Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:00, 29 August 2010

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- Try dispute resolution
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Visa article flood of AFD nominations

This is the "bilateral relations" mess in a different guise. I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, and I suggest that people from the Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force help stem the flood and work towards some sort of standstill agreement as last time, before history repeats itself. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get us started I'd recommend he be blocked for disruptive and pointy edits. South korea for example has numerous reliable sources on their visa policy. E2 visas (english teaching visas are constantly in flux and often discussed in the media here. It shows an utter lack of checking before hand and proves without a doubt that these are disruptive pointy bad faith nominations.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I will assume good faith that it was an honest oversight that I was not notified of this thread. Second, I promise that every nomination has been done honestly and with no ill-intent. I am not being pointy nor am I being disruptive (not intentionally, at least). I honestly and truly feel that these articles are not encyclopedic and not appropriate. What I do find to be disruptive is any attempt to circumvent a good-faith AfD nomination. Basket of Puppies 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Were it a good faith nomination I would have expected you to do a cursory search on the topic before nominating it and you obviously didn't or you would have found the wealth of news articles I found in only 30 seconds. You can't make pointy edits then try and run behind AGF when there are such blatant cases.--Crossmr (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read. Basket of Puppies 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks like standard "not directory" stuff, including the South Korea entry. Good noms, though some may not like it. None of it has academic discussion or other consideration of the visa policies of any of the states (you know, looks at history, economic and political considerations, visa "diplomacy" etc...). I'm willing to believe that in some of these cases there is the possibility that such an article could be written by someone qualified ("Visa policy in the EU" is an obvious candidate) but that aint what these are. As Crossmr points out in the case of South Korea (this would hold true for many of the other country's) visa policies are "constantly in flux," which means that these articles will require constant maintenance (not now or ever going to happen) to avoid misleading readers. The upshot? Anyone seeking accurate info on the "visa policy of country x" needs to go to the various countries websites, embassies, and consulates. All these "articles" are is an often incorrect and out of date mirroring of information that can be easily obtained by interested travelers from the countries in question.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not at all. In it's current state it's nothing but as I pointed out this is quite a notable topic and there is extensive media coverage. It can be expanded well beyond not a directory. Had he bothered to follow WP:BEFORE and done a good faith search for sources he would have found that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a reason we have a process for batch AFDs (Template:AfD footer (multiple)). This is quite ridiculous. Could all of these discussions be closed, and perhaps one or two of these be nominated for deletion? If they are deleted, that might be reason to do a batch AFD on many of these. However, starting off with 50 AFDs with essentially the same rationale wastes an enormous amount of time. NW (Talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I discussed this very topic with an admin on IRC and was informed I should nominate them individually. I did exactly that. I am happy if they go into a patch process and my deletion rationale would be the same- nonencyclopedic information, random collection of information, not a travel guide, etc. Basket of Puppies 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Next time read WP:BEFORE specifically number 9. You would have quickly found sources like this one [1] a great article in the LA Times about South Korean visa policy lending the topic plenty of notability and allowing an interested editor to expand the article well beyond a "directory"--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Crossmr, like I have repeatedly stated on multiple project and deletion pages, I am nominating these class of articles for deletion as they are non-encyclopedic. I recognize they may have references (nearly all primary, tho), but those references do not make them notable nor encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I just provided a ton of non-primary sources for South Korea that prove it is both notable and encyclopedic. Those are dozens of sources in national newspapers in multiple countries. talking about social pressures behind visa changes, laws, etc. that is plenty encyclopedic.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "He"? Which "he"? There are a lot of people involved here, and the same is happening as happened last time. We have a mass of nominations, overwhelming people's abilities to give an individual article due consideration, resulting in boilerplate responses, back and forth, across (by my count at the time of writing this) 26 of the above AFD discussions. And the end result will be 26 (or, very probably, more) boilerplate discussions, which don't address the individual articles at hand in any rationale (even the nomination rationales are boilerplate), that some poor administrator has to close with respect to a specific article. As I said, history is starting to repeat itself. This is exactly what happened to bilateral relations before (and indeed to schools before that). We know where this leads, and we know that it doesn't lead to productive meaningful discussion of specific articles, but to block voting with boilerplate discussions. Because it has done, many times. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Agreed. By the way this stems from a discussion started on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Palestinian_citizens. There was a growing consensus that these articles fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and, more importantly, are impossible to reliably source and maintain. In fact considering that they are entirely primary sourced they probably fall under OR as well. I reviewed the past discussion and did not see a policy reason for keeping them - so it was on my mind to do the same as this. My proposal was going to be to wait for the Palestine AFD to close to see the result - then nominate a couple more for AFD before expanding it. Basket got there ahead of me :) I'd tentatively support the proposal to speedy close a portion of the current AFD's and focus on one or two examples to get this hashed out. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be fine with me. Of course I have no idea why this deletion discussion had to happen here at ANI. It seems like a colossal waste of time for admins who are dealing with copyvio, vandalism and the occasional threat. Basket of Puppies 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading through the noms there are two types of article here. I'd actually tentatively support the "Visa policy of" articles (and support delete for the other type) This is a complex issue that needs discussion --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, discussion is needed, which is why I opened the deletion discussion. I am sure that ANI is not the place for this discussion. Basket of Puppies 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because at least one of your nominations is clearly in bad faith. You didn't follow WP:BEFORE and are now trying to hide behind WP:AGF rather than admit you made a bad nomination. The news search was trivial and quickly turned up a ton of sources on the topic to allow an editor to write about the history of the visa policy, how it came about, what is driving it, social factors, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never was a single one of my nomination is bad faith. Please read. Basket of Puppies 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one clearly was you mass nominated in quick succession and have shown no indication that you performed the steps in WP:BEFORE before actually nominating it. "South Korea visa policy" alone turns up thousands of articles and there is no way you gave those a look before nominating. We don't assume good faith blindly. You made a mass nomination in a controversial topic and there is at least one that you didn't research properly before doing so. I wonder how many more?--Crossmr (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Looks like Japan as well. Plenty of material there that could be used to make the article encyclopedic. Again talking about factors in decisions, pressures from different groups, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basket of Puppies' latest round of deletions involved 163 edits in 14 minutes.[3] (the previous round involved 86 edits in 7 minutes). How long does the "due diligence" of WP:BEFORE typically take, per article? bobrayner (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longer than that. It's not long, I found almost 3 dozen articles in about 30 seconds. A good faith search with a couple different keywords to be sure should take 20 seconds if it comes up with nothing. Thousands of results? I would say at least 2-3 minutes to give some articles a once over to see if you're headed in the right direction. It should have taken around 1-2 hours to good faith nominate 50 or so of those.--Crossmr (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary break, sorry if my previous post was unclear...)
Which policy requires academic discussion?
Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, information of international interest. If the articles would benefit from fleshing out, then flesh them out.
After the previous round of deletion attempts, people posted comments on the user's talkpage and elsewhere; but instead of seeking consensus, they just hammered away at "delete" again.
The original rationale for the first round of deletion notices was was that they were factually inaccurate, which is pretty absurd since most of these articles are directly based on authoritative sources (though if anybody would prefer a secondary source rather than a government website, that could be arranged).
Any given country's visa policy is very unlikely to change on a daily basis. They're as "in flux" as the typical sports team (or less so). Wikipedia still manages to have lots of reasonably-accurate articles on sports teams. And why is it OR, or difficult to source, when taking easily-readable data from a known primary source? It doesn't need any special interpretation. If government website X says that citizens of Y aren't allowed in, it's certainly not difficult to get that information onto wikipedia, nor would it be WP:OR to do so.
I don't care where this gets discussed, as long as it's somewhere centralised, instead of on a hundred different pages. bobrayner (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it, and agree that this adds lots of work and unnecessary shenanigans to the process. I'd strongly urge Basket of Puppies to withdraw the bulk of these and very specifically refactor the noms on two or three as test cases. If/when those are deleted, after detailed discussion on the merits, then a mass nom citing the precedent may be in order (or several noms of a dozen each, for example). You may have a point - and some of these likely warrant deletion - but the signal is being lost in the noise, here. Detailed and specific discussion is in order, and spreading that across 50-some odd pages ain't it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

Ok, before this gets sidetracked I propose the following:

A helpful admin speedy closes the above AFD's
We open an AFD for each of the two types of article; "Visa requirements for X" and "Visa policy of X" (I propose: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for X & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of X
Put AFD notices on the relevant pages.

That way we can have a cohesive discussion in a single place for each type of article. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose They're up there now. Defeating these is extremely trivial. Just have it out and be done with it. A quick news search for most countries will tell you if there are reliable sources there, if there are WP:DEADLINE covers us and mark them down as a keep. Also put the searches on the article talk pages. I've already done 2.--Crossmr (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to searches aren't helpful or meaningful. Their results vary according to who is performing them and where in the world they are. And their results vary over time, even at timescales measured in hours and days. If you want to make a good case for a specific article, then cite the specific published works that the searches turn up, rather than handwaving in the direction of a search and saying, in effect, "this turns up stuff". SAgain, don't repeat history. We've had people who said in discussion after discussion "If you Google it, stuff turns up." without giving any indication of what the specific stuff that turns up was, and why it was relevant to the article at hand, before, when things like this have happened previously. This approach is no less of a boilerplate argument than the others. Specific source citations for specific subjects, are needed to help the poor closing administrator find something relevant to each article at hand amongst the back-and-forth boilerplate.
  Search engines are (some of many) tools for finding sources. They aren't citations. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I explained above what the specific stuff was. Probably about 3-4 times now. They're stories on the history and other aspects of what drove policies. perfectly encyclopedic. The search engines are simply there for convenience at AfD to say "Here is a list of news stories, these can be used to do this". They're only to show policy, we don't need to actually write the article during AfD. Probably this weekend when I have time I'll actually flesh out the South Korean article just like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. You made no such explanation, and you've failed thus far to cite an actual source in either this AFD discussion or this AFD discussion. A search engine result does not provide "a list of news stories". It's not even necessarily showing the same things to you as it does to other editors. You really need to grasp this point. What you are doing is not "showing policy", and it's not demonstrating that sources exist. Citing the sources demonstrates that they exist. Hyperlinking to a search engine does not.
      Handwaving vaguely in the direction of search engines is a no-effort means of AFD discussion participation. It doesn't demonstrate that sources exist. It doesn't cite sources. It doesn't even point to the same thing for the people reading as the editor trying to take the quick route around actually doing the work that an AFD rationale needs.
      Proper AFD partitipation is not a zero-effort thing. Citing sources is what is required for a watertight case. That means using the search engine (and other resources) to find the source; reading the sources that are turned up to see what they say and whether they are relevant; and citing them explicitly so that other editors can read them too. That is how one puts deletion policy into practice correctly. Nothing less will do. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - yes, I did. plenty of independent material on the subject including things like why certain changes were made, who pressured the government to look into visa changes, social concerns with visa changes, I exactly detailed the kind of information available in the news search and how it could be added to the article. While news searches sometimes return different content, they do not return such drastically different content that a link to a news search is useless. I put far more effort into my argument than he did his. I actually made a good faith search to even see if it was worth talking about. The fact was there were hundreds of links and I wasn't going to independetly link every single one, but if you'd like [4], [5], [6], [7], etc, etc. Those are just the first ones off the list. I've checked 4 AfDs and all 4 of them had tons of quality links available of which I only noted a very small sampling. Above I noted one of the quality South Korea sources, and if you'd like more [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note that "OMG it's reliably sourced so keep keep keep!" does not actually address the rationale for deletion, which is "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". Tarc (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would argue that "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" does not require the deletion of anything related to travel (Wikipedia has lots of articles on tourist destinations, modes of transport &c and a good thing too). These articles aren't giving directions to cool bars in Barcelona, or advice on whether or not the taxis are safe; they cover concrete points of government policy which affect a large number of people. However, let's not get bogged down in detailed discussion if this is not the best place for it... bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I pointed out above the sources I found are not travel guide sources. They're news sources discussing the history of various visa policies. Why they've been made, external pressures that may have caused them, social ramifications, etc. It should be possible for many countries to provide a history of how various visa policies have developed over the year and why they've developed. That's encyclopedia and has nothing to do with a travel guide.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whatever happens, Visa policy of the People's Republic of China has to be kept as a start article. I have no idea what the nominator was thinking when he nominated that one. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good proposal. Additionally, it might be worth issuing a haddock in the direction of the nominator for failing to consider whether bulk-nominating an entire category of articles without any prior discussion was likely to cause exactly this sort of drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's no excuse for mass-nominating this many articles as individual AfDs. Alternatively, they could just be closed as disruptive. I further propose that the administrator that BoP allegedly contacted be publicly identified for ridicule and trout-slapping. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merging of all the articles into one large AfD. Please know that I nominated these articles only after discussing it with an administrator and several other editors on IRC on how best to proceed. I would be happy to disclose the logs in a secure manner that would not violate the public logging prohibition. The informed me that I would have to make a separate AfD for each article. I was going based upon the best information I had at the time. I did this in good faith without any intention or desire to be disruptive. Basket of Puppies 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why IRC and not on-wiki? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow WP:BEFORE, specifically step #9?--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Discussing this coherently and in context of previous discussions on Talk:passport/Archive 3and Talk:passport/Archive 4 has been my aim from the beginning. The speed of nomination that many articles with a single reason was impossible for any user to follow and leads to many very similar discussions... L.tak (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: clearly no one is denying that several of these articles are notable; the issue for which they were nominated is the same for all of them, and grouping them together to discuss that single issue ensures a consistent decision and saves the community's resources. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I am saying. The references are almost universally primary sources and the topics are not the least bit encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not what you were saying earlier, though; your reasons seem to have changed over time and "primary sources" seems to be a new one (not that it would justify deletion, mind). [13] seems to have intended as a way of saying that all those articles are factually inaccurate (and a large number of them got templated with a similar message). After people who had actually read the articles explained that they were accurate, Basket of Puppies seems to have concentrated on a different reason for deletion and ignored repeated queries about accuracy. As an aside, I doubt that much blame should attach to whichever admin suggested mass AfD; there was plenty of time to reflect on the negative feedback from the first batch of templates, before starting on the mass AfD. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've already shown you two above, (and just did canada as well) that demonstrates there are plenty of non-primary sources for these articles. While the sources in the articles are primary, there exists many non-primary sources which you could have easily found. The history of and public discourse over visa policies is certainly as encyclopedic as anything else.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and recommend that folks get off BoP's back. S/he clearly thought s/he was doing the right thing. The encyclopedia hasn't been destroyed. This will all be ok. MtD (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support whoever told BoP to nom these by themselves gave her/him bad gouge. If you have a bunch of articles which don't belong in the encyclopedia and they share strong commonalities (esp. if those commonalities are what suggest they may not be appropriate for WP), then nom them together. If you think that a small subset will provoke disagreement enough to spoil the lot, then remove those and either nominate them separately or don't nominate them at all. E.g. Visa policy of China is probably both notable and necessary for an encyclopedia but Visa Policy of Luxembourg can maybe be lumped in with Visa Policy of Belgium. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a short specification: that's why neither visa policy of Luxembourg nor of Belgium exist and we have the comprehensive wiki Visa policy in the European Union covering 33 countries in one go. L.tak (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly did before the common market and the EU, though. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed all the visa policy pages in favour of a single discussion, my personal preference would be an RFC that takes in visa policy and visa requirement pages for a single solution. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreseeable

I believe the mess started here in January. Somebody insisted on removing said info from all passport-articles, and the only way to keep the information ws to spin it out into stupid stubs (y'know... one of those "compromises"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, here we go again. I remember that! --Ozguroot (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I'd be happy to see this information incorporated into a broader article.

