs that anyone thinks that more would be necessary.—Kww(talk) 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: start a guideline discussion

All I see in the various AfDs on this topic are reiterations of the same positions, which leads to WP:BATTLE among small groups of editors. I suggest that the party who wishes special (different from WP:GNG) rules to apply to this area draft a guideline and follow the usual ratification process. This should settle the core argument. After it's reasonably well drafted, advertise it widely, and conduct a RfC for its adoptions, so uninvolved participants can join an express their view once. Look at what happened with Wikipedia:Software notability; this was proposed during another fight over a large group of articles, a fight which also led to an arbitration case. Pcap ping 07:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's already ongoing, and isn't something which needs to go to ANI. The problem is that some editors aren't willing to stick to the regular process of gaining consensus and end up resorting to demagoguery and dirty tricks, which has unfortunately become closely associated with ARS because the editors in question have been deeply involved with that project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A key question is who closely associates these dirty tricks with the ARS? Answer: an admittedly sizeable proportion of those community members who are politically active within our encyclopedias internals. Taking a broader view, the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users. Externally, Journalists have wrote positively about the ARS and inclusionists, while taking a much dimmer view of deletionists. The squad is also aligned with the Foundation who still wish to foster growth, promote diversity and a friendly collaborative project - values which the ARS reflects. The squad represents the original m:Vision of this project, which is still used in our marketing material Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. So a very credible alternative view is that its those who are overly aggressive in pursuing their contrarian elitist and deletionist vision who are casing needless hostility. A lot more could be said, but this doesnt seem the best forum, can someone please resolve this needlessly inflamatory thread? FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So? wikipedia has constantly been made a laughing stock the amount of space it devotes to fictional topics, like say.. pokemon. That is immaterial and so is what "journalists" think. What is a journalist anyway? Anyone with a heart beat and access to a computer who wants to start a blog/twitter/etc? The community here long ago decided there was a threshold of inclusion and the sum of all knowledge wasn't it. Perhaps it is simply those who can look objectively at a subject and the applicable guidelines and policies and decide whether or not an article should go. But now that I'm done taking pot shots at various groups and opinions, can someone lock this so I can have the last word?--Crossmr (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's split roughly evenly between people who see inclusionist-related drama on ANI and attribute it to ARS because it's from someone active there (which is most uninvolved admins), and the disruptors themselves who attempt to portray any criticism of hyper-inclusionist as an attack on the ARS as a smokescreen. And oh yes, "the ARS and inclusionism is supported by the wider community of contributors and internet users" indeed: that is evidently why your brand of inclusionism is so popular here that it requires the coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace (XfD, ANI, RfA) to achieve your aims. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Coordinated disruption of large chunks of projectspace"? Gee, Chris, your delusional ranting is making me roll on the floor laughing. --Cyclopia^talk 12:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And that will be your last personal attack. I don't know you from Adam, which rather implies that you're not one of the editors who is really being discussed here. It's not my job to provide you with a full history of this two-year dramafest on demand. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't attack you (sorry if it felt this way). I am only criticizing (harshly, I agree) your point of view on the situation, and the way you present it. You are talking about vague conspiracies, and when asked for information (implicitly or explicitly) you just answer that it's not your job. Well, if there actually is such a conspiracy, it would be perhaps not your job but a courtesy to inform unaware WP editors of what is going on, so that we don't get caught in shady things, and to provide evidence of that. My experience in AfD gives me a completely opposite picture, that's why I am so incredulous and surprised. --Cyclopia^talk 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we can conclude with n-th law of Wikipedia: "The cabal is always the group you're not associated with." Pcap ping 15:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, this is approximately the hundredth time that one of this group has been the result of ANI drama in the last two years. I am being deliberately reticent about naming names a) because I've no time for the mock outrage and heated denials which would result from that, b) because it's a group behaviour which is the problem here and a correction there would be far better than individual sanctions, and c) because frankly anyone who has been following this at all closely should be able to name most of the parties in question without too much thought. If you're not in a position to do that then great; you've not been editing in quite the same circles as the problemative editors, so pretty much all of this discussion is inapplicable to you. I would far rather not have to go discussing this offline, so this is the compromise I've found. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and apologies again for the excessive sarcasm. That said, if someone else wants to explain me what we're talking about, I'd be happy. --Cyclopia^talk 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Pcap above, I think there's a move towards a consensus on this issue (look at Sjakkalle's close) although it's happening without anyone noticing it, which means the WikiDrama is unnecessarily continuing. All that I -- call me an inclusionist, a deletionist, Yet Another Pain-in-the-butt -- want out of these discussions is to know what the community truly thinks are notable articles in this area. Until that happens, I'll spend my writing time on articles which have nothing to do with bilateral relations, & wait out these two camps while they fight it out. As for ARS, as long as its members limit their efforts to rescuing articles which could be saved with a decent rewrite, no one should have a problem with that WikiProject; if individuals go beyond that then the individuals deserve sanctioning, not the entire WikiProject. -- llywrch (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Delsort queue fixed

I've noticed there was a delsort queue for this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, but it was badly formatted, and it was never approved at WT:DELSORT. I've fixed it and added without prior discussion as an emergency measure. Hopefully, interested parties can now watchlist this instead of the more arcane and less transparent means of AfD notification. Pcap ping 09:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem

If members of the ARS (or anyone else for that matter) are Keepspamming AfDs with dubious rationales, then the closing admin should just be ignoring them. Exactly the same way as they should be ignoring "Delete - not notable" comments. The problem is not the ARS or any other voting bloc, it's the fact that too many AfD closers are still vote-counting because they're terrified of being taken to DRV. If that's you, there's a simple answer - stop closing AfDs. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think you know better than that. It is very easy to abuse the good faith of a closing admin, and deleting articles after a series of pile-on keeps is inevitably going to lead to deletion review and further drama. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Then, as has been stated, the closing admin shouldn't be the closing admin, but should vote Delete themselves with as persuasive a rationale as they can manage. It is incredibly likely that that would be more than enough for the another admin who comes along and closes it to feel firm in their decision to Delete. If it goes to DRV after that, it is highly likely that they will concur with the rationale and endorse it. It's really not that complicated. Silverseren^C 21:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's precisely the chilling effect which the disruptors were hoping to enable; a situation where any admin who dared to close a debate that they might personally feel one way or the other on (i.e. in most cases which are being discussed, to delete against the will of the disruptors) would feel too scared to do so. Eventually you get a situation where the very people most suitable for closing contentious AfDs are scared off them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it go for both directions though (controversy from both Keep and Delete blocs). What do you think the best method is for fixing it? Is my idea I put above your comment a sound one? Silverseren^C 21:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning Drama mongers and opening RfCs on admins who consistently close debates against consensus? After a few heads roll you'd probably find the inclination to try and disrupt AfDs (at least by regular users) to drop. There is a serious problem with some AfDs where admins do nothing but count votes when most of the arguments amount to nothing more than "keep, I'm wearing blue pants!". Frankly we're not remotely tough enough on canvassers. Anyone genuinely caught canvassing should be blocked for the duration of the AfD the first time. The second time they should be blocked for a year.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Black Kite. There's very little backlog at AfD, which has been the case for a very long time. Admins who get routinely overturned at DRV and those who cannot stomach standing up to bad rationales can direct their efforts elsewhere with little chance of problems arising in this area. 86.45.155.132 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DRV is part of the problem

In most review processes in real life, and even in some on Wikipedia, the reviewers are different from the original authors/participants. Our DRV process however happens to have the same involved parties dominate the discussion in a considerable number of cases, especially if the original AfD involved a lot of participants. Pcap ping 15:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis, GK1973

Resolved

_{DP retired... again}

• Draganparis (talk · contribs · logs)
• GK1973 (talk · contribs · logs)

...and GK1972 (talk · contribs · logs) and 95.89.18.134 (talk · contribs · logs), 87.202.19.91 (talk · contribs · logs) and 87.202.48.23 (talk · contribs · logs) (I think all Draganparis, many make posts with his name) have been fighting and battling in their various incarnations across my talk page, several ANI threads and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius, as well as edit warring at Saints Cyril and Methodius. Draganparis had a NLT block which has been removed but I haven't issued anything more than warnings and words of advice to both parties - largely to Draganparis at this time. The discussion is all over my talk archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive212 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595 and most recently here. I'm posting here, again, because I'm tired of having to deal with this myself - it is beyond my meagre skills and I plead for another admin(s) to take a look.

I proposed an interaction ban a while back but consensus showed that to be too harsh. However, the users and their various IPs have turned all sorts of places into a pointy battleground, and despite a number of attempts to make both parties step back, have tea, drop the stick, desist, RBI, words of advice and so on, (see [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). This sniping has got to stop, I'm having my username thrown about the discussion pages in reciprocated accusations of "he did this against me but nothing against you" etc. Neither of them are innocent, and I need another body to assist! SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

All above users notified. SGGH ^ping! 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what the problem here is. What have I done that is deemed incivil in any way? If this is about my removing the following comment [[18]], I think that anybody who reads it will agree that the "discussion" initiated was off topic bordering on incivility. My explanation for removing it was : "removing senseless potential battleground" which was exactly what it was. Some IP that has nothing to do with me engaging in a senseless uncivilized discussion with another IP (presumably Draganparis). I did not say anything about anyone having to be blamed or something, I just protected the discussion. If SGGH is suspecting that I have anything to do with any IPs, I encourage him to check me out, although there is no statement about any socks here and I clearly state that I have not made even ONE contribution as an IP, so I do not know nything about any "sniping". I also did not occupy myself or any other user with my unresolved case against DP considering it obsolete, especially after DP (again presumably) retired. Someone (an IP, DP?) wrote on SGGH's discussion page that "The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now?" What civility appeal and what does this have to do with anything? I guess that every concerned user's duty would be to check this fight before it escalated. Is there anyone among you here who would not consider this particular exchange of words "a potential battleground"? Well... whatever... just check it out, check me out, check anything out and let's formulate some, I don't know, charges for me to know exactly what to answer...

Oh... and it seems funny, how DP uses third person first in his "complaint", as though he is some neutral editor (albeit IP) and then proceeds to make a second comment in which he claims he is DP... GK (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

..And GK 1972 (plus all the other Greek IPs) is also NOT me but someone mimicking my name. The slight difference in the number used should be a clue, but if there is any doubt, again, please check me out. GK (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

GK1972 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef for username violation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed GK1972. As for GK1973, I don't suspect you having anything to do with the IPs, I know they are Draganparis. Secondly, I am not bringing any "charges against you", I am bringing the situation in its entirety here because I have too much else going on to deal with it satisfactorily on my own, and I am tired of DP throwing my name about in the continuing arguments between all parties. I don't know how the proportion of responsibility for this continuation of battling lies, I brought all parties here equally so another admin can decide. SGGH ^ping! 09:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK SGGH, I understand. There is no problem on my side. If there is anything I can help or anything that any admin would like to ask me, I will be happy to answer. As far as I am concerned, this is another disrupting effort on the part of "retired" user Draganparis to attack me (presumably because of my removal of his "discussion" above, in which actually the other part was the problem) and yet another admin (that is you) of impartiality etc... I stopped giving his accusations any credit or importance long ago, and refrained from answering him as you already know and anybody can check. If there is anything I can do to help, please message me. GK (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If the rule is that one should let be insulted on these pages and should not complain - I admit I acted against such concept and would admit of an error of opposing to such a rule. However, I do not think this to be the spirit of Wikipedia. A small effort by the administrators to warn for uncivilized tone would have, I believe, beneficial effects on these pages.

BACKGROUND. This is a sequel of the dispute that I have let go. here is just a short comment, for the administrators to understand the motives. The disputes on Cyril and Methodius pages and on the number of pages on Ancient Macedonia are politically biased. In fact on the C&M the current dispute about Greekness of the missionaries (just about one word!) lasts already for over 4 years. One group of the editors, a group of the same editors I presume, constant for many years now, have been changing their user names, collaborating permanently in various not verifiable ways, all this with the intention to maintain one concept, a concept that they, missionaries, were Greeks, that the Alexander the Great was “Greek king”, that the ancient Macedonians were “more Greeks then the Greeks themselves” – something that is actually claimed! The user’s name change serves a trivial purpose: to misled the new-comer administratiors I would think (Xenovatis-Anothroskon, Miskin to may be GK1973 and to GK, and may be some other names). This missionaries problem is of course of little relevance for the others who are not Greeks or may be not “modern Macedonians”, the modern Macedonians who are also quite eager to call them, the missionaries, not Greek but, for example “Macedonian”. But the mention group is a Greek group and is particularly effective, although small. Every “intrusion” if more serious, they try to remove. I pushed the issue of strict evaluation of the sources and this broke down the concept of the group, incited them to start insulting me and made the entire issue hard to resolve. Now I practically accepted not to change the term “Greek” (although not documented but somehow natural) for term “Byzantine” (what is more neutral expression and I think better). However, even after the end of the discussion, they continued with the insults and I rebelled. This what we find now here is a sequel of the mentioned dispute. The sequel being just a problem of the civility on these pages. This is important because the method that the group uses against some successful contra argument is, between others, intimidation and personal insults. If the user would then react with more intensity, the group would, acting in concert, try to remove him. This case is therefore a sequel of a successful removal of one “intruder” – me.

Therefore, the issue is simple. Some editors have been insulting me, I called for civility. This did not stop them, they intensified the insults and my edits have been PARTIALLY removed by the same user - I presume with the intention to remove some expression of my goodwill and make the administrators judge in their favor. The administrator(s) permitted this all and have been warning only me for “disruptive editing” (which, these editing, were my calls for civility!) and were not warning the party that produced EXPLICIT insults.

More specifically to the above problem raised by SGGH:

I ISSUED THE WARNING that GK1972 address may be a misuse, so there is no point discussing it here. The mentioned IPs belong as follows: 95.89.18.134 - is my lab computer; the IP 87.202.19.91 is in Athens; the IP 87.202.48.23 is also in Athens.

GK (alias GK1973) and Simanos have been insulting me for months (at least 10 times they called me a “layer” and used other insulting names without even showing where the untruthfulness was. This was at various placed, talk pages, mentioned administrator talk page, ANI investigation page… I just complained against incivility. My complaints were interpreted by them as disrupting editing and new insults and incivility mockery continued. I disclosed my personality hoping that this would make them behave in more civilized way. The insults continued. No administrator EVER reacted. To denigrate me, I presume, GK1973 started removing parts of my friendly calls for civility!! I know for three occasions, there could have been more, it is hard to follow all of this. I retired then from Wikipedia. The insults unfortunately continued even in my absence. Since my personality has been known now I could act as an UNREGISTERED known user. I complained again. GK removed my call for civility again. The Administrator(s) were permanently warning ME instead of the SIDE that was permanently, over 3 months, insulting me in spite of my not being anonymous any more.

The cause of this situation: In my opinion the administrator(s) missed to warn the editors for incivility and this made them confident to continue, what produced then that the entire issue exploded. Solution is also simple and logical: The uncivilized party should be prevented from insulting me, and I will not have reason to complaint on Wikipedia discussion pages. The problem will then disappear. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand... Does DP claim that this edit as well as these were made by someone else and not him? If so, then this IP should immediately be banned for disruption and usurpation of the identity of another editor, posing as DP all the time... GK (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My mistake.The 95.89.18.134 is my lab computer. Sorry for the confusion. I now corrected MY OWN edit above and corrected some English also which was quite bad, since I wrote it in hurry. (Draganparis)

Excuse me, to the administrator: did GK1972 use MY LAB COMPUTER (IP: 95.89.18.134)? This is almost impossible and if this was the case, his comment was trivial, but this may amount to a very serious personal privacy affair. I am entitled to know this, please. Thank you. Although... our computers are set to acquire the IP number from the server and it is theoretically possible to acquire some number that some other computer previously had... Yes, this will be no proof, but I am just curious. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The above evidences the problem, can someone step in to assist? SGGH ^ping! 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had more time to look into this. DraganParis, if you're going to contribute, please log in. That will make this a lot easier for everyone. SGGH, don't doubt your sanity. You know the players here and if you think a block is merited, make one. Everyone, stop making personal attacks, stop making allegations unless you post a diff so that it's clear what you're talking about. If you can't agree on what should go in the article, follow our dispute resolution guidelines. Can't you just neutrally report what reliable sources say on the subject? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem with the article. Proper procedures were followed, an admin was called in to judge the arguments presented sometime in February and he ruled that "Greek" was the word to use Here admin Tom Harrison clearly states his opinion. After this ruling, there were minor disputes which of course did not change the ruling and there was no more formal dispute by any proponent of the other POVs. User DP thinks he has made his point, as most times is the case with those who disagree, yet other users seriously doubt that he has. He has never properly called for outside neutral input, as far as I am aware, nor has he followed any other proper channels. He chose to resort to blame some organized pro-Greek cabala, hurling attacks and innuendos against a number of editors and admins and especially against me, who, in his mind, along with 3-4 other users represent some kind of uebernationalistic gang. He chose to parade through various discussion pages posting self-made warning notices against us until I brought the case to ANI. There he even blatantly used legal threats, which resulted in his getting banned (for a third time in a matter of a few months, after getting banned once for disruption and once for sockpuppetry - three confirmed socks). Then he retracted and days after he dramatically retired. Since then he edits from 2 IPs, again mainly to criticize me and other editors/admins (this one is good), one such critique being the reason (as I understand) why SGGH has again opened this ANI case. I do not know what the real point here is, I have long now stopped to interact with user Draganparis as well as giving any heed to his endless whining (to him this is a really serious personal attack, to me it is the politest way to describe his contributions). Of course ex-user Draganparis continually complains how I and other users insulted him, called him a liar, replied with "blah blah blah" to his usual allegations, my feeling is that I have been more than patient and as civil as humanly possible regarding his trolling and his spamming. Anyone is welcome to look into this case, should anyone really think this story worth looking into... GK (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you need a better proof from this sincere text above that we have two very different concepts of civility? (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning DP from Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius might be a start, it is his IPs that are continually posting there. GK hasn't edited the page since May 7th apart from reverting one WP:BATTLEesque edits. DP needs to go elsewhere in the 'pedia or I shall start issuing blocks. Likewise, is GK1973 starts appearing to take liberties and go after DP then the same may occur. Both parties must stop editing anywhere near Saints Cyril and Methodius or related topics. Don't go around reporting each other either, because that will very much count as not letting it go. SGGH ^ping! 15:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I had an email stating I had violated some logical principle of Socrates in my resolution of this incident. To be honest I am tired these appeals to humanity. This is Wikipedia, not humanity. Email stated the use has left, so that's a resolution. SGGH ^ping! 22:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess from DP... I have never seen a retired user being so active before... You have my sympathies... GK (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll mark this resolved then. But I will take User:SheffieldSteels advice should it come up again. Happy editing. SGGH ^ping! 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Slovaks in Hungary

Could an admin take a look at this please. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) unilaterally decided to userify it (it's now at User:Samofi/Slovaks in Hungary), and this to my mind amounts to an out of process speedy deletion and as far as I can see it meets no speedy delete criteria anyway. I notice that the page creater (Samofi (talk · contribs) has now been blocked but given the input by Baxter9 (talk · contribs) I'd suggest the page needs to moved back to main space and proper deletion procedures followed if someone wants to go down that route - the mess with speedy deletions and moving the page more than once means I can't revert things. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• It's a monograph with sourcing and WP:SYN issues (plus the user's English is not great), userfying is the best way of helping the user to develop the article while avoiding an otherwise inevitable deletion debate. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you point me to a policy or guideline on userfication? While I accept that userfication may be the way to go this should not be done without the user's permission as otherwise it's a speedy delete in all but name and a user should have the option of following the normal deletion process if they so desire. It is my opinion that involuntary userfication should only occur in lieu of a proper deletion (either by speedy or AfD) and then done by an admin. I am also of the view that this is the only course of action in keeping with current policy. In this case the page was not a speedy candidate, nor had an AfD been completed and the userfication was not done by an admin. This case is also complicated by the fact that another editor has edited this page and they may wish it to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How about WP:BRD?

Loook, I don't see the problem here. The article was a mess, clearly not ready for prime time. There were empty sections, poor writing, lots of bad formatting, eerything about it said "work in progress." I could have deleted everything in it that was wrong, or spent an inordinate amount of time trying to fix it up, but instead I went with B and userfied it. If people think that's a mistake, they should R my action and the D can begin -- I'm certainly not going to edit war to put it back in userspace. I do think that the creator should be aware, though, that if it's moved back into mainspace, there's every probability that it will be AfDed and deleted. (That's not a threat, I wouldn't nominate it, but given the condition of the article, it's almost a certainty that someone will.)