However, doing it on a "Passport of country A" basis (ie. with a subsection "What paperwork is needed to enter countries B, C, D, and E") involves a many-to-many relationship between sources and articles; each of these pages is likely to need separate sources to show whether an A-passport holder can enter B, C, D, E &c and this could become impractical/unmaintainable (how many permutations between 200 countries?). :On the other hand, if arranged on a "Visa policy of country B" basis, it's more practical as most data points in the article can be gained from a single source - a website owned by the government of country B (or a secondary source derived from that). bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass AfD tagging of visa policy articles

User:Basket of Puppies has nominated Visa policy in the European Union as well as 40 different "Visa policy of XXX" articles, from Visa policy of Albania to Visa policy of Venezuela, for deletion (see Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation)). In each case, he has used virtually identical argumentation: "Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic." Regardless of whether or not the articles should be kept, splitting up the nomination for deletion into 41 different pages makes absolutely no sense. All of the visa policy articles are similar, and the arguments for and against keeping them are largely independent of the country involved.

I request that the administrators merge these AfD nominations into a singe page so that a reasonable debate may be held on this topic, and to ensure that a given editor's arguments about keeping or deleting the visa policy of a particular country will also be heard by people discussing the deletion of the visa policies of all other countries. — Tetromino (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know. Look up ↑ . Uncle G (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass closing incorrectly as keep

Spartaz closed every one of the AfDs as keep, tho this is incorrect. I am certain he did so in good faith, but he accidently marked the AfDs as keep and the associated article talk pages as the same. This should be undone. Basket of Puppies 05:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How should he have closed them? MtD (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not entirely sure I would myself have done as Spartaz did at this point, but I certainly am not prepared to say that he did wrong. For the sake of providing a pause to think about it, probably we should endorse how he handled it. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
  - Given the volume of "keep" votes on the many AfDs, I doubt that Spartaz's action was either accidental or incorrect. Basket of Puppies, since the first and second attempts at deletion failed, would you like a third attempt at deletion in a different venue? bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't taunt like that. It doesn't lead to mature, adult, discussion and reflects badly upon you. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz didn't do anything wrong, in my humble opinion. The (as a model, 'general' view) result is here: [14] Keep: 5, Delete: 1 - Should we continue to insist on deletion(s), Basket of Puppies? --Ozguroot (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those keeps are all procedural, rather than based on the subject. The only problem with closing these all as "keep" is that this will inevitably lead to someone saying "keep per Spartaz" when the group nom is opened. Nevertheless, the solution to that is to ignore bad arguments, not to waste more time re-closing the AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its nice to have this raised without letting me know. I already told basket of puppies that they were welcome to add procedural to the keep if it made them happy and that my comment made it clear that this was procedural. Bearing in mind I had to run scripts to close and that going for something other then keep, delete, no-consensus, merge or redirect would mean at least 3 times as much button pressing I can't really see that I can be blamed. This kind of this is partly why such mass nominations can be so disruptive, as they take long to fix. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basket of Puppies, since you supported having a single discussion rather than umpteen, instead of complaining at Spartaz' attempts to head off the inevitable train wreck, why not follow up on your very own "Support" above and work towards having a centralized discussion on what you perceive to be the problem here, whether it truly is a problem, and if so how to fix it? Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, a model to follow (or even to use) was linked-to right at the very start of this section. I didn't do that just to keep my fingers warm. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AfDs should be closed as procedural keep or procedural close or administratively closed to clearly indicate they were not subject to a full 7 day long AfD but rather closed due to a procedural issue. I should not be the one to change anything unless there is clear consensus here, as I am involved and it would not be appropriate or proper for me to change it. Basket of Puppies 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but unless it becomes a major issue at any subsequent discussion — which it won't, as anyone with xyr head screwed on will see that this isn't an endorsement of any position but simply a means for preventing the same train wreck happening at AFD as has happened so many times in the past (and one can easily point to me, DGG, and thumperward here if that truly becomes an issue) — this is a minor point. The major issue is your original one. You have a problem with these articles, and you'd like to discuss it. So let's work on that rather than what exact word should go in a speedy closure that's going to be superceded by the consensus discussion that you want to have in any event. Please focus upon trying to articulate your problem, in detail and with more than 1 sentence of bare explanation, with the articles. DGG, who has experience with this, or someone else, will no doubt help with the technical jiggery-pokery of setting up and formatting a centralized discussion, if you have problems. But this whole debate as to What Spartaz Should Have Done is a distraction. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batch AfD setting up in progress

I am setting up a large batch AfD for the articles listed in this category. It's being done manually so might take me a few hours. Basket of Puppies 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are you plannng to do? "Visa policy of X"? Or "Visa requirements for X"? I assume the former (as that is what you predominantly AFD'ds). I wouldn't recommend doing both together (that's why I'm raising the point :)) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't indicated that you followed WP:BEFORE and from a quick perusal of the first 4 I selected, it's quite apparent you haven't.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the fact that you've just renominated the two articles on china is ridiculous and can't be seen as anything but a bad faith nomination for which you didn't perform the required good faith search before hand, [15] had you done so you'd probably still be reading articles well into next week for that one nomination alone. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. etc. Chinese visa policy is a often discussed, very notable topic, covered in many countries. There is nothing random about it, while you might not like the article as it sits, clean-up is not a reason for AfD. There is plenty there from which a history of their policy, controversies, influences, public opinion, etc could be constructed. I renew my original suggestion. We are not blind.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going down the list in the category in alphabetical order. China starts with the letter c. Notice I did Canada before, the Republic of China and Croatia after. These continued accusations of bad faith are wearing. Basket of Puppies 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr, BoP has indicated in the past 24 hours that he has problems with all articles with this rationale: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. This way of re-tagging for deletion with a single discussion page enables him to expand on this and the community to discuss these concerns at one page. Let's have the discussion there... L.tak (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one concerns me: Permanent Resident of Norfolk Island visa It may be AFD material but I am not sure it matches the other articles enough to go in an AFD with them w/o raising issues... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what he's been saying. I've been part of the discussion. unfortunately his reasoning doesn't make any sense given the extensive media coverage in many countries given to the various subjects. at this point his nominations are disruptive and pointy. Visa policies of china are clearly notable and encyclopedic. There is plenty to build an encyclopedic article off of. While he might not like the article as it is, AfD isn't for clean-up the subject clearly meets notability guidelines. He has a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then start participating in the discussion instead of taking pot shots and wandering away to leave people asking questions and not answer them. you've had tons of questions put to you above by different people which you've refused to answer. Including a very direct question of whether or not you followed WP:BEFORE. Stop nominating articles which clearly pass all our policies and guidelines. AfD is not for clean-up. An article titled "Visa policies of X" most certainly meets our notability guidelines in most cases and you are making no effort to distinguish between the ones that do and the ones that might not. You've admitted as much now by stating that you're just going through alphabetically. Since it meets GNG, you're arguing for clean-up and AfD isn't the place to do that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honeslty Crossmr, the only person acting in bad faith here is you. He has every right to make his case for deletion, and you have every right to make your case to keep, and everyone else has every right to weigh in as they see fit. Letting the community have its say will produce much more useful results than your attempts to harangue Basket of Puppies. Reso lute 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article for deletion isn't a right. Could I go nominate Barrack Obama for deletion without anyone saying anything and questioning by motives? Why? Because the subject clearly meets our threshold of inclusion. It would, and rightly so, be closed immediately as a bad faith nomination. I've seen plenty of AfDs closed as such.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how many hours/days are we going to let articles sit there in a state of half-completed AfD? He started this 7-8 hours ago, and if he can't write his deletion rationale in that kind of time, the notices should be removed. He managed to nominate everything in 14 minutes last time.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you take a break, man. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crossmr, just stop. By constantly attacking BoP and his motives, all you're doing is making it apparent that you're the one who has issues with following policy. And frankly accusing BoP of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT is pretty ironic given that you were already told about three times that the reason for nominating has nothing to do with notability, and you still continued to accuse the editor of bad faith actions because the articles are notable. Notability isn't the only reason to take an article, or indeed a large group of articles, to AfD. Feel free to make your case for keeping the articles on the AfD page, but do not continue to attack others and assume bad faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
actually, if you read above, one of his reasons was that there only existed (or were used) primary sources. He's said that at least once or twice. I've provided tons of non-primary sources for 5 different countries. His claim now is that it's an indiscriminate collection of information (which doesn't seem anymore indiscriminate than the thousands of lists we have out there, the scope is decidedly smaller than others), and that it isn't encyclopedic. The last argument is straight off WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which isn't a compelling argument for deletion. So it comes down to indiscriminate collection of information. Which it might very well be, but that is a content issue, not a deletion one. there clearly exists sources which make the topic notable, so even if the articles were stubbed, the topics themselves meet the threshold for inclusion and continually trying to force them to AfD doesn't make any sense.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I will take a break from this discussion and make my comment on the centralized discussion when it's created.--Crossmr (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Seb_az86556 started removing the notices because of absence of the discussion page. Although I think this is correct in principle, it is not getting us any further here and we will be discussing procedures for yet another day... I suggest the following:

revert/rollback the removals of the AfD messages
give BoP a notice on his talk that he should provide a rationale asap (within 12 hours from now? we have no idea which time zone he is in) to move this discussion forward.

Can someone who can do multi-revert do both (also the talkpage notice because BoP and I have started off not very well yesterday...)? Looking forward to really discussing this and hearing rationales! L.tak (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These can easily be reverted once there is a discussion-page. These templates have been sitting there for more than 6 (some of them 10) hours with a deadlink. I don't think that works. I am not opposed to the batch-nomination, but whenever there's an AfD-template that has no link, it should be removed after a reasonable time. 6 hours should really be enough to create the relevant page. (by the way, I gave the same rationale, albeit shortened, in the edit summary) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think its clear that there is general opinion sentiment against deleting the articles either singly or in random groups without a prior consideration of how to handle it. I continue to endorse Spartaz's earlier action, and urge him as someone reasonable to do what he did before, close the present AfDs as speedy keep. Basket of Puppy 's action in doing this is clearly disruptive and pointy, as he went ahead with this in spite of everything that was said above, and I suggest blocking him for a while to permit rational discussion of the problem, which I think can be best done by an RfC at the project page. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have had my eye off this ball dealing with the JIDF/David Appletree situation but I agree that AFD really isn't the place for this discussion. I endorse the need for a RFC to thrash out the whole approach. Pages on visa regulations for specific countries are likely notable in most cases - the fact that someone actually writes a book about them that is reissued every month is significant but I do have concerns about the indiscriminaty nature of plain lists of visa rules. Personally, I have severe issues about visa requirements for citizens of country X pages as they are inevitably indiscrimate with a strong dash of SYTH and OR thrown in - all the trade documentation relates to the country travelling to, not the country going from, and I speak as something of a subject expert as my RL job is, amoung other things, teaching visa regulations to airlines so its something I have worked closely with for 23 years. That said, I don't feel that the arguments are clear cut enough that we can just say enough and AFD the lot and purge house. Rather we need a proper discussion about how to systemically organise our articles on these pages and that requires a centralised discussion somewhere. Maybe something I can look at when I get some time if no-one else takes this forward. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, the one up above about visa requirements for citizens of the country probably isn't appropriate. It's just a reverse collection of what would be included on "visa policy of country x" which is unnecessary. That said, I've demonstrated on the south korea article that several visas are extensively discussed and as such the visa policy articles are certainly viable in some, or likely all, cases.--Crossmr (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's probably the key issue for discussion. Personally I see no point creating articles without anything to add except visa lists as they go stale quickly and become unreliable if not maintained but some form of sourcing and discussion of the subject generally will be very useful and make a decent article. This depends on sources of course. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up example

As I mentioned above, there is plenty of room here to make encyclopedic articles. I've performed a very basic clean-up of Visa policy of South Korea. It is by no means complete, and at this point is just a stub example of the kind of thing I had in mind. There are dozens of more sources just on E2 visas so that section can probably be expanded to 2 or 3 good paragraphs to include information on how law makers, holder, other countries, etc have reacted to the visa and the changes and decisions that have been made to the visa over the years. I'm digging around now to try and find a citation for when it was first introduced.--Crossmr (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That definitely looks way better without the unnecessary list of countries. And, you're right, it looks like it has a much better claim to notability now than it did before. It's a lot easier to see and check. Silverseren^C 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my point that this was a content issue and not an AfD issue. there will still be plenty of primary sources as all visas can be discussed (individually or in groups) but those visas can then be propped up with additional information from the media. Some countries may require foreign language editors to help us out though. there might not always be extensive information in English on some visas.--Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more to the E-2 visa and added an image of an actual visa, as well as information on 2 more visas. a total of 25 citations are now in the article with only a couple pointing to primary sources. if that doesn't show notability and viability of an article on visa policy I don't know what does.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Crossmr, this is a good and valid type of article now, where it was just a list before (but still an encyclopedic list for wikipedia). The complicated thing is to find the sources for the policy on when to grant certain visa-durations and length of visa-free entry (passport security features, political reasons, reciprocity, does that go via bilateral agreements, is the list a derivate of something else etc), which are issues which I think should fit there as well. Whether the list which was in the wiki before is kept as argument/illustration of the policy in the main article or whether it becomes a "list of" article is a matter of style (and I have the idea the latter is preferable...) L.tak (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article will get quite long as I write up each individual visa so putting the visa free list on there would be excessive. it easily could be spun off as a list of, it's just an encyclopedic as any other list, can be fully sourced (two references I used already show all the lengths). As for the lengths, yes, they're usually reciprocal unless one party is trying to do something to spur tourism or the like. The only reason canada gets 6 months in Korea as far as I know is because koreans get 6 months in Canada (as do a lot of other countries)--Crossmr (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giving up

I am giving up trying to go forth with my good faith nomination of these articles. I have been accused of bad faith, threatened with blocking, repeatedly harassed and exposed to a litany of accusations on my intentions. I began to batch AfD process but had to stop due to Shabbat. When I returned I had been mass-reverted. All I can say is I firmly believe these visa articles are not the least bit encyclopedic, but my good faith attempt to make this known has been met with every trick in the book. Good faith has been tossed out the window and accusations and threats have been allowed to go unstopped. I am sorry I tried to help this encyclopedia and improve the project. Basket of Puppies 05:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Hardly anyone objected to it in general, but rather to how you went about it. And I'm sure they didn't tell you about Shabbat on Friday morning; it's been around for millenia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

come on BoP! don't be a victim here. Many people supported discussing the item, but more than pointy one-liners we have not seen. In the middle of the last discussion on how to do this, you suddenly started re-nominating again, which was excepted for the sake of the start of the discussion. Then you suddenly leave (where you said before: it might take me several hours, no mention of shabbat). Already before the first proposed deletion 2 days ago I showed the possibility the discuss your issues. Taken together this is a case of Wikipedia:Ididn'thearthat to me. You leave me nothing than to end with a citing the text you used before going on IRC (also without telling) here: It appears you don't understand. I don't know how else to explain it. (...) Which is why I am giving up as it appears you just don't understand. Moving along... Rgds L.tak (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianmcfa and law enforcement agencies in Nebraska Stubs