I think the only real question here is whether the article, as is, is an improvement and benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the answer is clear that it is not. It certainly can be, with some amount of work. If it's not beneficial, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and I don't believe it takes an admin to make that determination. In general, we don't insist on process for the sake of process, so if (as you seem to agree) userfication is the best course of action, it's rather irrelevant how it was arrived at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel your actions were wrong as they amounted to a speedy deletion and speedy deletions which don't fall under any of the criteria are generally frowned upon and additionally I've never heard of BRD being applied to deletions. In the case of deletions I do think we should insist on process. It's also clear precedence at AfD that the bad state of an article is not a reason to delete. That said that's just my personal view - as there is currently no policy on userfication I am happy to accept others will have a different point of view. I would not have brought this here if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't revert myself. (As an aside I've now started a RfC on whether the current userfication essay should become a policy or guideline). Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a deletion, it's right there in userspace, in exactly the same condition it was, ready and available to be worked on. If the creator wishes other editors to help in developing it, a note dropped on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page will surely bring some. As I said, if you disagree strongly, get an admin to move it back. (You could have moved it back yourself if you hadn't prevented the speedy deletion of the cross-namespace redirect I requested.) I don't think that's in the best interests of the article or the encyclopedia, but YMMV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I've missed understood WP:MOR I could not revert as your addition of the speedy delete tag meant there was more than one line in the page history. I generally take very complex deletion requests (such as this) here rather than speedy delete tag them so that I can explain things properly and discuss if need be. As I say it was not meant to be a complaint about your conduct as at the moment there is no policy or guideline on this so we're all free to do what we think best.

(As an aside it is my view that userfication should be treated the same as deletion as it removes the page from the view of normal readers although I accept views may differ on this. Although only (currently) an essay WP:Userification states "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article" so I'm not the only person that holds that view. I may have been more willing to let this one slip by if it wasn't for the fact that two editors appeared to be working on it.) Dpmuk (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious, userfication is not the same as deletion because with deletion the article is no longer available to anyone except administrators, while with userfication it's off the beaten path, but it's still around and available for development. It is, in fact, no more "deleted" than any category, template or image, which all exist outside of mainspace in their own namespaces. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken is correct; this isn't a deletion, so there's no problem with BRD. I've deleted the cross-namespace redirect; if you want to move it back to mainspace, go for it. If someone wants to nom it for speedy/PROD/AFD, they can. This userfication was a polite way to try to fix things, IMHO; BMK should realize by now that no good deed goes unpunished. (struck by request) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Most certainly. (Nothing to respond to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I disagree that it shouldn't be treated the same as a deletion and from the essay I am not the only one, so I don't like the tone of Floquenbeam final comment, we obviously disagree but that's no need to accuse me of "punishing" Beyong My Ken. As I've said I brought this here to get the move reversed not to attack a user's conduct - we may disagree on the correctness of his move but I understand their point of view and can't fault them for doing it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Move reversed and AfD started here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is pure process wonkery. Have fun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you've AfDed an article while the creator is indeffed and will not be able to speak for it. The only real reason to insist on the strict application of process is in the interest of fairness to all parties -- In what way is that fair? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, so I haven't got round to notifying people a whole five minutes after I started the AfD, give me a chance! Now notified along with the other user that had made significant contributions. Given the creator's banned status I'll keep an eye on his talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That was a badly misjudged action. The article fails core policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V since the sources are mainly unacceptable) and against the weight of those policies you are erecting some pettifogging objection about process. The result is that the user gets a WP:BITE for his pains, since the article cannot possibly remain as it is in mainspace. Instead of allowing a period for the user to fix the several issues, you have placed a thoroughly non-compliant article back in main space where an AfD is an inevitability. I really cannot see how that is a good result for the user or the project. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well sorry, although I respect your view and can understand it, I completely disagree with it for two reasons. The first is I think new users would find it more bitey if an article is userified without any discussion or indeed explanation on their talk page. I also think it would make them wonder how wikipedia is run if a single editor, who doesn't even have to be, and in this case isn't, an admin, can unilaterally removed their article from the encylopedia. Personally I think newbies would prefer to see an article end up at AfD where there can be some feedback and they can properly understand the process. If delete and userification is the result of the AfD at least they'll know why and understand that it's been done by WP:CONSENSUS, another one of wikipedia's core policies. Secondly I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent if we allowed anyone to userify page just because they want to. There is currently no consensus on userfication and so I think it should only happen when a page would otherwise be deleted (i.e. after an AfD or if it's eligible for speedy). Dpmuk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it really doesn't aid any editor to have their work removed from the encyclopedia without informing them of how they might make it better. At least a deletion review will have participants, discussion, points and suggestions and things. Allowing users to get around the deletion process and establish a consensus all on their own to userfy, but at the same time not help with the improvement of the article, is just wrong. No-one has mentioned the third option that someone might come across the article in mainspace, if it were there, and decide to help make it encyclopedic, if possible. Not everyone rushes to delete. Userfying without discussion gives no room for improvement, allowing random people to userfy things they don't like just gives them free reign to bypass normal procedures of improvement or deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(out)So let's sum up here: 12 hours after I userfied it, an obviously deletable article is again userfied, at the cost of the time and energy of a number of editors. I'd call that a complete waste of resources, and exactly the kind of thing that WP:IAR – a frequently miscited policy – was designed to prevent. Sure, we've had Process (with a bold capital "P"), all the eyes are crossed and the tees are spotted, and a fun time was had by all as we walked our big Circle of Liff right back to our starting point ... and I guess that's what's most important, right? (sheesh) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was userfied to someone else (User:Nuujinn/Slovaks_in_Hungary), and after the consensus for that formed at the AfD. Had it been userified to its creator, it would not have improved, regardless whether its creator were indeff'd or not. The article might have gotten longer in Samofi's unser space, but that's about it. So, the AfD did have an positive effect. Pcap ping 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The same people - meaning everybody - who can edit it now in the userspace it's currently in could have edited it in the userspace I put it in, so that's pretty irrelevant. Instead of dancing around 360 degrees, we danced 359.999 degrees. It was still a waste of time, and process for the sake of process, which I see went on even more, as the same editor took the AfD result to DRV. Damned if I know what's going on here, because it seems someone's going through a lot of bother for the sake of ... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Except User:Nuujinn might have never found it, or dared to work on it in somebody else's user space. Pcap ping 10:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems that some people are being process wonks and asserting that userfication equals deletion therefore this is out of process deletion. It's not. I really cannot see how leaving a grossly noncompliant article in article space for a week and then deleting it is better by any objective measure than moving it to user space to be made compliant and potentially moved back. If the subject is good then userfication will yield a compliant article rather than a week with a noncompliant article followed by deletion. If the subject is not good then userfication is a speedy removal from article space of an obviously biased treatment of it. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See below for an explanation of how none of that actually happened - the article wasn't left for a week or deleted, it was moved to somewhere where it might get improved, along with suggestions, comments and the like, none of which was accomplished by BMKs taking process into his own hands. Weakopedia (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually your summing up is not quite as comprehensive as it could be.

An editor created an article, which over the space of three days was edited several dozen times by up to four different editors. On the fourth day you removed that article from mainspace to the creators talk, and left a note telling them "it is not yet in good enough shape to be in the encyclopedia proper. Please work on it here, and when it is ready, move it back into mainspace."

In short, you didn't attempt to improve the article, nor express any specific concerns you may have had about the article. You didn't assist the creator in understanding what they had done wrong, you didn't attempt to show the creator how they might improve the article.

Wikipedia:Userfication says "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it generally is inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process.".

Since this page was worked on my several editors, was not created by accident, and simply didn't meet your quality standards, you had no basis for userfication. The deletion process is there to stop editors from making out-of-process deletions based on views they have which are incompatible with the views of Wikipedia.

Note that Wiki policy says that there are alternatives to deletion. Specifically about userfication it says "Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. The incubator provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit."

The "easier to find and edit" bit is important. By userfying you placed the article in a hard-to-find place, and at the same time left no indication about your concerns or what the creator could do to address them. You placed responsibility for improving the encyclopedia squarely on the article creator, in violation of Ownership.

The founding principles state that we should use "discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism by consensus for all content.". IAR wasn't designed to overcome the founding principles. Userfication without discussion is not helpful to the encyclopedia, it does not promote discussion, it does not aid article improvement. Userfication is not reccommended by policy, and in fact is discouraged.

The deletion process is there to stop editors moving content out of mainspace that they simply don't like and don't wish to assist in improving. In this case the deletion process resulted in a discussion and eventually an editor agreeing to work on the article in their talkspace, an editor with a fair idea of how to improve articles. That is an example of consensus, an example of collaboration in improving the encyclopedia. By undertaking the deletion the process the articles problems have been partially identified and are being worked on. Your method of deletion/userfication did none of these things, and put the article in the place least likely to aid in it's improvement.

Reccommend reminding BMK that the deletion process is there for a reason, that userfication is specifically discouraged, and that IAR does not extend to acting on a personal consensus that the community had no say in, nor ultimately felt able to uphold. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Recommend reminding Weakopedia that non-neutral articles by people banned for tendentious editing are not really an asset to the project and placing them somewhere out of the article space while they are remediated is better than waiting a week and then deleting them. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You were the closing admin for that deletion review, and your close was not to wait a week and delete it. After discussion about what was wrong with the article you closed with "Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework.". Discussion, consensus, suggestion, improvement. That is in stark contrast to a non-admin userfying content they don't like without discussion, consensus, or suggestion, and with little hope of improvement. You seem to be arguing that the end justifies the means, and no discussion was necessary, but firstly that creates an awful precedent for everyone to randomly remove from the encyclopedia what they don't like, and secondly is against the principles of Wikipedia, in this case both in letter and in spirit. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not close the deletion review. The article fails core policies. It is now placed in user space for rework. This may result in an article which, unlike the current one, is compliant. End of. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You didn't close it?

"The result was Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)"

Then someone is impersonating you, and they have the sourgrapes bit perfect. Weakopedia (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy closed the AfD, not the DRV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My first response is that it would have been better to move it to the Article Incubator. What sort of articles should be placed in userspace rather than the Incubator? Too many articles in userspace still show up in Google, which is not a good thing IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free, I won't object. I have no real opinion on the merit of the subject, only the content. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

174.140.102.231

Over a period of ten days, this person (i.e. static IP) has blanked and/or repeatedly inserted unsourced material. Requests for reliable sourcing via discussion, revision history page and user talk page have mostly, if not all, been ignored. Differences: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Akerans (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

user (talk) has insisted on stating that this man is alive, when he has clearly passed on. His company's own website announced his death: http://yellowmanblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/peter-mui-founder-of-yellowman-1953—2009/ and footage of his memorial service is easily available through a simple google search. Respect the man, and either delete or fix his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.102.231 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on deleting most of the article whether than just change the tense? raseaC^{talk to me} 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They've insisted on retaining the current text until a source is provided so that readers and other editors can confirm what you claim. You need to discuss sourcing with them until you've found a good source.