Brianmcfa (talk · contribs) has created a significant number of stubs on law enforcement agencies in Nebraska, a few have been deleted CSD A7 and following objection to CSD'ing of police departments by Bsherr a further 10 more were deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion Police Department (Nebraska) that still leaves the following stubs:

The closing of admin of the AfD (Cirt) recommended that I ask here for advice on what should be done regarding these. Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Notified Brianmcfa here and Bsherr here and Cirt here Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Ahem. Few PD's are notable. For the most significant of the many, redirection to municpality would probably be best. For the most, deletion as A7. I think. For instance, Largo PD does not have an article or a redirect (Small city of &0,000). Pinellas County SO does. Dloh cierekim 22:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Is a script batch deletion in order, or should these go through AFD first? NW (Talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a purely technical note (and that's a phrase I've never used before and probably won't again) Special:Nuke would take care of all of them, avoiding the need for any ad hoc script. TNXMan 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked already; these articles were created too long ago for that (verify). NW (Talk) 23:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge 'em all into a list? Dloh cierekim 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike. I was looking at this while you offered that suggestion. There is good material in the articles. However some should remain as a list like Friend Police Department (Nebraska) which may have notability. List of law enforcement agencies in Nebraska exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He missed some! Column 3 had all the same. I would delete merge them into the list article, even Friend. Dloh cierekim 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the solution to a collection of non-notable articles be to combine them into one similarly non-notable list? Unless there are reliable sources discussing "Law enforcement agencies in Nebraska" as somehow having notable characteristics as a group, I would argue the list is just as deletable/redirectable as the individual articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, preserving information. Dloh cierekim 00:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fact that while, individually, they may not merit separate articles, as an ancillary article or list to Law enforcement in Nebraska, the information would be worth having. (Then there is the argument that as important units of government, these agencies are notable.) Unfortunately, in their present form we are looking at a collection of stubs with little, if any, useful information. I would hope any stub on a local law enforcement agency would meet the guideline for a school article: provide information that a prospective employee would find useful, e.g. staff size, year created, organization, URL of website. Then again, these are issues best discussed by the relevant WikiProject, not a bunch of Admins. -- llywrch (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though individual components of an organization or group of organizations may not be notable, the whole may be; we acknowledge this all the time when we avoid having articles for the local branches of even very important organizations. But the place for this is not AN/I. AN/I does not deal with the merits of particular content, or of individual deletions. The place to discuss the merits of an article, one or many, is AfD ; the place to discuss policy about deleting them is its talk page, or the CSD talk page as appropriate, or another policy page. True, this is an administrative matter in the sense that administrators have the power to delete articles. But administrators do this individually, subject to review at DRV. Subject wikiprojects are another approach to work out a solution, though it must be remembered that they are not independent of the community, and it their decisions about what it notable in their field have not always been generally accepted. For a group of admins to try to coordinate their actions in dealing with a particular group of articles is cabalism. The only thing that could reasonably be discussed here is if it is thought that the introduction of the articles is disruptive, and I do not see how it can possibly be so--it is probably mistaken, but that's very different. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, I think that I will do a bulk AfD for them and the discussion can move there. I will however list Friend Police Department (Nebraska) on it's own as it at least has a claim to significance. Unless anyone has any more advice I will list them later today. Codf1977 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing these as they were being created and thinking it would come to something like this. I support merging them into a Law enforcement in Nebraska article, or even List of law enforcement departments in Nebraska, but some of them have very little to merge. An AfD-style merge outcome would be good because it provides some compulsion that this gets done, instead of them sitting around indefinitely. Shadowjams (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or … you could not rely on the ever-elusive somebody else to do something, and just be bold and do the editorial action that you support, using the editorial tools that you possess, yourself. Several of you support a merger? Good! Then pull out your editing tools and actually do it. AFD is for deciding whether an administator hits the delete button, a tool that only administrators possess. None of you want that to happen in the first place. Stop thinking of this in terms of "I have to fill in a form, and make a request, which Somebody Else will enact later on." and start thinking of this in terms of "I and several other editors have an idea. We all ourselves have the tools for enacting that idea. Let's club together, agree what we want to do, and get it done.". I've used nothing more than the ordinary editing tool to start you off. You don't need more than the ordinary editing tool to finish. Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I may, and I have in the past. I did a similar project on merging Housing articles at Universities. Lot of work and takes a lot of time to do it right. You're welcome to join.
    
    But as a wider point, is this kind of response necessary, in tone or in substance? You surely can't believe the response to everything is fix it yourself, as if the work of administrative areas is nothing but selfish. As if every tagged page is someone "thinking...in terms of...Somebody Else will [act] later on". It would take two years for someone to read wikipedia, and that was years ago; one person can't fix everything. Part of the bureaucracy is identifying tasks, and part of it is doing tasks editors are well suited towards. I've done those, and I'm sure many people above have.
    
    On the point at hand, AfD merges are pretty commonplace and perfectly acceptable. There's not a lot here to merge. Perhaps someone can identify which of these pages the merge discussion is going on at. Shadowjams (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I personally don't see what of value there is to merge, however a merge proposal has been made to merge them to Law enforcement in Nebraska, so I will leave it for a day or so to see if anyone comments before opening up a AfD. Codf1977 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would support deletion here, as there's almost nothing to merge. Merge would be an option for the few that have content. The rest should be deleted. Enigma^msg 00:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD edit war and pointy AfD

I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a quick look at a situation and determine if action is necessary. It all started when I BLPPRODed an article here yesterday. About 8 hours later, Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) inappropriately removed the BLPPROD tag without adding any sources. Later that day, 69.181.249.92 (talk · contribs) appropriately reinserted the BLPPROD tag. Following that, Kintetsu and 92 got into an edit war about the BLPPROD tag ([23][24][25][26]). Finally, Kintetsu reverted for the fourth time (a WP:3RR violation), nominated the article for deletion at AfD (here), and tagged it for rescue (here). His AfD nomination rationale (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salamat Sadykova) clearly states that he doesn't think the article should be deleted, but that he wants to take the article through the AfD process to prove that it's worthy of inclusion.
This is clearly a WP:POINTy AfD nomination. I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the AfD and determine if a speedy close is appropriate, as well as if any corrective actions need to be taken with regard to Kintetsubuffalo's edit warring. Thanks. SnottyWong ^babble 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

All I am going to say in my defense is you are attributing motives to me that are not my motives. I lived in Kyrgyzstan for two years, I know that the notables there receive little media coverage, especially southern Kyrgyzstan, and so are difficult to find internet source material on. Trigger-happy dive-bombing articles that make a clear statement of notability with PROD tags is what is clearly WP:POINTy, and a violation of the spirit of WP:Systemic bias. And changing a tag from PROD to AFD is not a fourth time, it is trying to find a new solution to the problem you are hellbent on creating.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still clearly haven't read WP:BLPPROD. I'll say it one more time: PROD IS NOT THE SAME AS BLPPROD. BLPPROD is only for biographical articles which have zero reliable sources. That's the only reason it was BLPPRODed. Not because I hate Kyrgyzstan, not because I am trying to perpetuate systemic bias, and not because I don't like Salamat Sadykova. I have not accused you of having any particular motives at any time, but it seems that you are accusing me of PRODing the article because I'm a racist or something. SnottyWong ^squeal 16:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to blame the writers of the BLPPROD proposal and policy for the confusion. Apart from the general BLP issue which causes otherwise reasonable people to take leave of their faculties, calling an irreversible deletion a "PROD" is setting up other editors for failure. We see this all the time in the pseudo-speedy deletion of images despite the longer pedigree and simpler execution of that process. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, slow down. I am not accusing anyone of racism, that is the furthest thing from my mind and a card I never play. I have no beef with you or the IP, before yesterday I never saw the IP, and as for you, I enjoy reading your ripostes, I find we agree on a lot, even dig your username. What I am saying about your PROD tagging and about systemic bias regarding sourcing is that you are applying hasty non-solutions when better ones can be applied, as other editors even now are cleaning up the article rather than see it deleted. You attributed motives to me that are not mine, don't put that word in my mouth. This is not a battle, I just want you to slow down. This is an article worth saving and I was making no POINT. The author is on my watchlist as someone from the old neighborhood. At the end of this I don't want acrimony, I want a worthwhile article saved and improved. So far all I've gotten is bitten, but I will use good faith with you if you afford me the same.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem to be aware of how BLP prods work. The idea is that it is completely irrelevant whether someone meets notability criteria, it is that we no longer accept articles on living people without any reliable sources. The BLP prod gives 10 days for anyone to come up with a source and then it can be removed. It is explicitly stated that the prod should not be removed until sources are provided. As such AfD is not an alternative to a BLP prod in the same way that it is to a standard prod. Quantpole (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I am saying there are better solutions than dumping tags onto articles that will get them deleted. The editor is infrequent and a non-native English speaker. Had I not been watching her page, it would have been deleted without a single finger lifted to help.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to try and change policy because what you've done is explicitly against it. Anyway, it seems that sources were relatively easy to find. If you had looked for sources instead of edit warring over the tag and just added one to the article you could have saved this nonsense. Quantpole (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPROD is not a "hasty non-solution" nor is it a way to pull the wool over the eyes of non-native English speakers. It's a policy, it's the way Wikipedia works. If you create a biographical article about a living person which doesn't have any reliable sources, then it's going to get BLPPRODed and deleted. It doesn't matter if the article is about Salamat Sadykova or Barack Obama. No sources = deletion. End of story. Please understand this in the future, and do not remove BLPPROD tags without adding sources to the article. It appears that your bad faith AfD will have to run its course after all. Of course, the article now risks actually getting deleted at AfD. Had you just added sources and removed the BLPPROD tag, it would not have been in danger of being deleted. I guess we'll see how it all pans out. SnottyWong ^speak 16:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As sources have been added, it's no longer eligible for BLPPROD, and as there's an outstanding delete vote, the AfD is not eligible for speedy keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good question here about BLPPROD. With a normal PROD, an AfD supersedes the PROD and would replace it. With BLPPROD, the tag should not be removed for any reason until a source is added. Should an AfD be allowed on an article with BLPPROD? I think it should be allowable, but that should probably be discussed at WT:BLPPROD.

Now, was Kintetsubuffalo wrong to remove the tag? Over and over again? 100% yes. If he was unaware of BLPPROD, hopefully he understands it now and won't do this again in the future. The edit war over this matter in particular is pretty bad and he should be admonished for that.

Is the AfD pointy? I don't think so, an AfD is an attempt to start a deletion discussion on an article, and clearly Kintetsubuffalo wants that discussion to take place so I think the AfD creation is honest. The AfD could be seen as an end-run around the BLPPROD deletion, but again I think that it should be okay here, especially as it was done not long after the tag was in place (so a 7 day AfD would only mean the article takes an extra day to be deleted if it closed with that result).

I don't think that Kintetsubuffalo was accusing racism here; systemic bias is an acknowledged and easily found phenomenon here at Wikipedia. He was only pointing out that finding resources for a person in Kyrgyzstan can be inherently difficult and doesn't necessarily indicate that the subject isn't notable. I ran into a similar situation myself trying to improve an article for a prominent entertainer in Afghanistan. That doesn't mean that we get to wave away our need for sources, especially for a BLP, and you're correct about that SnottyWong. But don't take the systemic bias remark the wrong way, I think it's still a legitimate concern.

Kintetsubuffalo's actions have ultimately led to sources being added, so I think we're seeing a good conclusion, but I will state that he doesn't have any call to say that the deletion should be done "the right way" when clearly he didn't know what the "right way" to handle BLPPROD was. An acknowledgment of the mistake might be helpful here. -- Atama頭 16:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Without commenting on the specific events, yes, AfD is the right escalation point for a contested BLPPROD. PROD processes' defining characteristic is lightweight--AfD is for full discussions or disputed events. It should be perfectly acceptable, and perhaps just standard practice, to respond to an unsourced BLPPROD tag removal with an immediate AfD nomination. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I described the AfD as WP:POINTy is because he nominated an article for deletion while simultaneously believing that the article should not be deleted. This is bad faith editing, disruptive, and a waste of time for people who contribute to AfD's. No one was challenging the notability of this person in the first place, so to start a deletion discussion about it is irrelevant and pointless. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Nominating an article for deletion doesn't require you want the article deleted, necessarily -it can just mean that one wants to gauge the community's pulse on the article. It is always healthy to seek for wider consensus, and I see it as a good faith gesture: putting your article under judgement to see what is the outcome. Kintetsubuffalo didn't handle the thing well, but in the end the AfD did only good. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Cyclopia. Also, to Jclemens and Atama, Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Objecting discusses the appropriate way to challenge a BLPPROD. AfD is appropriate for a disputed situation (i.e. where a source has been added but its reliability is disputed). In clear-cut cases where there are zero sources, I don't think removing the BLPPROD tag and starting an AfD is appropriate. SnottyWong
^confer 17:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The beauty of an escalation to AfD is that everyone knows what an AfD is and does. BLPPROD is still our most novel and least well understood deletion process. If it was really harmful, it should be deleted by G10, so edit-warring over a BLPPROD tag shouldn't be for something really important, and I see AfD is the path of least resistance to an appropriate deletion process that everyone is likely to understand. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD isn't mentioned anywhere in BLPPROD, and I think it should be. If an AfD shouldn't be started until a source is located for the article, that should be mentioned. If an AfD can replace the BLPPROD and be used to contest it, that should also be mentioned. I don't think it's clear either way. -- Atama頭 17:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is mentioned at Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Objecting. SnottyWong ^chat 17:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it is mentioned there. But it's still not clear, it mentions that in the case where a source has been added but the source is questionable, the article should be taken to AfD. But there's nothing stating, or even implying that you can't take it to AfD unless there's a source present. Basically, the policy right now is saying that if the BLPPROD tag can technically be removed because there's now a source, but you still think the source doesn't cut it, you should bring to AfD because the article's suitability for inclusion is still in doubt. As I'm reading the policy now, I believe that it suggests that an AfD can be started for an article with a BLPPROD tag (because it doesn't say it can't be) but you still have to leave the tag on the article until a source is added. That can lead to an awkward situation where an AfD discussion begins, but the BLPPROD expires and the article is deleted before the discussion concludes. I don't think that's a good thing. I still think there should be more clarity. -- Atama頭 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note that even the originally prodded article did refer to three sources--not very good sources, but if an exact citation had been given they are no worse than the sources in many bios of musicians. I would have placed a BLP improve tag, not a BLP prod. A BLP prod is not appropriate if there are sources, even poor or incomplete ones. But my view is that both parties are equally at fault-- not just for edit-warring, but for not adding proper sources when they could so easily have been added. I do not think it reasonable to place a BLPProd tag for an article which indicates likely notability and reasonable sourceability without at least doing a preliminary check for sources. Yes, the original ed. should have done it first, but the way to improve inadequate articles is to improve them. Yes, placing a BLPProd tag is such circumstances is permitted. I think it should

not be permitted--I think WP:BEFORE should be required for any deletion process, and I continue to hope to obtain consensus on this. But although it is still permitted to ignore it, it is neither productive nor cooperative to do so. Cooperative behavior should be expected in a cooperative project with a common goal. This totally unnecessary discussion here ,and somewhere between half and three-quarters of the BLP Prods, would be eliminated if people did this. The very purpose of BLP Prod is to avoid the possible harm from unsourced BLP articles by getting articles sourced, & removed quickly if unsourceable.

And I think it's ridiculous, as pure wikilawyering and bureaucracy, to leave a prod tag or a BLP tag on an article when taking it to AfD. ; it serves no conceivable purpose & confuses the two processes. Any good faith editor has the right to a community discussion. On the absence of a unambiguous rule, IAR will do, in its appropriate role when there is no clear rule, since facilitating community discussion improves the encyclopedia--I suppose the way to clarify this is to amend the wording of the BLP Prod rule to specifically say so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Statement by involved editor - I came across Salamat Sadykova because it was listed at User:PSBot/Deprods. As anyone who reviews my contributions can verify, I've routinely double checked such articles to see if further action was appropriate. There's a string of edits to such articles as Romain Gazave, Harry B. Flood Middle School, Red Shore Redemption, Xilinx ISE, Virginie Dechenaud, etc. that I edited as a result. I checked this particular article, saw the it had been BLPProded, had the prod tag removed but no sources added, and reinstated the prod tag. Kintetsubuffalo again removed the prod with the reason that "already deprodded once today, AFD it if you want, but do it correctly this time." Since reinstating the BLP prod is the correct way, I once again reinstated the prod with a note that it should not be removed until a source was provided. Kintetsubuffalo reverted. I once again reinstated the prod tag with a link to the proper policy page and dropped note on the user's talk page pointing to the correct policy and even quoting the relevant line. Kintetsubuffalo removed it without comment and again removed the prod and initiated an AFD with the comment "we're going to do this the proper way, whether you like it or not." To me that indicated the belief that I was acting in bad faith. Rather than continuing the revert war over the prod tag, I took my objections to the AFD page. This all could have been averted if Kintetsubuffalo had followed policy and either added a source or allowed the prod to remain. End of story. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

PS - apparently there was an edit conflict betwixt myself and DGG, but because I was editing only the section there was no edit conflict warning when I saved. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I appreciate your comments and I have been making a better effort to source BLP's rather than BLPPROD them during newpage patrols. I have even done exactly that earlier today, on Emma Brown Garett. However, I made a judgement call on this particular article, mostly because the article itself was terrible and appeared to be a copyvio of a source that I couldn't find. Since I didn't have the time or motivation to rewrite this article from scratch (which was the only way to improve it, in my opinion), I decided not to waste my time sourcing it and instead BLPPROD it. As far as I know, simply referring to a source without actually citing it (i.e. "According to the New York Times, Snottywong is a genius") does not count as a reliable source as required by WP:BLPPROD, and therefore I assert that the prod was correct. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know. SnottyWong ^chatter 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by the statement, "appeared to be a copyvio of a source that I couldn't find"... How could it appear to be a copyvio of something if you can't find it? If you had something to compare, doesn't that mean it's available? Maybe you mistyped but that statement spins my head around. -- Atama頭 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atama, it is very possible for an article to be copied from elsewhere without the source being readily discoverable. It's sometimes obvious, such as when a whole block of text is added that includes [1] ref notes without accompanying refs. Other times it's not so obvious, which is why tags such as Template:Copyvio link and Template:Cv-unsure exist. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of newpage patrolling, and I run into copyvios on a regular basis. There are various tell-tale signs of copyvios, of which this article displayed several. So, while I wasn't able to locate the source of the copyvio, I strongly suspected that it was copied from somewhere. That's why I BLPPRODed it instead of trying to speedy delete it for copyvio. SnottyWong ^communicate 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of copyright violations which aren't detected as a verbatim copy by Coren are picked out by tone. After reading/writing enough copy for wikipedia you can pretty easily pick out what doesn't belong or what wasn't written on the spot as a summary of sources. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has gotten sidetracked from the purpose of this report, which is the actions regarding the removal of the BLP prod and potential pointyness of the AFD. A larger issue is whether or not Kintetsubuffalo is now sufficiently aware of the relevant policy. I have concerns about his/her unwillingness to respond to legitimate issues raised on their talk page, as shown by their reversion of posts on topics they don't wish to discuss, and the "House Rules" that seem to indicate a tendency to ignore people s/he doesn't like and WP:OWNership over said talk page, but those are for a different discussion. If the relevant issues have been sufficiently discussed, then this thread should be closed. If not, then perhaps a course of action could be suggested for further progress. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Based on his latest comment above, Kintetsubuffalo is fully aware of policy; the residual problem is BLP prodding of clearly notable and probably sourceable people without troubling to search or think about alternative ways of handling. (I'm not in particular referring to this particular article or any of the editors involved right here; the problem is more general.). This can be best handled by a policy change. one sentence "an appropriate use of relevant portions of BEFORE is required before initiating deletion process" The details of "appropriate" can be expanded if necessary, the immediate point is the principle. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the confusion that happened here. I've entered many regular PROD's and contested a few, but wasn't up on the subtleties of BLPPROD til now. Maybe BLPPROD should be renamed to BLP-MUST-SOURCE-OR-DELETE to get the point across. I don't agree with DGG about requiring "BEFORE" before BLPPROD. That goes against the whole WP verifiability principle which says that 100% of the burden of sourcing is on the person who wants to include the material. At most it's ok to suggest it as a courtesy. I don't believe keeping scantily-sourced BLP stubs is good for wikipedia either. WP articles are required to give the neutral point of view, which means summarizing all significant facts and viewpoints about the subject by due weight. Googling the person and including the first random fact you can document and calling that a "biography" doesn't cut it, no matter how well-sourced that one fact is. We don't have a neutral article until we've researched the subject thoroughly enough to say in good faith that we've found all the significant facts and viewpoints and included them with citations. That means IMHO that we should not have BLP stubs at all. If DGG is going to talk about changing policy, I'd counter his/her suggestion with one that every new BLP should be start-class or better before we accept it into article space, maybe only by consensus through a kind of reverse-AFD process that includes a neutrality evaluation. We have way too many BLP's, we should get rid of a ton of them, and we should drastically increase the standards under which we'll accept new ones. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In reference to the overall discussion, I have personally found it a bit odd when people counter a deletion request with WP:BEFORE, when it seems to me that WP:BURDEN, as policy (while BEFORE is just part of a set of procedures for an AfD) seems to vastly trump the issue. I don't see why, if I see an article that's hasn't met the requirements of WP:V, I have to be the one to go out looking for a solution. It's even worse when the article is about some topic that falls under a content-specific notability guidline, when the research can be much more involved. I think 67.119.3.248's reasoning seems very strong to me: for a BLP especially (although the rationale can easily be applied to other topics), I think that it should be up to the creators/primary editors to make sure the article hits a certain minimum standard prior to being in mainspace, not the responsibility of other editors to complete their work. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you don't yet fully understand how collaborative writing at Wikipedia works. Both are fundamental parts of our policy. Read User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Looking for sources yourself beforehand and you'll get a potted history, complete with diffs, tracing how the due diligence of looking for sources onesself, required by policy and good practice, has been in both verifiability and deletion policies all along, back to the first on-wiki codifications of those policies.
    Collaborative writing involves collaboration. That means approaching things constructively. It means, when a fact lacks a source, having the mindset of "Hmm. Let's first see whether I can find a source for that and add it to the article myself.". It doesn't mean demanding that everyone else in the encyclopaedia does all of the work, at one's beck and call, whilst all that one does onesself is zap content, place tags, and try to bully everyone around one into jumping through hoops with deletion nominations.
    Wikipedia needs writers far more than it does zero-effort taggers, and always has. We've always encouraged those with the constructive mindset, right from the versions of policy that you can see from 2003. This is not least because when someone who is known to always look for sources, because xe has a demonstrable history of finding sources and improving articles with them, says "I cannot source this." we know that xe has actually put the effort in, and the statement is reliable. (It's unfortunately the case that some people, when confronted with the requirements of policy and good practice, have done no more than pay lip service to the ideal. There have been several editors over the years who have made habitually bad deletion nominations claiming that no sources exist, when even a minimum of effort demonstrates that they do. We don't want people who pay lip service, either.) We need people who do the work, and put the effort in. That's how the encyclopaedia improves, and that's how we know that we can come to the right decisions when discussing how our deletion and verifiability policies apply to specific articles and their contents. (We've had some very bad decisions made when only the people paying lip service to policy have been involved in making them.) We know that multiple people, with different research capabilities, have pulled their fingers out, checked, and either found or not found sources, and that the resultant decision is thus likely to be a sound one.
    The "burden of proof" part of the verifiability policy is much mis-used as a means of making writing the encyclopaedia Somebody Else's Problem. Unfortunately, a few bad editors have at times sat around chanting that they don't have any responsibility to lift a single finger to improve the encyclopaedia when they challenge content, forgetting that improving the encyclopaedia is precisely why they are Wikipedia editors in the first place. But the point of the "burden of proof" part of the verifiability policy is narrower than that blanket abdication of involvement. It's effectively a way of enshrining every editor's right to ask, of someone adding content, "Well, what was your source when you wrote that?". It's not, as it is so often mis-used to be, a licence to regard the task of writing as a burden upon everyone else but onesself. It's not a means for editors to off-load the burden of looking for sources onto just the few people who supplied any given content. That burden is still everyone's. It's means for ensuring that the people writing content cannot avoid the requirement of supplying the sources that they used. It's a means for ensuring that content writers don't get to dodge the direct question "What's your source? How, and from where, did you obtain this knowledge in the first place?" when it is asked of them. It's a means of affirming that it is inexcusable to write content that one knows is not checkable, by readers, against sources outwith Wikipedia; or to dodge the issue when questions of sources are raised.
    (As a secondary issue, it's also a way of ensuring that people don't dodge the question by using the I-was-only-reverting-the-content-back-in/copying-it-from-one-article-to-another-I-didn't-write-it-in-the-first-place defence, by explicitly stating that that is no defence for introducing unverifiable content. If one reverts content back in or copies it from one article to another, then one automatically acquires the responsibility of answering the "What's your source?" question. "But I'm only fighting what some robot mechanism told me was vandalism." does not become an excuse for bad content editing.) Uncle G (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the only delete !voter struck his !vote so I closed the AFD in question per WP:SK#1. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors deleting a talk page comment

I've found a pair of editors bullying another editor by removing his/her talk page comments. These editors are part of the discussion thread containing the comment and have been warned that as such, they should leave it to an impartial 3rd party to review the comment. I'm an impartial 3rd party (not part of the thread, etc), and it's my opinion that this particular comment contains several useful points that should be addressed. And as far as offensiveness or incivility goes, it falls far short of any standard that would require its removal. I'd block the editor responsible for repeatedly deleting the comment - especially given that he/she was warned, but I see no harm in bringing it up here first. Rklawton (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick. DocOfSoc and I were in a content dispute on a BLP and whether the subject should be called "Jewish". His language was a little heated, but we resolved it. Then, NeoNeuroGeek (a new user) launches a tirade against DocOfSoc about whether he is a real Jew. He, not unreasonably, removed it. Rklawton then blunders in, reverts the removal with some wikilawyering about "involved" but does nothing to cool NeoNeuroGeek. Since it wasn't me NeoNeuroGeek was attacking, but my erstwhile opponent, I felt disinterested enough to remove the post and have a gentle word with the newbie about our expected decorum here [27]. Next thing Rklawton's spitting block threats here, with, despite me posting to his talk page, no attempt to resolve anything. This just looks like trolling to me. Calm down, sir, and get your overly-dramatic tanks off my manicured lawn.--Scott Mac 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wishing to follow the thread can do so in sequence, it's short. Not only is Scott Mac mischaracterizing my comments/summaries (I explained the problem and what I'd do to resolve it if the problem persisted) he's being rude, too.

[28], [29], [30]. Rklawton (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored NeoNeuroGeeks comments with some elements redacted. My concern was that it was not a vitriolic attack on Doc but that the editor clearly felt hurt by the comments they read and made comments in the heat of the moment - we all do it. Please don't unilaterally remove comments like that in the future; it is better to politely ask the editor to retract the attacks (pointing them at the relevant policy) and, if they do not, ask an admin to come in and explain it more explictly (and redact the commets). The other way risks alienating someone further :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. What do you mean "unilaterally"? Every time one clicks submit it is unilateral. I stand by my action, I removed the comment, and left a very polite note on the newbie's talk page, explaining our civil ethos here, and assuming that his post was made in ignorance of that. Rklawton's actions were totally unhelpful: restoring personal attacks, with no attempt to talk with the newbie, indeed no attempt to explain anything to anyone outside of threatening edit summaries. How was that going to help? Drama-stoking at it worst. Liable to allow the heated rhetoric to escalate, while slapping those trying to dowse the flames. If he didn't like my way of doing it, he should have substituted his own, or at least done something constructive. --Scott Mac 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant nothing by "unilateral" except in the sense it was just the two of you :) and, yes, your note was constructive. Rklawton should, perhaps, have removed the PA's (or reported them to be removed) or encouraged you to report it. But he was correct in restoring the comment. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two isn't unilateral, by definition. Had Rklawton refactored and replaced, or had he taken some other course of action, that might have been correct. What he did was extremely disruptive. The correct thing to do, if you involve yourself, is to try to defuse a situation - you may wrongly judge what will do that, but any good-faith attempt is a start. Rklawton's action were in no sense of the word correct, as there was no strategy to help the situation lying behind them.--Scott Mac 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to solve your problems. I saw the need to prevent two editors from abusing a third by removing talk page comments that were marginally offensive at best. In general, we don't remove comments from talk pages and we don't bite the noobs. I restored it with a reminder and restored again with a warning. As an experienced editor, you should know better, and the comments above from 3rd parties bear this out. Rklawton (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my actions - and in my criticism of yours. But since the thing is moot now, I'll let it go. Unwatching.--Scott Mac 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Scott, if I wasn't clear - don't read anything into my use of the word unilateral :) it was cultural/personal use & I realise that in this forum it came across differently. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make an observation that, as an uninvolved user, I believe that the warred over comment is valid and does indeed raise some very good points. Yes, the language is a bit heated, but it is certainly not in the realm of anything that would require removal of said comment. It appears to me that the removing users have rather vitriolic opinions of Schlessinger and perhaps should disengage and not edit the article because of such opinions. Silverseren^C 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I know nothing about her and have no opinion. I got involved when I picked up she was unhappy with the article, I reported it to BLPNB, and began removing unreferenced negative stuff.--Scott Mac 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was referring far more to DocOfSoc than you. Though you should have also not removed that comment. Silverseren^C 19:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please note that Scott Mac is jewish, so this is a WP:COI issue.--Caravan train (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Not Jewish - never have been - keep your knife off my penis, thanks. (Not that I'd think any less of myself were I Jewish.)--Scott Mac 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scott MacDonald. That's an awfully Jewish name, isn't it? The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Caravan train account does not pass the WP:DUCK test, if you look at its edits. Enigma^msg 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't quack? Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means I'm saying the account is a sockpuppet and should probably be blocked. Enigma^msg 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bizarre comment out of left field from an account that's never edited here before, nor has this account edited any of the same articles Scott has during the two days of its existence (or the AfDs). I should AGF and say 'this is a new editor who doesn't understand our guidelines', but that would be hypocritical of me. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am finished with the Laura article. Period. Please see further comments on my talk page, where such comments belong in the first place, NOT on an article talk page, the newbie obviously does not know this[redacted]. Namaste. DocofSoc