You need to continue the discussions this editor has attempted to have with you in the past, specifically at the article's talk page.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Simply removing material is considered vandalism. You need to use a reliable source to cite your changes/edits, instead of just making the change. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Appears the page has been edited again, without sources.([19]) Even after attempts for further discussion. Akerans (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If they do it again, I'd suggest (by which I mean: I will request) semi-protection. If that doesn't work we can try full protection. Hopefully, one or other of those approaches will drive the IP to discuss first. TFOWR^propaganda 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm a little concerned about the article and WP:BLP. I've been googling for "Tungtex" and "Yellow river": Tungtex doesn't mention Mr. Mui at all, though he's supposed to be a co-founder. finance.google.com returns nothing relevant for "Yellow river". I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about the accuracy of the article. TFOWR^propaganda 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I did find information about that here. I'm guessing that Peter Kan Mui is his full name, as there is also a redirect page here on WP. I'm not sure who are Investor Relations Asia Pacific, or if the information is reliable. Akerans (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

More on Slovaks in Hungary

There's no particular drama here, just a procedural question on which Spartaz and I are disagreeing. (For the avoidance of doubt I quite like Spartaz and I often agree with him, just not in this case. Spartaz advised me to raise the matter here, so I'm doing it with his full knowledge.)

The situation is that following Guy's early closure of the AfD for Slovaks in Hungary, about which there's a long drama above, Dpmuk wanted to raise a deletion review to examine whether the process had been correctly followed. He did this here. Spartaz pre-emptively closed the DRV on the grounds that the article has been userfied. Spartaz's view is that because the article has been userfied, no deletion has taken place, which means that DRV has no jurisdiction. Spartaz thinks the correct venue for Dpmuk's request is WP:RM.

My view is that DRV is the correct place for challenging a deletion decision, and that RM has no jurisdiction to decide whether Guy followed the procedure correctly. I therefore think Spartaz' early closure of the DRV was inappropriate.

Please could uninvolved people decide which of us is correct?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with S Marshall: if an article has been deleted at AfD and then userfied, DRV is the correct forum for deciding whether it should be allowed back into the main space, relisted for AfD, or stay out. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It has never been deleted. It has been moved to user space. A move is not an admin action and does not have the effect of an admin enforcing a consensus with tools. Its an editorial outcome that can be changed by any new consensus. As such a deletion review is nugatory and this can either ne resolved at RM or by gaining a new consensus on the article talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A move isn't an admin action, but deleting the resulting redirect is. But the main point is that a fresh consensus about what's to be done with the article does an end run around what is undoubtedly a DRV function:- to oversee whether Guy followed the process correctly. Admins are empowered to make emergency decisions and judgment calls, but if they do, they aren't above scrutiny of their actions at DRV afterwards.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I also brought the matter up at Spartaz's talk page. Userfication is basically the same as deletion (in fact it normally happens after deletion) and has never been a reason to stop a DrV in the past. Hobit (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• My view on this begins with "F" and ends with "uck process". Here we have an article which, after significant discussion, everybody agrees is seriously noncompliant with core policy. It fails WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and is also in very poor English. The creating user has since been indefinitely blocked for tendentious editing due to POV-pushing in precisely the area covered by the article's contents. So we have now spent a significant amount of time and energy arguing about whether this should sit in article space for a week before its inevitable deletion, or whether it is somehow a terrible abuse of process to move it to user space where someone has expressed an interest in fixing it. I am utterly bemused by the determination of some people to keep what is by common consent a terrible article in mainspace, rather than userspace, while we decide to nuke it. That is plain silly. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Slovaks in Hungary is a redlink. Clicking on it gives me the option to view or restore 7 deleted edits. Typing "Slovaks in Hungary" into the search box does not find it. This is exactly the same situation as if the article had been deleted and userfied: Article gone from WP / article present in userspace / no way for a regular user to find it. I don't think it's a very good argument to say that "it hasn't been deleted" because effectively - very effectively - it has. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, DRV would be the right venue if you disagreed with Guy's closure. Technically Guy did close it as delete, but userfied the article in the same action. No, DRV is not necessary if someone is going to work on the article in their userspace and move it to the mainspace once it's suitable. At that point, it would go to another AFD. Whether Guy's early closure was suitable invocation of IAR is an exercise left to the reader. –xeno^talk 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I feel that Spartaz' early closure of the DRV was correct given that the drv was clearly process wonkery. I don't feel that Spartaz' reason for closing the drv was good, since reversing any decision made by AfD is presisely what drv is for. So I think the closure should be "closed as beeing a call for procedure for procedures sake", or WP:SNOW. Taemyr (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• That, at least, is a fair point. Perhaps Spartaz would like to change the closure summary. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've seen no comment in the AfD or DRV that states the current content should be in the mainspace; at best, some think there is something to salvage with heavy work needed. Frankly, I see both the AfD and the DRV as process for process sake. All that should matter is that the content be sourced and updated to maximize its encyclopedic value so that it can be evaluated in the mainspace. Who cares if the TPS reports were properly filled out in the interim? The optimal outcome—a properly-sourced and relevant article in the mainspace—is still achieveable and another discussion about the intracacies of proper i-dotting and t-crossing will not help with that. Move on, everyone. These efforts would be better spent at the userified article. — Scientizzle 14:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What's the point of process, Scientizzle? It's a serious question:- Why do we bother to have AfD discussions? And why do we bother to have a DRV process for reviewing whether they're closed properly?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a balance thing - enough process to assure consensus and a modicum of fairness, not so much process that we're all spending our time filling out forms in quadruplicate. What WP:IAR basically means is that the right result is to be more highly valued than which pathway is used to achieve it, so if the procedural niceties are getting in the way, it's OK to jump the line. It answers, for Wikipedia, the age-old question of whether the end justifies the means: here, at least, it does, when the end is important enough. Certainly improving the encyclopedia is important enough, and I've yet to see an argument in all this silliness that the article in question, in the state it is in, improves the encyclopedia. The correct result (or some version of the correct result - perhaps Dougweller is right and it should have gone to the incubator) was achieved, and nothing got broken in the bargain, except maybe the desire to elevate process for its own sake to a more important status than advancing the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that this thread is about Spartaz' early close of the DRV, and not about Guy's deletion of the article, is it your position that enough process to assure consensus and a modicum of fairness took place?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz' decision seems to me to be exactly right: there was no deletion, therefore nothing to be reviewed at DRV. A controversial action with no specific forum designated for discussion is therefore dealt with at a place for general discussions of controversial actions, i.e. AN or AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The point of process? The Wikipedia processes exist to serve the needs of creating a better encyclopdia only. Processes like AfD are for gathering feedback towards that end, which may be best acheived by eliminating content or spurring the relocation and/or improvement of that content. Speedy deletion exists for when the content is unlikely to ever meet reasonable inclusion criteria. DRV exists because AfDs are not always clean and easy to close, speedies may be overzealous, conditions may change in the real world that may reasonably alter the fate of a deletion discussion given a second look, and admins are human and prone to make mistakes.

It seems abundantly clear that reasonable, knowledgable editors don't think the current content of the Slovaks in Hungary article is ready for Prime Time, therefore it should not be in the mainspace. It's also clear that some reasonable, knowledgable editors think there is some work that can be done to possibly shape it into an appropriate article, which is recommended to be done in userspace. Therefore the optimal transitional state has currently been acheived: the content is now in userspace to be worked upon by those interested and capable, thus increasing the liklihood of creating an encyclopedic article. I've seen no indication of a reasonably-likely process outcome that would be clearly superior to this. If someone can provide one, I'd like to know. Process can get in the way when sensible actions (such as userifying marginal content for improvement) are inhibited or actively opposed.

And to head off any concern over ends justify the means extremism: this only applies to reasonably sensible outcomes acheived through reasonably sensible—if out of the ordinary—actions. Naturally, any action or outcome should be open for critical evaluation, but my view is that the means should be optimized to meet the ends, that the means should never be an end unto themselves, and that the optimal approach is sometimes out-of-process. — Scientizzle 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I came back to make exactly that point, that process is most important with marginal cases, where it helps determine what consensus is. In this case, at all points along the way, the consensus concerning the result was never in doubt: no one has disputed Guy's litany of the things wrong with the article, and everyone seems to agree (in broad terms) with the outcome. This is not a marginal case, and it is exactly those situations in which WP:IAR encourages us to "just do it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• And that's exactly my view as well, Scientizzle. Would you agree with me that when you say, "any action or outcome should be open for critical evaluation", the correct venue for critical evaluation of a deletion is DRV?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• The entire point of that DRV, it seems to me, was placing the process ahead of the outcome. Dpmuk even stated in the AfD "I would have no problem with a userfy close", which, incidentally, was the close. Your comments in the DRV, S Marshall, were similarly concerned with process over outcome: "follow the process properly, so that the article can be deleted in a correct and orderly fashion." If deletion/userification is a reasonable outcome, and that outcome has been acheieved, what is the point of further process? What do you want out of this, S Marshall? What is there to gain at this point? — Scientizzle 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  
  To expand upon my thoughts here...DRV should be used iff the outcome and process were both questionable. To expand upon BMK's points above, the processes exist to expand the liklihood of a useful outcome in those gray areas of editing and to provide a sort of quasi-anarchic checks and balances-type control against actual abuses. I have yet to see a strong, clear objection to the actual outcome of all of this, or that some aspect of editing process was damaged, thus I see no need to worry much about whether the outcome was acheived by-the-book. — Scientizzle 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What do I want to see? Well, there's a main point and a subsidiary one. The main point isn't specific to this case. I would like to see it established that in principle, an AfD close as "userfy" can be challenged at DRV. Spartaz' close states that it cannot. In other words, to take Spartaz' close literally, there are no circumstances in which a "userfy" outcome is subject to DRV—and that's not okay.