Personal attack redacted. Cut that out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessfully tried to inject some humour. So yessir! Exalted Sarek ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. A person is not allowed to remove personal attacks made against them? That's a first, as far as I'm concerned. And then a totally uninvolved person is not allowed to remove personal attacks made against somebody else? Since when? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack. There was one or two words that two editors who were directly involved in the discussion thread construed as a personal attack - and deleted the entire otherwise useful comment as a result. And that has a rather a chilling effect on article discussions and isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it feels like a personal attack and quacks like a personal attack...New user's comments were in no way valid or useful. Misconstrued and full of fallacious assumptions. As an admin, there should have been instruction to newbie, as I had requested, who had violated the 3RR by reverting what ended up being the final outcome, that I had done correctly in the first place. (clunky sentence, LOL) A 2 day newbie should not be editing locked articles. Mysterious to me. A deja vu nightmare, like SRQ was back.. I was totally surprised at the lack of support. Sigh...Fast forwardDocOfSoc (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I didn't support was deleting comments from a talk page. It's a talk page - there's rarely any need to edit out other people's comments on a talk page - especially comments that are on topic. Instructing, advising, warning the newbie are all fine. Removing a whole comment because one part of it may be questionable is not appropriate, especially when that removal is done by people personally involved in that threat. But I said that already in the restore summaries. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being called racist is not a personal attack? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want an administrator to do something here? Jehochman ^Talk 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a bit pedantic, but the comment was called racist, not the commentator. Hence the attack is on the comment, not the person.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is a difference that is not essential. Calling somebody's comment racist is effectively calling them a racist. What admin action is requested here? Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything is needed - it was a one off incident and the users involved ended up with various warnings. I redacted the racism remarks. It can probably be marked resolved --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zombie433

Previous ANI discussions related to Zombie433: User:Zombie433 keeps on original research, Users User:Heritagesoccerpro and User:Zombie433

Again, is him. The guy never reply. Through out the days i OFTEN found his hoax content, from adding a content with cite, but the cite is irreverent to the content. to now i find his article Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira contain half of the hoax career in Brazil. Seems he never want to correct, or he work for a company to write fake CV for the footballers. He made lots of edits, i did not count the percentage of hoax in his total edits, but did wikipedia want a people that not willing to correct his behavior to not adding hoax? Matthew_hk t c 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are concerned about some of the contributions that Zombie433 (talk · contribs) is making. Can you be more specific? It seems that English might not be your native language. Perhaps WP:Diffs would help illustrate the situation. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting: Zombie433 is complained about at WT:FOOTBALL (see archives), with the most recent archived discussion being this. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I work not for any company over football, i only layman and football fan. I collect only football magazine like Extra Liga, A Bola, Liga Polska, Luxemburger Fussballmeisterschaft, Voetbal International etc. few stats based on the stats in this magazines. (Zombie433talk | contribs) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many concerns about Zombie433, in my opinion, them being: 1 - his appalling grasp of English, even tough he gives himself a "level 4"; 2 - the fact that he NEVER replies to people, NEVER, unless they write to him in German and not even then always, removing messages, friendly or not, minutes before they arrive at his talkpage; 3 - his continuing overlinking in football articles, even tough it is not necessary (this is indeed a by-product of his struggles with the language); 4 - even though it has been stated that foreign sources are OK with the site, he has NEVER supplied one single source in English, even going as far as removing the English source and insert a foreign one (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On%C3%A9simo_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=354291436&oldid=354210835); 5 - the overcategorization in which in indulges, creating cats for 4th, sometimes 5th division clubs, and several expatriate ones, really not needed; 6 - i am not familiar with this one, but it seems he has begun inserting spam links to articles, which was the primary reason for which he was blocked.

Attentively (speaking of which, i WILL pay close attention to this!)- --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie often use fake stats. to claim the footballers were notable. Just like Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira, Azian Innocent Tano (most recent?) ~~Ergün Berisha (deleted and recreate after he truly turn notable)~~. As i was not a reviewer of Zombie, i think there is some hoax still not yet discovered.

For Danilo Pereira da Silva, i can't find any source that he played for Chivas USA. (there is another Danilo da Silva in NLS for another team, not Danilo P. da Silva). AND Brazilian FA record did not said he moved to US.

And i asked again and again that please provide citation for the content he submit. He improved in new edits, but he either provide a irreverent one, or his cite did not sufficiently support his content.

Matthew_hk t c 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those really difficult situations where it appears that an editor can't really communicate with us and address/understand concerns. Zombie seems to have been raised as an issue a number of times now and I think we really need someone to open a dialogue with him. Perhaps approach someone in one of the German Wikiprojects who is able to talk to this person and translate our issues. Not perfect - but perhaps an opening step? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for volunteers to speak to this person here. I think it is in the best interests of WP to try and get this editor talking in some way --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was done here man (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zombie433&diff=374905578&oldid=374904428), what do you think happened? He removed the message, without answering the other user... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ergün Berisha is another case, i mixed up. Matthew_hk t c 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem people are having with Zombie is that he makes a lot of contributions (many of them are verifiable) but doesn't communicate well with other editors. I don't know what types of sources he is using for some of his edits (there were several edits he made to football players from the Ivory Coast that no one was able to verify, so we had to remove them), and it's troubling when information is added to BLPs that is not verifiable. If Zombie didn't make so many edits, it would be much easier to deal with verifying the unsupported additions and reverting the edits that are unverifiable or inaccurate. However, with the volume of edits he's made, it's an enormous task to go back through more than a years' worth of them. I'm sure he can help us verify many of those old edits, but I don't know how to explain it to him (or even get a reaction on his Talk page). Jogurney (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Vasco for the link. I think some action needs to be taken here. Perhaps a 24 hour block? Just to get the point across & try to get this person to communicate? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly looked at contribs and usertalk history of de:Benutzer:Zombie433 on de and didn't see obvious problems of this magnitude, but a better German speaker than me might want to take a closer look. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but be aware that de:Benutzer:Zombie433 has about 2000 contributions while User:Zombie433 has about 83000. The comments on his talk page are mostly warnings not to put unconfirmed information in articles, warnings about copyvios, advice about the need for sources, advice about grammar errors etc. It's also obvious that he mostly ignores the advice on this talk page; this was among others a reason why he got blocked [31]. I'm a native German speaker, so if you need a translation I think I can manage. --Jaellee (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yow, I missed noticing that he was blocked 6 times on de. Is his German as bad as his English, even though he says he is a native German speaker? 67.119.3.248 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure that he is a native German speaker, I checked some of de:Benutzer:Zombie433 edits. Sometimes they contain typos and the style could be improved, but I think it's not that bad overall (clearly better than his English). Other editors asked him repeatedly to use the present tense in articles like (these were the grammar advices), and his lack of reaction made people angry, especially if they were the ones who cleaned up after him. --Jaellee (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think of the BLPs

Basically, the reason this is ANI-worthy is because we've got an editor who is relentlessly plugging away with the addition of material which is either dubious or outright false to hundreds or thousands of BLPs. This is not a good thing, and can't continue indefinitely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant but your subtitle reminds me of this :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's too late to get rid of his dubious edits completely. Even when all his contributions are deleted, there are edits by other users in the text of BLP's based on previous contributions by Zombie433 and many other language wiki's have copied the English page. You can even find his contributions on official club-sites now [32] Cattivi (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's shut off the faucet of dubious information, then, especially with what Chris said about BLP. This editor has popped up too many times to not take action. Considering the lack of dialogue, as the editor removes negative notifications from his own talk page, we should consider a preventative block to protect Wikipedia from further misinformation. Is there any criteria we need to follow to pursue this course of action? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef

Based on Jaelee pointing out Zombie433's block log on de (6 blocks in 2000 edits) I think it's time for indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE. We're not dealing solely with a language issue. Block notification should indicate that it's not a ban and that the block can be lifted if he discusses the situation and can work out an agreement to improve his editing with regard to sourcing, accuracy, communications, etc. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion

Could someone IP check user:Hnbkd vs. user:Tmhm please? The former appeared in a thread begun about the actions of the later just when the later got blocked.

[33]

[34]

Diffs of users being notified: [35], [36]

Thank you.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a WP:DUCK to me, but since it was I who blocked Tmhm in the first place, I would like a second admin opinion. Favonian (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree . I have adjusted the block settings for both accounts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker violation of British Isles topic ban

As well as editing warring[37] at Terminology of the British Isles Triton Rocker has again violated his British Isles (Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log) topic ban here. Bjmullan (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This matter was being dealt with in other locations. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct location - the Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log is a log for recording sanctions not discussing them. This is the appropriate venue.--Cailil ^talk 15:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the text on that page be archived because thats what that page has been used for since its creation and it should clearly state that is not the place for such matters. Seems pointless bringing everything here when there is a separate page for the thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the number of violations of the topic ban, the recent block for disruption, violation of 3RR this is a serious problem. I'd suggest an indefinite block with conditional unblock when and only when Triton_Rocker recognizes what they've done wrong, accepts site policy and agrees to edit within it. At that point the topic ban should be reset to the date of unblock as per normal practice for repeatedly disruptive editors serving topic bans--Cailil ^talk 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An indef block is totally unfair compared to the treatment of certain other editors who have been involved in this dispute for many years. People here voted for sanctions to be applied to an editor, those sanctions were not imposed, he then went on to remove British Isles from another article with no punishment at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an irrelevant discussion BW. And I'm now warning you not to bring up extraneous issues in this discussion it is disruptive and will be dealt with as such. We are assessing this matter on its merits not in relation to others. If you want to bring up other editors behaviour do so where appropriate (and you are genuinely invited to do so).
Triton Rocker is subject to a ban and violated 3 times previously - this is a 4th violation. They clearly aren't getting the message. It's time they did--Cailil ^talk 15:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just the failure to abide by the sanction or the 3RR its the persistent refusal to ever engage in discussing any edit and the abuse of any editor who opposes him/her. We had accusations of meat puppetry this morning (links on Triton's talk page) which just builds on a persistent pattern of AGF and NPA violations in the majority of edits. I agree that something needs to go in place which forces Triton to acknowledge that something needs to change. --Snowded ^TALK 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bloke has become a bore. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all responsible for our own edits here, and trying to muddy the water by saying that other editors in the past have done similar doesn't hold any weight. A process was started to cease these type of edit wars and this editor has refused to accept that this is the case. So unfortunately I would support a topic ban, instead of an indef block. If they breach the topic ban and going by this editors previous ignoring of sanctions they will then indef block is what needs to happen. Mo ainm~Talk 16:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mo's views, it's time for a topic-ban, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A topic ban is totally inappropriate here. Triton's so-called transgression is absolutely minor; adding a relevant template to an article is just run-of-the-mill article improvement. Maybe it was a technical breach but it's clear to me that those with an anti-BI agenda are trying to capitalise on this technicality by attempting to force the removal of a knowledgeable editor whom they disagree with; it is quite scandalous behaviour on their part. BTW, any claimed incivility on the part of Triton is not relevant here. LevenBoy (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no probs with TR arguing on the talkpages & even being uncivil. But, edit warring is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who was the other party to the edit war, just out of interest (and this debate is not actually about edit warring). LevenBoy (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If one is outnumbered, one shouldn't get into an edit spat. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Cailil, you seem to be suggesting that Triton Rocker is more than one person, if you've an accusation to make let's have it out in the open. Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Cailil suggests that; can you please substantiate how you came to the conclusion that Cailil made any such suggestion or accusation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't. Strike that comment LevenBoy and stay on topic--Cailil ^talk 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Triton Rocket IS topic banned[38] and has been blocked 3 times in the last month for violating that topic-ban.
As a general warning to all the involved editors at the WP:BISE page - if you haven't got anything pertinent, on topic and policy based to say about this matter then stay away from it - disruption of enforcement threads will be prevented.
LevenBoy you wont get another warning to assume good faith. This is a very simple matter using it to make a point is not a good idea--Cailil ^talk 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he is topic banned then the next step is indef block. Mo ainm~Talk 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailhil, your veiled threats are out of place and verge on hilarity, but I'm getting increasingly annoyed by your carping and threatening others with sanctions that would be an abuse of your powers as an admin were you to impose them. This is not the first time you've waded in here issuing you ultimatums. Your warning to BW above is pathetic! Regarding my remark - quote "They [Triton Rocker and maybe et.al] clearly aren't getting the message. It's time they did". That sounds remarkably like you think there's more than one person operating that account. Now maybe your're not sure if the account holder is a man or woman, but that's a bloody strange way of putting it, that's all I can say. LevenBoy (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LevenBoy you've been warned to stop disrupting this thread - these were not veiled threats but administrative warnings.
Perhaps you were confused by a gender neutral pronoun - then all you had do was say you were confused by 'they' but instead you responded with incivility and spurious inferences of admin misconduct. It is entirely within my duties and powers to block for disruption or impose topic bans as I amn't involved in any area of this dispute. Now, I've asked SarekOfVulcan to review my conduct here and unless they contradict me I will prevent this thread from further disruption by block if necessary--Cailil ^talk 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, LevenBoy, this was a case of Singular they. I don't like it either and think it's ungrammatical, but it's meant to mean just one person. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker's response

NB: I was never entirely topic banned as the title suggests.

I apologise in advance to all the drama whores --- especially those attempting to use all this to the benefit of, and distraction from, their political campaign on the Wikipedia --- but I have very little time to respond to this today. Perhaps if you can just give me two or three days to put together a proper response, I would appreciate it.

Is everyone REALLY blind to what is going on here?

And let's us just be clear,

I did not break my sanction, which was not "to add or remove the term British Isles"

What I did was add five perfectly august academic references stating that the British Isles

"is a geographical term, arguably in use since the second century BC, and used widely in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests.

" In books published before 1920, this term relates to the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland, the Channel Islands, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Man, as Ireland was ruled directly from Westminster. From 1920 onwards, the term includes both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland (Eire)."

That terrible sin is what this is all about.