  The subsidiary point is in sympathy with Dpmuk, and it's about FairProcess. And before we all start being snide about processes again, the word "fair" is the important one. Dpmuk hasn't been treated fairly here. He's effectively been told that even though he objects to Guy's out-of-process close, it can't be challenged in any venue. That's not collaborative; it's kafkaesque.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

it can't be challenged in any venue - This is the community discussion on those actions. An unnecessary discussion, IMO, but a discussion nonetheless. Dpmuk hasn't been treated badly, his actions, although in good faith, were ill-advised, and the result commensurate with their (lack of) usefullness to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Amen. There is no harm in letting the DrV go forward, and the reason given for the close is a horrible precedent to let go forward. By closing this early we spend more time on this, not less, so it's self-defeating on top of everything else. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • How's that, then? –xeno^talk 19:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I personally don't see the reason for not allowing the discussion to go forward. Let the day in court happen. I realize it's bounced all around, but frankly there were serious problems, in my opinion, with the AfD close. I've not followed the whole case in detail, but a speedy closure by what appears to be an involved admin is never a good idea. I may be missing something, but I think it's better to have that discussion rather than sweep it under a rug. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you, Xeno, that improves the outcome considerably.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that we are all here, supposedly, to build an encyclopedia. The administrative and logistical "tail" that is necessary to support those "front line" activities should be as large as necessary, and not a whit larger. Any energy which goes into these kinds of conversations is energy that is not being applied to editing the encyclopedia, and is therefore to some extent counterproductive. The actions that were unnecessary in this case were (1) undoing the initial userfication, (2) tagging the article with a "procedural" AfD, (3) bringing the AfD result to DRV and (4) asking for review of the DRV result. These actions sapped energy to the detriment of the project. The other actions (i.e. my initial userfication, Guy's closing of the AfD and Spartaz' closing of the DRV) were all geared towards the most minimal possible action to achieve the obviously desirable result. To say that they provoked all this palaver is ridiculous: at each point along the way, it was the objections to those actions which caused additional discussion – this is yet another example of why the focus on process over result is detrimental, and why we have IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this breakdown of the situation and Floquenbeam's take. We're not arguing against process, we're arguing against the repeated use of progress for no perceived gain to the project. — Scientizzle 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody comes to AN/I to build an encyclopaedia, BMK. People come to AN/I to talk about how a collaborative encyclopaedia ought to be built. Which, I'm afraid, involves processes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been deliberately quiet on this whole issue (apart from asking for comments on my user page) for quite some time so as to reflect on everything. I have two points I wish to make:

• I'm happier with xeno's close of the DRV but still not completely happy. JgZ's close of the original AfD was, in my opinion, an atrocious very bad abuse of process. I take on board the comments above about the end result being correct but we have to draw the line somewhere as to what abuses of process we allow to get the right result. In my opinion this clearly crossed the line as he was not even close to independent. This was my reason for taking it to DRV in the first place. I would still like to see JgZ's closure of the AfD vacated even if it is then immediately closed by a neutral admin with the same outcome.
• Several people above have accused me of going through a pointless process with no gain to the project. Respectively I disagree. I will admit to the amount of drama this has generated being excessive but I don't think the whole process had no gain. As I state on my user page where I give my reasoning I think that ensuring process is followed is important and has a gain to the project - that of not alienating editors. Yes this is less tangible than making sure we have good articles but the two go hand in hand, without any editors we would have no articles, be they good, bad or indifferent. It is obvious that peoples views differ on the importance of this but I'd ask that people stop making it sound like my actions had 'no perceived gain to the project' is a given and instead acknowledge that it is just their view and that other's may differ. Dpmuk (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stop using hyperbole. Atrocious? Is moving aside a biased article in bad English by a now-banned user really an atrocity? If you genuinely think it's an atrocity then God help you if you ever visit Rwanda or Zimbabwe. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that in common usage "atrocious" and "atrocity" have come to mean different things, the first (at least from my point of view) meaning "very bad" whereas atrocity has come to have a more specific meaning of murdering / killing as you describe (which is my book is much worse than "very bad"). I know that's not technically how things should work, but in my opinion that's how the two terms are commonly used, and I definitely meant it in the "very bad" sense and in no way meant to link it the the atrocities you mention. With hindsight it was probably a bad choice of word, due to the connection between the words, but it didn't occur to me at the time that people would make the connection as you did. Have refactored. Dpmuk (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And I think you're missing the point. Fie on process, get badly written polemic out of mainspace as soon as possible. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed to differ over this. I respect and understand your opinion although I can't agree with it. I hope you can do the same about my opinion. I don't think there's any point in discussing our opinions as it's obvious we hold very opposed views and I don't think discussion between the two of us is going to change either of our views. Dpmuk (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That rather invites the question of why you've come back to have another go at getting the last word in, and notified me on my talk page that you'd done so. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I was trying to get consensus whether you closing the AfD was right. When two editors disagree about something I believe it is normal on wikipedia to get other editor's view and seek consensus. It was also offered as, what I thought was, an easy compromise to tidy this all up to the satisfaction of everyone. I see no further point in discussing this with you as we are obviously going to disagree so I wanted to get some other views. Consensus here was that the result of the close was correct but to date there has been little comment on whether you should have closed this as an 'involved admin'. What I meant when I'd said "we agreed to differ" was that we'd agreed that our views differ and that we respect each others and that there was no point in trying to change each other's views. That didn't mean I accepted your actions as correct, only that I understood them and so I'd still like them reviewed.

I was also more than a little surprised by your complaint about the use of the word "atrocity" above given that when I told you on your talk page what I had said you replied with "It's all good", so I naturally thought my wording was not an issue and then you decided to complain about it here. It seems you say one thing on your talk page and then another at ANI which I am a little surprised about although it's possible I've misunderstood something. Dpmuk (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another chance?

A new account, STAND-UP-2-P (talk · contribs) has come to my talk page and apologized and is taking responsibility for their past actions. They have self admitted that they are a sock of a blocked user Force101 (talk · contribs) and I don't have any doubts that they are lying. He is asking for another chance and I would like to know what everyone else thinks. As a note, the main account Force101 is currently blocked with talk page privileges disabled and the account hasn't been directed to alternatives of getting unblocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a wee bit concerned that Force101 was last blocked only 8 days ago, but they appear to be open, honest, and genuine. Worse case scenario is an unblock, trouble, re-block (and remember this event if the editor requests a fresh start in the future). Best case scenario is that they're genuine, and we gain a good editor. TFOWR^propaganda 12:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not an admin, yada yada.

Force 101 is indeffed for block evasion, presumable there is another account behind this. Per TFOWR, it may be worth entering dialogue with the editor. It may also be worth restoring talk page access to Force 101 to allow an unblock request. The editor should be under no doubt that should they be granted an appeal, their editing will be under scrutiny and further problems will lead to a block being reimposed. If the editor wishes to become a constructive contributor, that is to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I would unblock talk page access and begin a dialogue. Easy enough to reblock talk if needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Force101 granted talk page access, STAND-UP-2-P requested not to use that account for time being. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a good indicator of their intentions… VernoWhitney (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, that comment on the end on the diff does not look like constructive editor material. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Chance given, chance blown. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this briefly yesterday, but I didn't have enough time to comment. Ever since he's been allowed to his talk page, I haven't seen a slight indication of competence. He maintains that he will make constructive edits, but I have not seen him demonstrate that anywhere in his past accounts. As Mjroots mentioned above, the user is not using this opportunity wisely. I'll keep watch on the further development on his talk page, and if his attitude changes, I may reconsider. Goodvac (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering he did that in his request to be unblockled, I think I'm more likely to find pirate gold buried in my garden. Troll account is trolling; wash your hands of him and continue. HalfShadow 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins

The periodic edit war on this page has flared up again. I have no clue which side is "right", but one keeps adding some stuff and another keeps deleting. Probably several 3RR violations by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Per tradition, can I suggest that you may have protected it at The Wrong Version? It looks to me like several editors were reverting one Special:Contributions/Lawgazer SPA. No objection to protection, but I suspect right now one editor is thinking "brilliant!" - and it's possibly that editor that should be encouraged to talk... TFOWR^propaganda 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The subject now is the same as it was a year ago - some dispute over that firm having laid some people off. There's someone with an axe to grind, and someone else who doesn't like it. But I don't know which one is "right". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed some of the links in your post, TFOWR. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 15:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! TFOWR^propaganda 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, we've got dueling SPA's. A one-shot redlink added this stuff on April 7, then today another SPA redlink started deleting it, while some bluelinks kept restoring it. But who's "right"? My recollection is that the stuff about layoffs was considered POV-pushing a year ago, so leaving it out (as it stands right now) could be the "right" version after all. But I'm not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This does indeed go back to a feud that was running through much of last year, particularly through the summer months, as one can tell from the history. It centered on the now-indef'd user Lathaminfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s efforts to make the article a coatrack about layoffs (it would be reasonable to assume he was personally affected by those layoffs). There were various apparent socks and other redlinks that got their mitts into it. It quieted down fairly much, once Lathaminfo was sent to the Phantom Zone, but it was apparently still simmering and has now boiled over again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued

I restored this from archives as I spoke too soon - the edit war has resumed, with a redlink posting the layoff stuff again, coatracking the article to be mostly about that particular event. That stuff needs to be deleted and the page protected again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nycbl1y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on some sort of crusade regarding law firm layoffs. I've informed him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits made are both noteworthy (largest law firm layoff in US history) and well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, not everyone agrees, so you need to take it to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

173.16.14.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently the IP that user was working under before creating his user ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the admin has put the article on ice for 3 days. My guess is that the guy will wait out the protection and start up again. We'll see on Friday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have been chuckling at the contents of WP:ROUGE and felt duly inclined to thwack it with the icy hammer. I'll have a look at some of the contributions in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Do the rouge admins watch cabal TV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Their favorite film is Moulin Rouge!. –MuZemike 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And,of course, their favorite videgame is Red Dead Redemption. Booyah, bitches HalfShadow 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All the TV programs in fact feature them. I have taken a look. This seems to have gone on at least as far back as September 2009, with User talk:Masslayoffs. There's clearly a lot of SPAs being created, and some meaty socks I have no doubt. I have, as a first measure, ramped up the protection to 2 weeks in the hope that they will have a change in life circumstances between now and then. SGGH ^ping! 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude. "Meaty socks"? That needs to be on WP:PLEASEDONTEVERSAYTHATAGAIN. Barf-o-rama. GJC 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact I have been even rougier, if you try to edit the page... SGGH ^ping! 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Good job. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is now discussing on the article talk page, so hopefully this will all work out well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another edit warrior

LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has come into this discussion from out of the blue, and instead of taking it to talk as I advised him, he reverted and accused me of "edit warring". I advised him to come here and give his side of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit based on a consensus of the talk page. Baseball reverted. I looked to see what his previous edits were, and he seems to revert a lot of edits which were sourced. So I reverted and put a note on the talk page. I don't see how this rises to the need to be discussed here. And this certainly doesn't make me an "edit warrior".LedRush (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (Bugs, would you consider striking or renaming this section?) I reverted LedRush and we've been discussing over at the article's talk page. TFOWR^propaganda 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Superiorname23 - good cop needed

Superiorname23 (talk · contribs) is a new editor who doesn't seem to understand copyright, or notability, or verifiability, or (possibly) COI. They've created a couple of articles, had them deleted (one by me) and re-created them both. They haven't communicated with anyone or responded to the messages/templates on their user page. If an experienced editor or admin is willing to play good cop, assuming good faith, Superiorname23 might become a good contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah... Good cop, bad cop is no fun. I prefer bad cop, worse cop. –xeno^talk 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that there's an arbcom decision that "threatening to set annoying user on fire" and "setting annoying user on fire" are excessively WP:BITEey admin responses even in extreme cases. Even if you bring marshmallows. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the user is having problems and you've been cleaning up after them, but is it necessary to revert an unsourced change when nothing in the article has ever been sourced? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced numerical alterations are a common form of vandalism and, as such, are revertable without making a commitment to improving the article as a whole. Otherwise many admins - and most RC patrollers - would never get anything done. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

G.-M. Cupertino block review

G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for one year by Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino), basic for chronic incivility and edit warring. Reviewing his edits since his return, I note edit warring with four editors on five articles, replete with edit summaries describing things as "idiotic" and "stupid". I've blocked him again due to his apparent utter lack of comprehension of the reason he was banned previously, pending an agreement to agree to a 0RR restriction. His edit summaries are a step up from a previous one, but that edit may be construed as "previous involvement", so I'm bringing my block here to be reviewed.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef. If a one year arbitral ban wasn't enough to get the point across, nothing short of an indef block can help.  Sandstein  20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef. (nb. I was asked for an opinion on this editor at my talkpage in relation of an unblock request they made in respect of an ip address they had previously used; I wondered if such an ip being blocked for over a year would mean it to be a proxy, but the discussion lapsed at that point). It appears they have waited out the year, and then resumed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why he is requesting unblock on his userpage as opposed to his user talk page? Or why he is treating his userpage like his user talk page? –MuZemike 05:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I propose that the ban be indefinitely reinstated. –MuZemike 05:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request on the user page that he is treating like a talk page is for a block that didn't actually exist. I'll deny that unblock with instructions to do any further unblocking requests on his talk page.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Block indef, ban for one year. Let him ask nicely in a year's time and we'll assess whether he's grown up yet. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I'm about as rouge as they come, but the fact that G. M. Cupertino apparently respected his/her 1-year arbitration ban before coming back was itself a somewhat positive sign. While the new indef was probably inevitable I'd have preferred to see a little more engagement and/or a shorter block before it happened, to decrease the likelihood of a subsequent sock rampage if for no other reason. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• He socked during the ban:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino/Archive.—Kww(talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban proposed by MuZemike (enacted by Kww). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, again

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jzyehoshua to centralize discussion and to save space on this page. Please do not add timestamp until this reaches the top of the page and discussion has concluded. –MuZemike

Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and discussions relating to Barack Obama or Abortion. Ban logged at WP:RESTRICT. - 2/0 (cont.)

User Kww

Resolved

 – The boomerang came back. –xeno^talk 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Kww is semi-protecting pages such as "List of Italian-Americans", "Kimi Raikkonen", "Fernando Alonso" and "Celebration"? These pages rarely contribute to vandalism, so I don't see why they have to be semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could clear this up. Thanks 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.17.241 (talk • contribs)

Why not ask them? –xeno^talk 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a very few extremely persistent sockpuppets that I semi-protect any pages that they edit. These articles were protected due to CharlieJS13. Given geographic location, there's somewhere around a 99% chance that 86.136.17.241 is also CharlieJS13.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently because someone is IP-Hopping to target articles? [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CharlieJS13/Archive] for more. (he put that as the semi-protect reason, that's how I know) Have you brought this up with Kww? (I sense the footgun being used, an IP complaining about someone semi-protecting an article to prevent an IP hopper from disrupting....) SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And both the socking IP and the reporting IP here both resolve to British Telecom DSL in London, England. What a shock. — Satori Son 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He certainly has a good gun-sight on his footgun. IP blocked 72 hours, Vogue (Madonna song) semi-protected for a month. It's come to my attention that this is probably Dance-pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and that CharlieJS13 is just a sock, not a new master. Can't be proven at this point, but seems likely.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the "Plaxico" metaphor is a bit overdone and becoming old news, the "boomerang" metaphor works pretty well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, we really need to put something back at WP:PLAXICO so new people get the reference. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At least make it a redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. DONE. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I support that, mostly, but wasn't a previous redirect at that location BLPed?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but there's no valid reason to do so. He sits in prison, convicted of illegal usage of a gun. We didn't put him there, the government did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he copped to it. He wasn't tried for it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So he confessed to it. So there's no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We need to actively discourage the public ridicule of a living person. Deleted and salted. –xeno^talk 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes fun of the poster mostly. I knew awhile back that the article (despite sourcing) had been deleted, but I was unaware that a redirect was also forbidden. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed in more detail at my talk page [20], I have not much more to add. –xeno^talk 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of all the history of this thing, and it's not important enough to argue over. It's old news, like Dan Quayle and the "potatoe" incident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If we had a WP:QUAYLE which pointed to WP:ILLITERACY that would be exactly as inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a bit different- Dan Quayle had a card with the wrong spelling on it, as I remember reading. However, the football player in question was the one who shot his own leg. I personally think there's no BLP violation, but hey, I've only been here for a little while. Let's not beat this to death. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

admin responsibility blocking and warning vandals

Resolved

 – Several helpful comments were added. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a few admins weigh in at the discussion at WT:VANDAL#.22Welcome_to_Wikipedia.....22? Someone wrote that they are uncomfortable with admins witnessing vandalism and directly blocking vandals. He or she expects instead a witnessing admin to make an entry at WP:AIV, presumably so another admin will issue the block. If that's true, I've completely misunderstood one of my admin responsibilities (and probably need corrective action). —EncMstr (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno and NW state it well. Basically it's a case-by-case situation. When in doubt, be cautious. When certain, be bold. If it's clearly a sock, they don't need any more warnings, as their previous incarnation has already been warned in some way or another. Vandals inherently violate policy, so they have no grounds to be holding admins hostage by demanding a "reset" of their warnings-count. The admins' primary duty is to serve the best interests of wikipedia, not the best interests of a vandal or troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Administrator tools by Parsecboy

Today I was looking through the images needing copyright tags. I came across a black and white photo of a Russian World War II tank without copyright tags except for a note stating that it was taken from the Ukraine wikipedia. The Ukraine wikipedia then cited a russian wikipedia file. So tracked down the copyright tags on the russian wikipedia. I then got a note on my talk page that the photo I tagged had incorrect tags. So I looked into why it was considered incorrect, because according to the uploader at the russian wikipedias the photo was taken in cira 1944, the author was a unknown solider, and the file was public domain in russia. I found that Parsecboy disagreed that the picture was out of copyright and was in a argument with another editor. So I again wrote the source of the photo. Parsecboy then deleted the file because he felt that he was right and the other editor was wrong. As the image was from World War II, tracking the person who took the picture would be very hard, if not impossible, so it is not possible to cite the exact author. User talk:Alpha Quadrant#ISU-152-2

I then checked the user's contributions to see if any other events like this have ever happened and found that, in the past seven months, user Parsecboy has repeatably abused administrator right and has been uncivil to users when users disagree with him. When a user disagrees with him he threatens to block or report them. If the user continue to disagree with him he does block them. Here are some examples:

• [21] Temporarly blocked the user for continually disagreed with him
• [22] Reported user who violated the three revert rule despite himself violating the rule
• [23] Threatened the user with a block if he continued to be uncivil. (Occurred four days ago)
• [24] Reported the the user for edit warring after the user stopped editing because he received a warning

Granted two of users were border lining on civility, but he has threatened users for disagreeing with him. When the users repeatably did not agree with him he blocked them or filed for them to be blocked. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so in order, we have:

1. A user who got himself blocked for edit-warring to add incorrect information under false edit summaries
2. A vandalizing IP who apparently refuses to discuss on the article's talk page
3. Parsec appearing to get a little frustrated (but I note that whether by intention or accident, Oblivion's comments on Parsec's talk did come across as condescending)
4. A user edit-warring to add weasel words into Royal Canadian Navy—an action that three different editors disagreed with

Now, where are these abuses of administrator tools? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he discussed the photo in question on your talk page and explained why he didn't think that the uploader's claim of public domain was enough to verify that the photo really was in the public domain, and why he thought it was actually quite likely that it wasn't. Now that I come to think of it, I can't think of a single occasion when a header of 'abuse of administrator tools' has appeared on top of something that was actually an abuse of administrator tools. Strange, that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

He did not discussed it on my talk page. He told me he didn't feel like arguing about the image anymore so he simply deleted it. As for the four talk pages did you look at the user contributions? In the edit wars both users were engaged in an edit war and he used his administrator powers and status as a senior editor to gain the upper hand. One of the edit wars he did have three supports, but never the less, he was involved in the edit war and violated the 3RR. The third example is a comment from the World War II image discussion that he deleted today. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur; since Russian copyright extends 70 years from date of disclosure, and the statute is retroactive (removing a number of works from the public domain that had lapsed under the previous 50-year rule), a photo taken in 1944 cannot be public domain until 2014. It is possible that it was public domain when it was first uploaded (if it was uploaded prior to the 2006 ratification of the new copyright law -- I didn't check this), but even if that's true, it currently is not public domain, as I understand it. I also see nothing particularly objectionable about those diffs, in context. Shimeru (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally useless in the file namespace, but I have to say it appears that Parsecboy was procedurally correct (for those who are wondering, the file in question is File:ISU-152-2 self-propelled gun.jpg) though he might have been a little more diplomatic about it. There's no admin abuse here, just possibly a frayed temper resulting from both sides not fully understanding each other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You need to notify people when you report them at ANI. I've just done that. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) My mistake... although, people might want to reconsider the immediate removal of those notices in the future; it might help avoid misunderstandings like this. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty good. The Tomcha block, while I should have let another admin handle it, was deemed to be perfectly fine according to reviewing admins. The IP in fact violated 3RR (which bars more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period); I reverted only 3 times. As for the last case, I filed the report while the user was editing, and an admin at the 3RR noticeboard agreed with the report. Had it been a bad report, it would have been declined.