Look, there is are a handful of Irish - or non-English - editors including the accuser Bjmullan (talk · contribs)‎, ‎Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs), Ghmyrtle (talk · contribs) and ‎the principle character HighKing (talk · contribs) who are engaged in some kind of long term and widespread nationalistic campaign to replace the inclusive, accurate geographic term "British Isles" with the exclusive, political and inaccurate term "Britain and Ireland" and, where it cannot be done easily, to bog down any productive development. (For non-Brits admins, who may think "England" is the "UK", "Britain and Ireland" do not include all British Isles what are part of the same geographical group and people from the Isle of Man and Channel Islands are not happy about it).

Obviously, they are stalking my edits. I edit. One or more of them comes along and reverts provocatively, then Snowded (talk · contribs) --- whose user page is emblazoned with Welsh nationalism --- comes along to play mock admin. This happens time and time again.

Now, ask the question, "is British Isles a geographical term widely used in academia without reflecting the United Kingdom's hegemonic interests"?

Of course, yes. The references say so. So what is REALLY is the problem here? I can tell you.

First, please allow me to make this entirely clear. I do not have one drop of English blood in me (or on me). I do not support the UK's hegemonic interests in Ireland now or of the past. But, anyone with any academic background, could stand by and allow them to do what they are trying to do.

You would be fools, and making a mockery of the word "encyclopedia" if you cannot see this.

Now, tell me if you want to know what this is really all about. --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker. This is a breach of your topic ban. The above post which engages in inappropriate conduct, ie failure to AGF (as does this post today) is also a breach of that ban as explained clearly and cogently here. I am, and this thread is NOT evaluating the correctness or otherwise of the content but rather the fact that you have continually ignored an editing restriction as imposed by Black Kite.
I have warned all the others to stay on topic and not disrupt or attempt to derail this thread - and I'm warning you too. Don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Your personal, impressions of others are irrelevant all that is relevant are your actions. Claiming that this edit is not in breach of your ban is an attempt to game the system.
Also for the record, the above post uses excessive mark-up - please don't make posts that use so much mark-up in them any further please--Cailil ^talk 01:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the section title has been retitled for less drama. Again don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point Triton Rocker--Cailil ^talk 01:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right. As an uninvolved admin, I'd like to make sure I have the facts clear. Triton Rocker is under a ban from adding or removing the term "British Isles" from articles? And stands accused of having violated this ban by adding a link to British Isles from the article Terminology of the British Isles? I've got to say that enforcing in this case of a simple link that's not even part of the text and that, from what I can see, no one's even contested yet seems kind of Draconian to me. Though perhaps in an intractable dispute like this one, Draconian is the right way to go. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Triton should not be adding British Isles to any article and that would include the place he inserted it this time, although it is a minor alteration which has not been undone (like his changes were in the past when he added it) which suggests the change was justified. I think moving to some indef block or an extensive block under the sanctions is unfair in this case. He should be punished for the edit war which is totally unacceptable and that should cover it. Since Triton came off his last block, it was only yesterday that 1 edit war and the insertion of the BI link happened, he seems to be learning. He just now needs to accept never to get into an edit war again and completely avoid any insertion of British Isles, even if its a "Main article" link. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining that so well BW. But just to say we don't punish people exactly with sanctions we just prevent further violations of policy / restrictions. Indeed if Triton Rocker could make such a promise to avoid edit wars and to abide by his ban completely that would help things--Cailil ^talk 13:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Triton should agree to do both and i hope he does, people can only be given so many chances before there its too late. I can understand why he gets frustrated about the whole thing, but he needs to remember the best thing to do is stick to the talk page to argue a case for change or insertion, rather than doing anything himself that will probably get him into trouble. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- That's basically my view, too, and, I suspect, why Triton Rocker isn't blocked right now. The edit was against both the spirit and letter of the topic ban, but I'm extremely reluctant to block someone for adding a Main Article link to "British Isles" in an article about... the "British Isles". A block would be draconian: particularly because Triton Rocker has burned through the short blocks (1 day, 1 week...) and is now into long block territory. I wouldn't be happy blocking on this occasion for a month or indefinitely under these circumstances, violation of topic ban or not. I'd regard this as a one-off, however: this isn't a precedent, it doesn't give Triton Rocker carte blanche to game the system. TFOWR 09:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm thinking, though, that BritishWatcher may be right that a block for edit warring might well be merited. For that, we might want to dine at the edit warring noticeboard tonight, where dinner has already been served. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree - An indef would be way over the top, and a month is too much - but another week for the edit warring ("if" found culpable)? It would fall in line with previous blocks, and isn't unwarranted... Doc9871 (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - While I understand your views, as an outsider myself, this dispute has gone on too long the behaviour of all sides involved is in general falling into WP:BATTLE. Triton Rocker happens to be the first user under topic ban he also happens to be a repeat violator. AFAIK there is an unresolved 3RR[39] report against Triton Rocker, there is also the matter of his talk post to Snowded page (which as I've said violates his ban as well).
      I recognize your (and Black Kite's) very generous approach TFOWR and your expertise in dealing with group of the editors involved but frankly it is a mistake not to deal with the totality of Triton Rocker's problem when it is apparent that blocks of definite length aren't working. My suggestion above is that he be blocked until he recognizes the restriction, site policy and editing standards - not that he just get a perma-block indef. That said if you feel that 10-14 days is better then I'll support you in that--Cailil ^talk 13:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone else is to blame and a conspiracy against wikipedia by them bloody Irish and their supporters, nice way to accept responsibility for Your own actions. You are quick enough to go on about snitches but every opertunity you get, you role out a list of editors who are making you edit the way you do, catch yourself on. Also the validity or otherwise of the edits are irrelevant. Mo ainm~Talk 09:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The 'wounded soldier' approach isn't working. A siege mentality is counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Guys I've already warned everyone to stay on topic please stay away from ad hominem remarks--Cailil ^talk 13:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough & correct. GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'd quite like Triton Rocker to withdraw the unfounded accusation that I am "engaged in some kind of long term and widespread nationalistic campaign... etc." Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Ghmyrtle certainly is not involved in this and Triton should not make specific accusations against other editors, especially when they are innocent in this dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple option - ask Triton to formally agree to (i) respect the sanction, (ii) cease all attacks and allegations and accusations against other editors & (iii) accept a !RR restriction on BI related articles. Todate Triton has at no stage acknowledged any fault or the legitimacy of Wikipedia rules. If he can't bring himself to make those undertakings then I think its time for an topic ban on anything to do with the British Isles (he has done good work elsewhere so an indef is not appropriate) until such an undertaking is forthcoming, far too much time is being wasted on this.--Snowded ^TALK 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a previous complainant about Triton Rocker to this panel, I would agree with Snowded's suggestion above. Clearly Triton can't take the emotion involved in this debate and could do with taking a substantial break from it generally - I would suggest from anything Britain-, United Kingdom-, Ireland- or British/Irish- related. This would give all of us a much needed respite from the problems and abuse caused by this editor in an area of editing where space for calm discussion is essential. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einsteindonut/WPYellowStar/David Appletree is back despite a community ban,

Please do a Block, User:DavidAppletree is Quacking very loudly! All the time using the same mantras of denial and rhetoric. He claims he is working through stuff with Arbcom but he does not need a user account for that. Pending any statement from arbcom its is time we enforce the community ban Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This gives some context and an admission: [[40]]. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i missed the admission! that is very handy! Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never admitted to being Einsteindonut/WPYellowStar. I said that *some* of the accused sockpuppets *might* be me, as I have logged on from time to time from various IP's to make an edit here and there. There's currently a witch hunt on, falsely accusing me of being behind at least 56 suspected socks over the past couple years. I'm tired of being falsely accused, and constantly attacked on WP, so I have created this account to defend myself, and my organization, to answer general questions about my work, and to edit a few articles here and there as I do feel I can abide by the rules and contribute to this project in a meaningful way. It's a shame and unfortunate that anyone remotely pro-JIDF is automatically accused of being me and a sockpuppet. It's time that this stops. I can actually help put an end to at least some of the problems that might be coming from JIDF supporters, but I would hope that the witch hunt, false accusations, and personal attacks against me would end. As I have stated, one of my goals with the JIDF was to find and unify likeminded people. The JIDF has over 37,000 fans on Facebook and nearly 54,000 followers on Twitter. Don't you think some of them might come to Wikipedia from time to time to defend the JIDF from constant attacks? Yet anyone who does this is accused of being a sock of one of the most pro-JIDF accounts, who is then accused of being me. If you look at my website and my posts elsewhere, you'd see that I really don't have time to do all that I'm being accused of doing here. It's quite a witch hunt you have going on. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this user is claiming to be a living person of some note they need to identify and be verified through OTRS or get a new username. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that they have been in touch with OTRS already. I have been in email contact with David and believe he is who he says he is. I emailed cary to check if OTRS had anything to contribute this afternoon as well Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC). Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This situation prompted me to go get my OTRS access back after my vacation and I can confirm that DavidAppletrees has contected OTRS concerning this account and I am satisfied that he is one in the same. No action under the username policy is necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I referred the matter to the arbitration committee this afternoon. Please let this be until they respond. David has agreed to avoid controversial edits while waiting for them and dragging this out before then is simply going to induce a dramafest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has already been Soapboxing across Jimbo's user page, His SPI page, his own page among others and thats just his allegedly only account. Block him for now we can always unblock him later. He is here to promote his cause not to build and encyclopedia. The IP edits in the last thread were enough to prove he working under proxies. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, we also have a self identified person who is regularly mentioned on JIDF and wants to seek balance. This is a difficult issue because BLP requires us to be reasonable about that. While they are not currently causing major trauma, why not let them be while the committee consider this? I admit that the timing, shortly after a community ban on Einsteindonut is unhelpful but i suspect that if we don't bait David we may have a chance to put this long running problem to bed once and for all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am simply responding to various allegations and attacks. If I'm doing any soapboxing or anything against the rules, please notify me on my talk page, and I will revert, if necessary. Again, my goal here with this account is to fully adhere to the rules. However, I admit I am not a Wikipedia expert and do not know all of them. I could use a hand in learning the system, so I don't something against the rules, unknowingly. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I will sideline myself for now, the BLP issue is an aspect of this issue I did not consider and you are absolutly right that this is no causing major trauma at the moment. I do think regaurdless of what we do not much will make him happy. Which judging his by Dialog with Ironhold, we have a true believer and dialog with him will be be as hopless as dialog with CoS was. Considering his Website goes to Great lengths to Out wikipedians I am not holding my breath Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my website does not go to great lengths to out wikipedians. If any Wikipedians have any issue whatsoever about articles that were written about 2 years ago, they are free to contact me directly to discuss: david@thejidf.org. Being that privacy and security is of the utmost importance to me, personally, I fully try to respect the privacy and security of others. Despite getting to the root of the person behind the anonymous IP who attacked the JIDF article several times with swastikas and jihadist symbols, I never released his name, or the company he worked for. When the article about the JIDF first arrived, I admit I was hyper sensitive about it, and bothered, as I didn't know how Wikipedia worked, exactly and I felt a lot of unfair things were happening, such as repeated nominations for the article to be deleted. Despite over 2 years of decent media coverage, that's still happening, to this day! Those are just a couple examples of the abuse my organization and I have suffered on WP since the first article arrived. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call this an Outing list [41] Which is why I have a little bit of a time AGF here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an outing list. Who is being outed there, exactly? That's a list of people we felt had an extreme anti-Israel bias at the time and we documented some of their edits and some of their other online activities which helped back our points. I think only one editor listed there ever bothered to contact us directly about any problems they had on our site, and if I remember correctly, we accommodated most of his requests out of respect to his privacy/security concerns. I believe most of the editors listed there voluntarily made their names available on WP itself. Either way, the list was not created to "out" people (unless they were trying to hide their anti-Israel bias), which, from their edits, they were not. --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents, I'm uninvolved but haven't looked into it that deeply so that's about what it's worth, but here goes anyway. If the identity of the user is established by OTRS he should be allowed to edit the talk page of the article in question provided he is using no other accounts and is not disruptive. I checked his contributions and it doesn't appear that he has directly edited the article in question. If he is disruptive he should be served the standard notices until he stops or is blocked. If he used socks in the past b/c he wanted to protect his identity it should be forgiven unless he has socked since the creation of this account. If that's proven, by all means let's shut him down. Again, I'm not familiar with all the aspects of the case, but I agree we should make some allowances due to the BLP issue. Yworo (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This seems very fair minded. I have not engaged in any sock activity since the creation of this account, and do not intend to do so. I also plan on keeping main page editing, especially about my organization, to a bare minimum. However, at some point I may like to get involved in other articles, as I do have wide-ranging interests. I feel this will help the perception many WP editors have of me, and the JIDF, as this witch hunt and wide-ranging allegations and personal attacks against me and my work have troubled me. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David, was your account created..today?!? So you haven't socked...today?!? I guess its like AA, one day at a time :). Also, why would you want to have an article on Wikipedia? I am so glad I am not notable to have a page here with everything that goes on. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. No comment. Who said I wanted to have an article on WP? It just happened and it's been a bit of a nightmare. I just think if there's going to be one, that it might as well be accurate. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a real issue here? Nobody seems to be arguing that a specific item in the JIDF article is factually wrong, uncited, or violates WP:BLP. There's been considerable drama associated with this article over the last two years, but not over content. This looks like another attempt at attention-getting. The JIDF is no longer getting press; they've dropped out of Google News.[42] There's not much more to be said about them at this point. WP:DRAMA applies. --John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. While I didn't raise this issue, or any of the issues others I've witnessed on this noticeboard, there's actually been plenty of edits throughout the history of the article and other areas of WP that I believe have been in violation of various rules. For example, there have been many claims as to my whereabouts, as well as my living conditions, as well as my political views. There have also been personal attacks against me and my organization and a wide variety of false allegations. I'm not seeking any drama, but I do believe I have a right to counter the problems I have been witnessing on this platform over the years. Despite your claims that I'm seeking attention, I've actually tried to keep myself not notable and have tried to keep personal details about myself to a bare minimum. I've even turned down huge media opportunities in order to protect my privacy and security. With regard to you the link you provided, and contrary to your claims, the media coverage of the JIDF has been fairly steady. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the light side. DavidAppletree, to judge by the day and the way it's been spent, can't be him. Far too much melakha, sitting out there bashing away on a computer keyboard. Must have roped in a Shabbos goy. :)Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i don't see the humour here. this personal attack should be deleted. nishidani has had a fair share of action in the israel-arab conflict on wikipedia to know better than provoking other editors. 174.112.83.21 (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed to be an observant Jew. I rest on Shabbos in my own way. I hope to be more observant again, one day. --DavidAppletree (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So serious! Well, it's late here, so I must decline Ночь-мужик.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally have a sense of humor, but considering the amount of hostility directed against me and my work that has been published here, as well as the volumes of misinformation about me personally, compounded by the hate directed at me by a wide variety of WP editors, I'm not here to joke around, especially about something as serious as my personal observance of the Jewish Sabbath. I fail to see how that is even relevant to this discussion. Hope you had a good night. --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." JIDF? A teeny little "blip" on WP. Huge media opportunities have been turned down: really? WP:ARTSPAM must have been brought up before. I'd say there's a pretty serious admitted COI issue here... Doc9871 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is. But at lease we know about it and can monitor David's posting to control this. I have confirmation that arbcom have received my email. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Excuse me, Doc, but I hardly need to advertise on Wikpedia. This site does not bring much traffic to my site whatsoever and it's not like the majority of the editors here would be interested in my work. I'm pretty happy with the size of my audience and I'm not looking for just anyone to be a part of it. I target pro-Israel Jews and others who are concerned about Islamic terrorism, who generally lean to the right, politically. Also, since the beginning of my work, I have purposely tried to weed people out. For example, during the election, I weeded out Obama fans. Since so many Jews supported Obama, would doing that help or hurt a "Jewish defense" effort? Would that lend credence to the idea that I'm just trying to reach as many people as possible? On another note, I think Glenn Beck makes the entire right wing look like lunatics, so I purposely weed out Glenn Beck fans, away from my effort. Those are just a couple points to prove that I actually target people in a very specific way and don't need Wikipedia whatsoever for "advertising" or "publicity" purposes, especially considering there is what I feel to be antisemitic, anti-Israel and extreme leftist bias here at Wikipedia. In short, this is hardly the proper demographic for me to advertise. I didn't create the article about my organization here, but I feel that since it is here (along with a lot of misinformation about me, and my organization), the least all this can be, is accurate. I can help set the record straight. And yes, again, due to privacy and security concerns, I have turned down several on-Camera interview opportunities, one with FOX news and another with a large network in Canada (I forget the name of it), and others. If I was all about the advertising and publicity, I would have done those no matter what. While I realize my work, security, and privacy is of little interest or importance to most WP editors, it is important to me and to fans/supporters of my work (who aren't on WP for the most part, as it seems most of them have been chased away due to false allegations, incivility, and other forms of harassment). Either way, and to get back to the main point, if there's going to be any information about me, and my work on this platform, I feel that I should have the opportunity to be here to help set the record straight and to give myself and my organization a more human face with whom WP editors can deal with directly. Obviously, there is a COI when it comes to the editing of the article about my organization, but I still feel I could be an important asset for it, and other articles on the site, but that doesn't mean I'm so interested in main page editing. I feel I can make most of my points in the talk areas. --DavidAppletree (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I began and ended my comment with concerns about WP:COI - the spamming was a "side-note". If you edit articles about yourself and/or your organization, there are real potential problems concerning neutral point of view. I didn't make these rules, David... Doc9871 (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the COI, but at least now it is out in the open. I'm doing this to protect anonymous editors who might be pro-JIDF and who come in from time to time to edit something, or make a point, who always get accused of being me. Now, since I'm on WP with my name and fully disclosing my connection to my organization, I believe, or hope, the witch hunt for me in every corner of WP, ends. --DavidAppletree (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Please note, out of 56 "sockpuppet allegations" in the following case, only 4 have been confirmed." That's four too many, IMO. WP:Consensus will take care of "protecting" anonymous editors just fine, I think. No need for "extra" protection, is there? Best of luck to you :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not confirmed to be me, but confirmed to be a sock of ED. --DavidAppletree (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please wrap this up?