@Shimeru - the file was uploaded here a week ago, and on the Uk.wiki in 2007.

@Equazcion - S/he did, I had removed the notice from my talk page before you saw it.

I find it a little odd that a user who registered his or her account less than a month ago is so familiar with Wikipedia processes... Parsecboy (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that seems entirely uncontroversial, then. Shimeru (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well it took a lot of reading. Everything you need to know is in the subpage [[Help:]], and [[WP:]] and I had edited 4 month prior as an ip address before registering.--Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So to answer your hint, Parsecboyno, no, I have never had another wikipedia account and I am not some vandal. Need proof, have WP:Checkuser run a scan, they won't find anything though. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall Pastor Theo saying more or less the exact same thing, and we all know how that turned out... Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So, to get back to the point, Alpha Quadrant...is there action requested here, and if so, is there any consensus in favor of such action?  Frank  |  talk  03:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The other morning at breakfast, over my delicious toaster waffles, parsecboy was regaling me with tales of copyright law and lore. He told me that it doesn't matter whether something was published in the US or Pakistan or Malaysia or anywhere else, we follow US copyright law. Because we're all American like that. So when he was sharing this Russia business last night at bedtime, I realized that the Russia/Soviet discussion was moot since we only ever use US copyright law anyway. I'm sure he would have realized that himself, had I not been nagging him to get off Wikipedia and come to bed. Have a lovely Wednesday everyone. Cranterp (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Parsecboy, fine don't believe me. Why don't you go to WP:Checkuser then, but I don't know who "Pastor Theo" is. But before that why don't you look at my contributions. I work at Wikipedia:Articles for creation and also at clearing backlogs. That is how I found the World War II picture in the first place. You then left me a rather angry message on my talk page for adding supposedly incorrect copyright tags to an image. I did not know there was an argument over. It was in the articles needing copyright information backlog. So I added the tags. You then deleted it because I quote:

"Frankly, I'm a little tired of going 'round in circles over this image, which I have demonstrated is still in copyright. I've therefore deleted it as an obvious copyright violation. Parsecboy (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)"

Like I said, I investigated your edits to see wether or not this has ever happened before and the above is what I found. After reading the administrator guidelines of what is considered abuse your actions appeared to match. So I posted here because I wanted to know wether or not this was considered abuse. Well it appears it is not considered abuse. So stop trying to make me look like a former blocked user wanting revenge as I am not. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, Parsecboy has a history of doing what is obviously right without feeling constrained to use unnecessary process. I join you in congratulating him no his sagacious use of normal administrative discretion. Thank you for bringing this fine admin to our attention, but you are free to award the barnstar of diligence yourself, there is no committee process needed beforehand. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I was trying to do. I said that I felt that he was abusing his administrator power. I did not say that I felt he is doing a great job. And by him accusing me of being a sock puppet (which I am not) for inquiring here he is not assuming good faith. I believe he is following these set of guidelines (or at least 3 and 4) rather than these set of guidelines. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you spend your time if you think what I said on your talk page was "rather angry," but I digress. The image is verifiably still under copyright protection both in the United States and in Russia. My obligation as an administrator was to delete it as soon as possible, which I did. If you have a problem with copyright enforcement, then you need to find something else to do. Parsecboy (talk) 01:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No I do not have a problem with copyright enforcement. But because you were involved in the dispute you should have nominated it for deletion and let a neutral administrator decide what to do with it. By the way saying:

"If you have a problem with copyright enforcement, then you need to find something else to do"

you are quoting the fourth wikipedia pillar of evil --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Drop the 5-pillar garbage. Seriously though, if you think we can go around merrily violating copyrights, then you have no business editing a free encyclopedia. If you aren't aware, violating copyright puts the foundation at legal risk. Moreover, there was no editing dispute; I merely went through the process of determining whether the image was a copyright violation or not on your talk page, rather than in my head. Would you prefer I just up deleted it without informing you why? 'Cause I can do that instead, if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have a magic problem-solver: Parsec, next time you have a verifiably copyrighted image that needs deleting but are in a dispute with the user, come get me and I'll delete it. (note: same result, more process, more time, more hassle). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine. I just think that because he was involved in the image dispute on whether it was in or out of copyright he should have requested that someone else who was not involved look it over to decide whether it needed deleting. There was a dispute over whether the copyright was valid. User:Oblivion Lost and I disagreed with you. Because of this it should have gone through the deletion process rather than you deciding that it violated copyright. And parsecboy, I would not have accused you of being a rouge administrator if you had not accused me of being a sockpuppet. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

Resolved

 – no Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is what GeorgeNotaras (talk · contribs) said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyIDS about me incivil? From his phrasing, I can't tell if it or not and if it's worth a warning. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's best to let it pass. It's not particularly egregious, and he was obviously a bit emotional when he wrote the thing. I think leaving a warning would most likely inflame matters further. Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if an uninvolved party left one, but I see he's already been asked to calm down and assume good faith, so I doubt there's anything to be gained. Better to focus on the issue at hand, I think. Shimeru (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the message that the other user left did well. Thanks for your advice. Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that if you're not certain whether someone was trying to insult you, you're better off not pushing it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a good rule of thumb, but I liked the way you phrased it the first time better. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I originally said "...knowing for sure" instead of "...pushing it" and I had almost typed "...pursuing it", but it's all the same idea - if you're not sure if you've been insulted, then why would you want to find out? What's the benefit? Why go out of the way to try and get upset about something, when there are plenty of other "opportunities" to get upset. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a classic case of a COI editor being defensive when his/her article is up for deletion. No personal attack, but definitely too close to the subject. Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's quite generous of you considering that he also said The user Toddst1 is absolutely clueless about how the internet works and I consider him dangerous for the Wikipedia community. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Also, questions like this are better raised at WP:WQA. It's unlikely someone will be blocked for saying something like that when even the reporter isn't sure it is a personal attack. Pcap ping 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by Hittit

User:Hittit has recently been canvassing to a wide number of editors to "participate" in an ADF, as well as a merge, discussion regarding the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922, which now has been merged. He has been very selective on who exactly to inform, presumably believing that they would be more sympathetic to vote his way rather than the opposition's. This is not the first time that he is doing this and not the first time that he was warned to stop. Just last month, he was politely warned by another editor on why canvassing was unacceptable and yet earlier this month, he started doing it again (see his comments on users' talk pages from May 2 onwards). This is now the third time that he is doing this and I feel some stern measure must be taken to discourage some activity. Please note that just last week, he was formally placed under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 restrictions and his actions are highly undesirable in light of the punishments that can be imposed for disruptive behavior. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no sign of disruptive behaviour, people have right to ask for an opinion and thus seek for balanced views. In what miraculous way MarshallBagramyan, Sardur, Aregakn, Davo88 end up editing the same articles like a government agency…something for you to think about Marshal before you go around fishing for admin warning on other editors...cheap shots. --Hittit (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Knock off the bad faith, will you? You only dig a deeper hole when you hurl insults at me and other users. You're not asking people to simply give their opinion - you're selectively choosing who to inform and obviously courting those editors who you think will be sympathetic to your views. You are well aware that that fits the definition of canvassing given the number of warnings that have been issued to you. This is an actionable offense and since you are a repeat offender, I am more than justified to seek intervention from the administrators.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep fishing, you have been topic banned last year it seems, for a reason...please consult WP:FOOTSHOT. Pointless for you to spam my talk page as well. What are you trying to achieve? --Hittit (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nationalist warriors, I recommend one stern warning then escalating blocks, applied without fear or favour. There are few things which have toxic potential greater than ethnic disputes, the lamer they are the more toxic they become. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. At least until things calm down (if they ever do), blocking for those reasons should be on a hair-trigger, and to all parties involved. I haven't done an actual count, but my impression is that at least a quarter of all activity on AN/I at any one time is connected to nationalist or ethnic warring. If that can be cut down on by some preventative (not punitive) blocking, that's a lot of time and energy that can be put to something more productive. I personally think that nationalist or ethnic warring is a lot more of a long-term danger to the project than unsourced BLPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• 'xcuse me, but have I missed anything? What is reported here are those. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. I personally have no problem with canvassing, since if it's not on the open it will probably be backdoor. But replying Nationalist warriors is not very civil and this for a simple canvassing case. There are more conflict than acceptable, you don't need to poor fluel in the fire or presenting it worst than it actually is. A warning against Hittit who possibly did not know canvassing was not allowed will suffice, no need to come up with user bashing by calling them warriors. Ionidasz (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• My appologies, I didn't pay much attention to the report in full. He was already warned to not canvass. Then a restriction to not canvass is probably in order. Ionidasz (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, a restriction is definitely warranted, but probably a block for the duration of the AfDs he's canvassed for to ensure there is no further disruption to them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I am really not intersted in having these type of discussions, however it seems some people have found a way to supress other editors by instigating Arbitration Enforcements, Notice Boards what have you...if it works for them, they will resort to it. --Hittit (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, before you deliberate you final decision, please keep in mind that I was seeking a balanced opinion to the proposed AfD. The fact that a third and uninvolved party has used similar arguments to propose the merge of this fork case shows my actions have been in line. Please also deliberate how was the result of the AfD a keeper and with whose votes. I am only trying to achieve a balance of opinion otherwise this becomes a show for “co-ordinated-voters”, there are also certain accounts that come to life when voting is on. I simply do not agree with this type of editing where the same people vote in groups on the same articles and often impose their views on the same articles. There must be a WP rule against this.

That's your idea of a balance of opinion. You deliberately went out and canvassed. If another user did the same that's for another discussion about their behaviour, but doesn't excuse yours.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Use of the word "suppression" to describe legitimate efforts to control behaviour identified by multiple others as problematic, is a red flag. It is not "suppression" to require you to play nice or spend time in the sin bin. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated WP:COPYVIO issue

I've just deleted yet more WP:COPYVIO from www.muslimheritage.com on the Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti page. I've previously deleted a large amount of such COPYVIO from various pages that has been taken from that website and a few others (for example, Al-Muqtadir, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Al-Andalus etc.). This particular material was added by an anonymous editor but I believe that it is the same person that edits as Kaka Mughal (talk · contribs). There is one copyvio notice on their talk page now and I have asked them about this on an IP talk page also (while they was actively editing from that IP address). I'm unclear what is the best thing to do at this point, as (assuming it is this editor) they have never responded to any thing I've put on their talk pages (or the talk pages of articles they have been editing).
I don't understand at this point quite what to do. I'm reluctant to put another COPYVIO notice on this user's talk page, since the edits were done anonymously. On that basis I have not put a {{ANI-notice}} on that editor's talk page either, as this is more a request for advice than a complaint against them.
All the best and thanks in advance. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It might not be them but it's a reasonable presumption at this point; I recommend putting the ANI notice on both pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have done so (User talk:Kaka Mughal#Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti) — the anon. edits were from a wide range of IP address (all from the same ISP) so I've not notified them, as I doubt the original editor would ever see that. Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot going haywire.

Resolved

 – Bot operator notified, bot temporarily blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please block WildBot again if possible? It's currently making edits like this on Mariah Carey in which I highly doubt that it is constructive in any way. After the administrator Kww reverted its edit, WildBot came up with the same edit here too. Minimac (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just correcting links to other article section titles that have been vandalized. I'm betting if you undue the vandalism at the target page, WildBot will correct itself. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea for WildBot to delay updating section links for half an hour or so, so this kind of thing doesn't happen. –xeno^talk 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea which would probably cut the occurrence of this type of mistake down drastically. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• And in this episode of 'Bots Gone Wild...Theeeeeee WildBot!: OH...YEAH...BABY. COME...GET...SOME...OF...THIS. HalfShadow 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • HalfShadow is a technosexual - this explains so much. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's why they call it a hard drive. HalfShadow 20:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Why am I having King Missile flashbacks? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot's operator has been notified of this thread. Personally, I would rather keep it unblocked unless it is leaving the vandalized versions up permanently. WP:BAG might be a better place to discuss putting in a time delay. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked and halted the bot before seeing this thread. It was a case of reflected vandalism. I undid the vandalism in the song article and reverted WildBot. It didn't recognize the change in the other article, and continued to edit-war at Mariah Carey to reinsert the vandalism from the other article.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a cache refresh issue. Ah well, thanks Kww. I am marking this resolved unless there is anything further. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

AIVhelperbots missing in action

Resolved

 – AIV Helperbots up and down like the proverbial yo-yo at the moment. Wouldn't worry too much, blocked reportees will eventually be removed manually or when the bot reawakens. Ironically, at busy times trying to clear them down manually can result in more problems with edit conflicts. – B.hotep •talk• 08:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Working through the backlog at WP:AIV, and I notice that the AIVHelperbots - HBC AIV helperbot7 (talk · contribs) and HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk · contribs) - haven't edited in over 30 minute. While this isn't unusual if things are slow, several entries at AIV have been blocked, but not removed. No additional bot-added entries have been posted, either. Since it's multiple bots, and since Wildbot seems to be flipping out as well, do we perhaps have a toolserver issue? Some eyes are requested, both at AIV and on the bot situation. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot 7 is back online and handling business - thanks to everyone who helped keep things moving during the 100 or so minutes of downtime. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Account appears to be used for storing code

Resolved

 – Seems to be dealt with. I suppose it's inevitable that some people will try to use Wikipedia as a portable hard drive. You never know, there may be a user page out there with the mathematical formula for time travel... – B.hotep •talk• 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sandy live1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's only contribs were to place a mass of some kind of programming code on their userpage. Following that, various IPs, who I'm assuming are the same user only logged out, have been updating the code. I recently blanked the page and an IP restored it. I would leave warnings, but as the user doesn't seem to log in anymore, and their IP changes with each edit, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. I'd delete the page and indef the user; they can always post an unblock request if they really want to edit. Leaving it up to you guys. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe clear the page and fully protect it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 appears to have deleted and protected the userpage. I would've blocked too, since it seems clear the user isn't here to collaborate on the encyclopedia, rather than wait for more trouble. But, whatever. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not fully protect it and let admins make random changes when they have an idle moment? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That'd be an innovative approach. I like it :) Equazcion ^(talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a devilish thing to do. Just be careful your change to the program doesn't trigger Global Thermonuclear War. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet soup

I may or may not have the time or patience to sort this out. I only got involved due to participating in this category discussion:

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons

I got involved in that due to similar efforts on the Commons to remove commons:Category:Less-lethal weapons. See diff. On the Commons the admins there are less tolerant of such POV games, and the category was replenished after a bot had moved everything out without discussion first.

I followed it all back to Talk:Non-lethal weapon where a few weeks ago a small group of users and sockpuppets outvoted others, and convinced an admin to follow the votes (in my opinion), and move Less-lethal weapons to Non-lethal weapons. I believe there are several sockpuppets involved.

Good luck trying to sort it out. It is way too easy on Wikipedia to create sockpuppets.

I went ahead and started this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

6056slusser sockpupperty admission in RL

I don't really know how to deal with this. WFWW? was blocked a few months ago as vandal-only. I know this person in RL. However, yesterday the person who edited as WFWW? came up to me, stating he vandalised Iron Man 2 as 6056slusser, which contains part of his real name. Should I just tag him as a sock as usual or is there other steps I need to take, given that this evidence is from RL? -- sk8er5000 ^yeah? 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would take it to WP:SPI, and present your evidence for consideration from a checkuser, seeing as it can't be verified by any other evidence other than your testimony. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as both accounts have been blocked there's no need for either CU or SPI. Just leave them as is. We don't have to tag every single sock. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman book self-promotion

Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.212.158.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
69.212.157.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

OK, so we've got this guy Arnold Reisman, who has apparently written a book about World War II with some admittedly "little known" ideas, and he is now posting that info in various articles, despite being told it's unacceptable for a number of reasons. Since he won't listen to us peons, perhaps an admin could 'splain a few things to him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to revert his first edit to world war 2 but, since the page is one of the longest pages ever (surpassed by, say, the rfc for blp's?) I didn't get there in time. I sugesst giving him a 24 hour block or somthing to that extent. (plz, drama pplz, advz mi. i iz newb). Of course, if another ref can be found to back it up, not published by himself, than I think I could reword it so as it sounds more NPOV. Buggie111 (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He's also added refs to a lot of other articles, all to books by "Arnold Reisman" and all apparently self-published (New Academic Publishers and BookSurge). I haven't found a single edit which isn't OR, based on self-published books or (worse) a forthcoming self-published books. I'm removing his edits, but wouldn't mind some help. He also edited as 69.212.157.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Aha, another IP to add to the list (see top of this section). OK, if consensus is to zap his material, I'll try and help out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his article, I'm not sure he's notable enough to have an article. He and the IP are the main contributors, and the article was created by Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(out) Altogether, this person has breached WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SP, WP:COI. I think a warning, at least, might be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest not jumping on Arnold too hard right off the bat. He, like a lot of other folks around the world is not really sure what wikipedia is (and is not) and I thnk it would be in everyone's best interest to assume good intentions, to view his use of his own work not as self-promotion but as a misunderstanding of what goes on around here. He appears to be/have been an educator, let's see if he is educable. Carptrash (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine, that's why I wasn't advocating a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given the editor a welcome, and a link to WP:NOT. Hopefully he'll read that, and if he has any questions about how to incorporate the material into articles he will ask about it. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how this isn't like every other self-promoter out there. This guy should be indeffed as an advertising/spam only account. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

He's certainly not a newbie. He's been here, between his registered user and his IP's, for almost four years now. He was just lucky enough to have flown under the radar for the most part, until yesterday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Varlaam

Two editors have told this editor that using {{italictitle}} on the pagenames of articles about books, plays, etc. is against consensus, but he or she continues to do it, probably a couple of hundred of articles by now (and their own talk page). I've told them the same thing, and he or she has done two titles since then, though that may just be timing. Could someone take a look and have a word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor has now done 15 or 16 articles since I dropped my comment on his talk page, and is clearly ignoring three editors who have point out that the edits go against consensus. An attention-getting block would appear to be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Attention-getting block enacted; user may be unblocked by anyone if they acknowledge the problem. I'm going to work now, but will rollback his edits later if no-one's done it in the meantime. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started, don't know how far I'll get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've gotten almost all of them - I may have missed a few with intermediate edits, but not many. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Libel and legal threats posted by anon

For the past few days an anon in the 95.79.0.0/18 range has been adding libelous information against an Israeli Prof.[39][40] The anon has now escalated the disruption with legal threats: "the editors of the Wikipedia are asked not to remove it; if nevertheless they do, special legal procedures will be taken, including international lawsuits"[41][42] I believe blocks or page protections are in order. Rami R 07:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't get a response from an admin here, take it to WP:RFPP to ask for semi-protection for a couple of weeks or so, and hopefully that will cool the IPs' jets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Page protected, ips who made legal threats blocked for one year or until they retract said threats, and I used revision delete for the first time to remove the libelous content they were aggressively reposting. Not yet marking as resolved because I would like other admins to review my use of revision deletion since it's such a new thing. I'm pretty sure I used it correctly here but feedback is always good when you are not used to a new tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it worked. That also explains the acceleration I've seen in rubbing out questionable edits from the visible part of the edit history. Hopefully that will discourage the trolls, as they won't be able to see their "handiwork". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Roll on flagged revisions! Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The revdel looks appropriate to me. Just a comment on the blocks - for the same reason we don't block them indef, there's no sense in blocking dynamic IPs for a year if they've stopped being used and are dynamically reassigned every day. I'll shorten them to something more sensible. You might want to blacklist the link; it's been spammed into quite a few articles for a couple of months[43]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What's an international lawsuit? Would we be tried by the UN? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect he means a lawsuit between two people of different nationalities, but he may mean the International Court of Justice or perhaps Nuremberg. SGGH ^ping! 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that court was in Trenton, New Jersey? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think that's where my cousin Vito buries the bodies of, shall we say, people who were a disappointment to management. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL is still new to me, but I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of thing it ought to be used for. Allegations of defamation and extortion, sourced to arbitrary websites, do not belong here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Not quite "flagged revisions", but a useful step in that direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations

Yid (talk · contribs) has repeatedly created articles about pharmaceuticals by copying directly from textbooks/reference books. He has been repeatedly warned about this on his talk page, but he has never responded and the copyright violations continue. What is the proper course of action? ChemNerd (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Isn't that username usually considered offensive? Guy (Help!) 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)