Per the SPI ([43]) he's recently used four different socks to evade scrutiny. Can an admin simply apply the recent community ban on the remaining two socks (User:DavidAppletree & User:WPYellowStars) so we can finish with this trivial drama? Any outstanding issues can, and I assume are, being dealt with via email thru arbcom etc. there is no need to continue discussing this here. Misarxist (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note actions like this and edits like this. --DavidAppletree (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyoned me why this SPI haven't been blocked long ago. By his own admission he is only here to protect his meatpuppets and/or sockpuppets. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing I said, completely taken out of context. If you considered the entire context of this situation (as I hope ArbCom is doing, and from what I hear, is doing), you'd have a different POV (if you are fair minded). --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DavidAppletree your argument is.... because You and Misarxist have differences of political opinion.... We should ignore his statement? Weaponbb7 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not my argument. If that was my argument, I would have stated it as such. I provided those two links for context into the allegation made by someone who a) Just targeted a general JIDF source material page (which was only created to help editors and the project) for deletion and b) who removed sourced material from the project which was citing Jewish historical presence in Israel. In short, this is just another one of the many editors who is going to have a problem with me, being that I'm the founder of a pro-Israel organization, and that is the context of his comments, encouraging me to be banned from WP completely, despite the fact that most others are encouraging people to be patient and to allow ArbCom to make a decision. --DavidAppletree (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your issues A) he found a page he found odd and nomed it for Deletion? i considered doing it myself until i saw that an Admin created it, B) someone doing routine BLP clean-up is a reason for them to be ignored? Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly did I say anyone should be ignored? --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I haven't examined this greatly but what I see now is a identified living person willing to use only one account and willing to discuss and stay within policy, as such I don't think such an offer should be rejected without consideration. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While the socks have been used in the past few days, there was no overlap. If User:DavidAppletree is willing to commit to that one account, not make any more, and, perhaps, let ArbCom know about older accounts, then I personally do not think a ban is in order. User:DavidAppletree will have to commit to editing within the bounds of wikipedia policy and guideline, of course, but if he does, and he can raise issues about his related articles within the rules, and not engage in disruptive sock/meatpuppetry, that should be a net positive. -- Avi (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned, I'm willing to commit to using just this account and editing within the bounds of WP policy and guidelines. I'm wondering how long the ugly sockpuppet template has to stay up on my userpage? One of the problems, I think, is that different people were using different accounts and IP's. I'm not sure what ArbCom needs from me, but I'm available, should they need anything. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now a veiled attempt at off wiki Meat Puppet organizing

at the JIDF Twitter page and Flaunting his actions here on a user page Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. I don't see how mentioning the work I'm doing on Wikipedia in front of approximately 54,000 people on Twitter is a "veiled" anything. If it's against the rules to Tweet that message, please show me where, and I will delete the Tweet, if absolutely necessary and apologize for breaking the rules somehow. With regard to what I wrote to HalfShadow, it was a followup on a previous conversation (see: here and here.) I realize you don't like me, or my work, but a little good faith wouldn't kill you. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, the more actions like this you display the less and less I am willing to AGF. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like what, exactly? Explain to me what you think I did wrong. Cite some rules, or something. And in the future, maybe try talking to me about it, before racing to this board to "tell" on me. This is precisely what I mean by me "defending" myself here on WP. I realize anything I do is going to annoy you, but if I thought I was doing anything against the rules through that Tweet or by following up on a conversation I was having w/ someone, I wouldn't have done it. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here is why i have a hart time assuming good faith with you and why i doubt merely takling to you about thing is not gonna help from personal observation

Several IPs (all proxies) start messing with JIDF
The pages is Semi protected
Several users show editing the page in similair matter
SPI is began
Peter Cohen defends the page from the onslaught of socks
OTRS gets a compliant Flips out on peter lecturing him on his conduct (which was well deserved on some levels)
ANI thread is started with suggestion of Community ban, Which at which time a user comparing us to nazis pops up and starts ranting on ANI
Community ban is passed
Within 24 hours of the ban you pop up causing a citing policy left and right
You make a borderline admission of socking
it is discovered that you have a whole page on your website devoted to attacking multiple wikipedians to discredit them
You make mention you might be writing about this soon on your site
Check user comes back inconclusive because all the Sock were using proxies
You Tweet that you are defending your self on wikipedia, which looks like attempting to recruit off wikipedia peoples to join your fight here
You then plead ignorance on massive scale hiding behind policy when you its convenient and pleading ignorance when its inconvenient

So i am Not too willling to AGF when or engage in dialogue when i see this scale of abuse Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the policy is WP:MEAT Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an interesting take on things and consistent with the attacks I face from people on WP who take issue with my work and views. I disagree w/ it. As per the rules you cited:

The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care. Wikipedia has processes in place to mitigate the disruption caused by meatpuppetry:

*Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors.
* In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.

* For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity.

Which votes do you think I'm trying to impact w/ a Tweet that says: I've been a little busy defending myself and the JIDF on Wikipedia (with a link to my contributions), exactly? Have you seen anyone chime in anywhere which lend any validity to your allegations whatsoever? I haven't. It's cool that you're following me on Twitter, and all, but please stop creating drama and wasting everyone's time with baseless accusations. If someone who doesn't have a beef w/ me and my work would like to opine, and thinks I actually did something wrong, please do so. Thanks. --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly violates the spirit of conduct here --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Howso? The people on Twitter wonder where I am. I explain to them that I'm defending myself on Wikipedia all day long. Seems pretty cut and dry to me from baseless accusations of "meatpuppetry" and such, and a bunch of people who have issues with my views creating needless drama for me and clogging up this board. --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I waiting other opinions, Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be meat-puppet day in general on this topic [44] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's old news, FYI, and unrelated to this false allegation. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested resolution

I'd suggest the following:

User "DavidAppletree" needs to confirm via the ORTS ticket system that he is the same "David Appletree" who speaks for the JIDF.
As an involved party, he should not edit the JIDF article, but can comment on the talk page. In general, discussions should address specific content issues in the article. Vague rants should be ignored, per WP:DRAMA.
Whether or not "Einsteindonut" and his sock farm, and "DavidAppletree" are one and the same remains an open question. I'd leave that to the sockpuppet investigation people.
If ArbCom is officially involved in this, someone from ArbCom needs to so state. Otherwise we assume no ArbCom involvement.
There's too much forum shopping going on. Discussions should be centralized somewhere.
Full protection can probably be dropped to semi-protection in a few weeks. It's worth keeping semi-protection, since there's a long history of anon edits from sockpuppets of somebody.
There's no rush on any of this. The JIDF article was mostly stable for months, and little new information from WP:reliable sources is appearing.

This is a tempest in a teapot. As a columnist for the Toronto Star wrote about the JIDF in 2007: "Facebook was much more fun when it was about body shots"[45] --John Nagle (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeblock needed

SuperSonicx1986 (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets continue to cause disruption at football articles (especially South American ones), such as this one. Is it possible to use a rangeblock for this situation? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

InaMaka

I'm running into some trouble with User: InaMaka. He frequently makes edit summaries and comments which are rather uncivil, and has repeatedly bitten the newcomers:

Let's put this in perspective. StoneMason has decided that his goal in life is to follow me around and overturn my edits. He has an axe to grind and he is on a mission to "straighten me out." For example the StoneMason leaves out of his complaint below that I did compare Alveda King to Fred Phelps in the very limited way that both of them are Democrats and both of their articles on Wikipedia are constantly being edited to give the impression that they are Republicans. That's all. His claimed that I called Alveda King equal to Phelps is her hatred of homosexuality. I didn't. He just didn't like me pointing out a fact that both of them are Democrats. His mischaracterization of what I wrote is hogwash. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[46] Calling other editors' contributions "hogwash", even if you disagree with them, isn't good form.
[47] (here he appears to compare Alveda King to Fred Phelps; I warned him about it here, and InaMaka replied angrily here)
Here he accuses an IP user of adding "racist hate speech" to King's article: [48]. The thing is, while the edit the IP made was definitely vandalism at worst and POV at best, it had nothing to do with race: [49]. I removed that warning, added a more appropriate one, and then warned InaMaka not to bite the newcomers: [50], to which he once again replied angrily, [51].
A violation of AGF, making a testy response to an innocent question: [52]. Here I explain why InaMaka's response was uncalled-for: [53]
Accuses another IP of making a "racist" comment: [54]. In fact, while the IP's comment was definitely sexist, and vandalism, it wasn't racist. [55]
Yet another case of accusing an IP of making a "racist" comment which, while obviously POV and inappropriate, had nothing to do with race: [56]. InaMaka's edits also implied that this IP vandalized King's article more than once, when the IP in fact made only one edit to King's article. [57].

Full disclosure: I've clashed with InaMaka before (I ran into him over at Mike Pompeo under two weeks ago and found him edit warring; he was blocked for 72 hours as a result. He doesn't appear to have learned his lesson, and still appears to view Wikipedia as a BATTLE. So I thought I'd ask for help. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Stonemason89 and his case against this user. I'm seeing some disappointing civility issues bordering on WP:TE and WP:NPA, and the biting and prior edit-warring is duly noted, but altogether probably not enough to block. Suggest perhaps a stern warning and a followup WP:WQA report. I do hope in the future InaMaka will be willing to edit alongside his fellow editors in a more collegial manner. -- œ ^™ 06:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption at article, "Operation Snow White" moved from WP:NRM

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group#Disruption at article, "Operation Snow White"

Please see repeated edits by R3ap3R.inc (talk · contribs), replacing the word "Church" to refer to Scientology, instead adding the word "cult".

[58], and
[59]

It is likely that I am going to report this user to Arbitration Enforcement, however, in the interim I will not revert the user's edit another time. Perhaps other users would like to see if the word "cult" should remain in the article in the intervening time, to refer to Scientology.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the heads up. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the attention to this matter, -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am look through this Guys edit history, he is definitely not here to contribute productively harrassing one user saying "

"this is what happens when you piss of(f) Anonymous" indicates to me this guy was was missed by accident in theWP:ARBSCI dragnet. As you will notice his edit history abruptly stops around that December. We should probably take this to WP:ANI to get wider consensus. WP:AE seems extreme when a block imposed by a uninvolved admin works just as well. Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections if you wish to do that. -- Cirt (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt and I request wider consensus on how to handle this as we both Agree this user is not here to productively edit. Cirt would do the block himself but he is already involved here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more clear: No, I have not, will not, would not, etc., do the block myself. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user notyfied Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amp873

Amp873 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user immediately returned from a block for disruptive editing (particularly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) to edit war. He was block because he's pushing a point of view without any talk, and edit warring ad nauseum. See the most recent thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#User:Amp873. Please note he's blanked his talk, so the warnings are in the history. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second view, it looks like the editor just plopped a lot of tags on the page, no block is warranted (I misread the diff, was busy elsewhere...). It's disruptive for sure, but probably not immediately warranting a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to reopen this to note this user's most recent colorful contribution. We're really not dealing with a productive or useful editor here, IMO. I reverted the tag-blasting at Conscription too, for the record. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam bombardment?

Could someone please check out an apparent linkspam blitz by User:Aardvarkzz? Note that all of their recently added cites are essentially identical, and all point to Variety Obituaries, which is a set of books. That article was created by the same user and includes an external link to Amazon to buy the books. What caught my attention was that they are placing those pseudo-obituary cites at the beginning of the lead - totally out of place. They should all be reverted ASAP. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references should probably be checked, but they don't appear to be spam; these are being used as references in all of the examples I checked on the user's contributions lists, to reference articles of dead people. The references could use a clean-up, but I see no reason to believe this is anything other than a good-faith contribution to the project. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I notice the exact same pattern with many other, 1st-sentence in lead, cites, but these all pointing to Harrison's Reports and Film Reviews. That article was also created by the same user, and also includes an external link to the "Variety" books. The summary notes for those additions is shown as "HAR." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an external link to the Variety books in that article, only a wikilink. And all of the references I looked at on the user's contrib list showed wikilinks as well, though that is not ideal so the references should be cleaned up to provide an external link to an online version of the text being referenced, if possible. All in all I don't see an issue here; the user is adding what seems to be reliable citations to articles lacking citations for individuals' date of death. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The user has a history of positive contributions to Wikipedia and there is no reason to believe that he is spamming. MER-C 13:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re User:Giftiger wunsch's comment that "user is adding what seems to be reliable citations to articles lacking citations for individuals' date of death," is wrong on both points. A wikilink to an article about a set of books is not a valid citation; a high percentage of the articles already had a "death" section or relevant substance with proper citations. It takes seconds to find examples: i.e. Béla Lugosi, which had a "death" section, and a NY Times cite and real link. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He added citations which referenced previously unreferenced statements, in every case that I looked at. That's a fact. These were not external links; that's also a fact. Finally, the important part of the reference is providing enough information to identify the source; that's policy. In the cases I saw, that was listing a series of books, the date of publication, and a page number. That's enough information for the source to be identified and for the citation to be removed. I suggest familiarising yourself better with policy before flatly accusing me of being "wrong on both points". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "unreferenced statements" as in Alfred Hitchcock's 1st sentence? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed these being and had some of the concerns that Wikiwatcher1 has expressed. Now that I have examined things a little more deeply here are a few items to be aware of.

The cites are being added to the lead section and I have yet to find a "CN" tag that they are replacing. Thus to determine whether the item is unreferenced one needs to read the entire article.
The dates and page numbers are referring to the specific issue of Variety where the obit appeared and not a page number from the Variety Obituaries that the link currently leads to. Now that makes sense the the collections contain facsimile editions of the original obit. But, it could be argued that the link should go to the page for Variety and not the page for obit collections.
If you read this edit summary [60] you will see that the main reason that User:Aardvarkzz is adding the citations is so that his page about the obit collections won't be an orphaned article.

While I don't think that Aardvarkzz is intentionally spamming I also don't think that these "refs" add anything to an article - unless there was no confirmation of a death date in it previously. MarnetteD | Talk 20:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, this User: Wikiwatcher1 flagrantly violated the rule stated in boldface at the top of this page
Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.
User: Wikiwatcher1 initiated this totally unnecessary commotion without having the courtesy or decency to first discuss the matter with me. Furthermore,

The straightforward facts are these: I have some, but not all, of the Variety Obituaries reprints. I found the other reprint volumes at a library and created a page for this encyclopedic series of articles about notable people. For selected extremely famous people (less than 1% of all entries in the reprints), I have entered citations to those obituaries, including the original page in Variety newspaper, where known. In some cases, the Variety obituaries are the ONLY citation on a biographical page. Each citation can be used to find the article either in Variety newspaper or in the Variety Obituaries reprints. The practical decision was to link them to the reprints, which libraries are far more likely to have than the original newspaper.

Eventually I will place facts from those obituaries on the pages of deceased entertainment celebrities. At that time, the citations may be moved to a more relevant place on the biographical pages. In the meantime, the only issue should be whether the citations are accurate (if not, they can be corrected) or complete (if not, add the necessary information to them).Aardvarkzz (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notice, as you know, was posted as a subsection under the preexisting "Variety cites" in your talk page. The first questioner stated part of the issue, and your response was a weak rationalization. So the issue was noted and your response was made - the matter was discussed. Linkspam should be watched for more dilegently to avoid gaming the system - not just Wikipedia's, but the Internet itself! Apparently, few others agree that the added WL pseudo-cite, as in Alfred Hitchcock (plus 1,000 more!) was totally improper. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg

Posting here because I posted in the proper place and got little to no response. Could someone please close this delist nomination? The consensus was fairly clear (five in favour of delisting, two in favour of retention), but Papa Lima Whiskey (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to invent new rules (diff one) and edit war (diff two and diff three) to keep the nomination open, despite the fact it has been open for its allotted two weeks. Recently there was a very clear consensus in favour of having strict time limits and rejecting any vote made after the time-limit was over, and this has been followed to a tee, until now. No, I admit I didn't immediately notify the (retired) creator, but neither did anyone else, and that doesn't give people the right to change rules, especially when it conveniently means they can keep nominations for delisting open when they don't like the outcome they've reached. I really don't want to fight about this, but it's not fair that PLW's bringing it upon himself to do this. PLW has a strong history of making up his own rules and unilaterally enforcing them, this wouldn't be the first time he has caused upset. I'm not asking anyone to block him (though, if you want to help everyone...) I just want someone to close this bloody discussion. This does not need some kind of fancy "compromise", nor does it need "OMG IAR"- I can see about twenty things "helpful" people will try to do. Just close it and delist the picture, as that's what should have been done days ago. J Milburn (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Vandalism 2

For a while now i've been feeling usure about User:STEF1995S's articles regarding the RT 100. He created a few related new articles (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) which are literally based on nothing (there's no reliable source in there); also, he "updated" the main article with false chartings (again without having any sources). I and a fellow Romanian writer warned him several times (1 & 2 & 3), but he's not going to stop. There's no point in his work - he created several articles for tops that don't even exist. We've reverted his edits several times but he just keeps on returning and "updating". Someone's got to stop him, please! Lucian C. (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other than your opinion, can you point to something concrete that shows that the facts s/he is entering are false? I'd like at least a diff and a contradictory source. I do see where KWW ask him/her to improve sourcing of that material. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to be referencing a website for years (pre-2009, back to 1999) which the website doesn't on first inspection actually have data for.

That is sort of suspicious. Not concrete, though. Actual evidence of false info would be better... Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

In Romania we have just an official chart - Romanian Top 100 - and there are no other tops such as dance/rock/r&b; anyone can google it and see there's no such thing. Why should i try bringing counterarguments if there's no argument to prove his work's real? 90% of his articles are sourceless and where there are indeed some references, they're upon the RT100 website (where you can see the real thing). STEF1995S extracts the dance/R&B/rock tracks from this top and makes his own charts. It's pointless even discussing about it. Lucian C. (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Toddst1, you're asking to proove that something DOESN'T exist? The only site that mentions one of his creations [let's say the pop chart] is Wikipedia - [61]. Even if there was a chart [there isn't, but I'm just saying] it wouldn't meet the criteria for notability [still, it doesn't exist]. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want this problem to be resolved, not buried in the archieves! Lucian C. (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest? You can put'em up for deletion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let User:STEF1995S just get away with it? He hasn't even been warned 4 all those things. (he's gonna return with all those "updates") Lucian C. (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be concerned (for now) who gets away with what; you might have noticed that I explicitly invited him to join this discussion. Meanwhile -- what do you think is the best way to deal with these articles? Delete? Sort it out by editing? Or something else? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the administrator, you tell me. The articles must be deleted; let's pretend that right now i'll start writing an article about the flying snake - would you try figuring out if there is indeed such thing or delete it? Lucian C. (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading portrait of editors as "spokesman" and "committee members" on an article on the Independent

Paul Bignell and Matthew Bell (2010-08-29). "Wikipedia springs 'Mousetrap' ending". The Independent.
David Gerard (talk · contribs) 2007-06-09 13:18:35 edit
Cyclopia (talk · contribs) 2009-11-13 13:40:29 edit
88.106.151.183 (talk · contribs) 2010-04-19 11:58:09 edit

(First of all: I don't know what is the correct venue for this, so if someone can point at the right one, thanks -ANI is the best approximation I know). Well, an article just appeared on The Independent about our WP:SPOILER guideline, in reference to the Agatha Christie play The Mousetrap: [62]. The only thing that makes me uneasy is that a comment of mine is reported as one of a "Wikipedia spokesman" and another comment as one of an "approved Wikipedia committee member". It is painfully obvious to us that both editors are nothing of this sort, but I don't know how should we react to correct such misrepresentation of the WP process. I was tempted to write them, but I am not sure it will help at all. What action course would you suggest? --Cyclopia ^talk 11:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask your 500 dollar an hour lawyer to write to them explaining that you have no official involvement with the project and that you speak only for yourself when you comment and are responsible and liable only for your own edits and additions to articles.Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's put up a charity to get me a lawyer then! --Cyclopia^talk 12:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless there has been a request from a legal source to the foundation to release your details I imagine you as yet have nothing to worry about. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's pretty obvious. I am more concerned about the misrepresentation of the WP process than anything else. --Cyclopia^talk 13:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Users should take care not to misrepresent their position here at wikipedia and not assert any authority they haven't got, often users refer to the wikipedia as we do this and we do that, this can be misleading to uninvolved readers. Perhaps you could add a disclaimer to your user page. This user has no official position of authority at Wikipedia and is legally responsible and liable only for his own contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's daft. Should we all add such disclaimers, for the benefits of journalists who don't take in Wikipedia:Press Kit, Wikipedia:Contact us, or foundation:Press/Contact/Regional/Language? Come now! It's not as if journalists don't know how large charity organizations run by volunteers work, and that a volunteer talking to another volunteer is not a press release from an official spokesperson. Wikipedia's model is not a first, and not unique. Journalists don't pop into their local Oxfam shops and report the conversations among the people staffing the checkout as "official committee member" statements. And Oxfam volunteers don't need to permanently wear "I don't speak for Oxfam, even when I use the word 'we'." badges for the edification of such journalists. This isn't about Cyclopia misrepresenting xyrself in the least, nor even about 88.106.151.183 mis-representing xyrself. This is just a digression. Cyclopia didn't even use the plural. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well User:Cyclopia did use the we word when he said this bold statement, "So it is spoiled. Why should we care? We are an encyclopedia. We report information. If you don't like spoilers, don't read encyclopedic articles about fiction works"...edit summary.. "why should we care?"... - As I see it there is nothing as such in regards to the article in need of any action, no wikipedia editor is named in the article. I see this as a highlighting opportunity for the bigger picture for individual users to remember to bear in mind their personal legal position as regards their contributions here at the wikipedia.Also for users to remember, if you want to be bold and authoritative and not give a damn then down the line your bold comments could come back to bite you. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you are completely missing the point in favour of some quite irrelevant agenda. Two people are specifically identified by their writing in the piece. The edits are listed at the top of this very section, complete with their timestamps for goodness' sake. This isn't about an "opportunity for individual users" of your invention. This is about journalists who have their facts about Cyclopia and 88.106.151.183 quite wrong, who have misrepresented their status and (in the case of 88.106.151.183) have rather selectively quoted what they wrote; and what Cyclopia (and 88.106.151.183) can do about that. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The plural is accurate, since I spoke, in that edit, as a part of a community. We are, indeed, an encyclopedia: this encyclopedia is made from a community, and when reporting what is the working/opinion of the community, the plural is OK. But this doesn't make a "spokesman" of myself, unless everyone of us can be considered a spokesman. I don't care about me, I just find it the N-th amusing display of journalists' incompetency, but I don't think the Wikimedia foundation is happy to see random editors being considered spokespeople. I came here reporting the situation because the article encourages misunderstanding of our processes and our positions, and it would be nice if we can find a way to rectify. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You are an individual with no authority here at wikipedia at all, the idea that the plural is correct is a total fallacy in your imagination. You also seem to not give a damn about issues and not care about anything, which is not a position or reflection that I personally would not want to be associated with. so you don't speak for me and many other contributors when you assert your we. Personally I do care and I do give a damn about peoples good faith issues with content at wikipedia and I want to be part of a community that does give a damn. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You are an individual with no authority here at wikipedia at all: Yes, correct.
        the idea that the plural is correct is a total fallacy in your imagination.: It isn't. It reports what our WP:SPOILER guideline reports, and it reports what our core policies report. I said that we are an encyclopedia, that we report information, and that the fact it is spoiled doesn't tell us immediately why should we care about. If you, Off2riorob, disagree with us being an encyclopedia, perhaps you misunderstand what WP is for, not me. And no, I care about a whole lot of things: I don't see why should I care about that specific problem. And I give a damn about good faith issues, trust me, otherwise I wouldn't even bother answering. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You shouldn't be suprised when people believe you don't give a damn when you say comments such as - "So it is spoiled. Why should we care? We are an encyclopedia. We report information. If you don't like spoilers, don't read encyclopedic articles about fiction works"...edit summary.. "why should we care?"..Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The irony here is that if journalists Paul Bignell and Matthew Bell had done their research and checked their facts, they would have found David Gerard, who not only is a (volunteer) press contact for the Wikimedia Foundation, but was actually one of the prime movers in the 2007 spoiler warning removal discussions too. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Writing to them will do no good. I'm sure the journalists know full well that you are not the Wikipedia spokesman. But referring to you as such makes things more palatable to their editor. Journalists do not let accuracy get in the way of telling a story. Deli nk (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you are acquainted with Fox News and Canada's Sun Media... Resolute 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You'd be a fool to think Fox News and Sun Media are worse than any other. Deli nk (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "committee member" refers to the m:Communications committee. I know that David Gerard is or was on it. I don't know about the others and don't feel like checking. I don't know whether calling them spokespeople is perfectly accurate but it's not completely bogus. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point that Bignell and Bell did not talk about David Gerard, or even mention him. They said that 88.106.151.183 was the "approved Wikipedia committee member". Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we care? If someone is unhappy with how they or one of their pseudonyms were mentioned in a newspaper article they should complain to the newspaper.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps because Cyclopia is here asking for help and advice on that very thing? Read this section from the top, again. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. Allow me to provide unambiguous advice. Cyclopia or anyone else concerned with the content of an article in the Independent should contact the Independent. The easiest route is a letter to the editor. The one to have the most impact is direct contact with the reporter himself. I suggese if they care they write a letter to the reporter, explaining their error. Whatever they do, there's nothing to be done here.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, but I am not unhappy about myself, I am more worried about the general misunderstanding of how WP works. I think that what's to be done "here" is that someone (this time for real) officially speaking for WP took the time to tap the Independent's shoulder and tell them that random editors are not "spokespeople". I think it's a problem for WP in its entirety if the basics of our workings are distorted so heavily in the press. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats exactly the point, if a user speaks in such a way they have not the support of the foundation for those comments and should be prepared to defend themselves and not assume the wikipedia is like some kind of safety umbrella that will back them up, in his comment user Cyclopia speaks for himself alone.Off2riorob (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a misunderstanding. I don't want to be backed up. I need no safety umbrella. I have no problem with the article, apart from the daily dose of facepalms. What I am trying to do is telling WP "hey, WP, you have a problem: newspapers are misrepresenting editors like they were your spokespeople. Shouldn't you take action to correct them?". I have no problem: WP has a problem, in my opinion, with that article. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some individual users don't give a damn and support publishing everything and being confrontational that is their individual position and they should individually be prepared to defend that position if they are involved in real life legal disputes and claims such as this.Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I already understood that. Now read what I posted above, and if you wish, reply to that. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was always taught to turn it around and not to put the blame out try it, don't ask how that newspaper misrepresented you but, how have you misrepresented wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man bites dog, Off2riorob. I heavily doubt Cyclopia's misrepresented Wikipedia. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively you could run with this, instead of complaining about it. A major national newspaper has described you - unfortunately without actually naming you - as one of Wikipedia's spokesmen, so there's at least one reliable citation in your favour. Phone them up and explain to them that you are, in fact, Wikipedia's European press relations officer, and offer them an interview. Don't forget to use your real name! Include a flattering photograph. You could parlay this into a career on television, articles for the Independent itself, the sky is your oyster. Some people will grumble that you don't actually have an official sanction; just ignore them, no-one in the press understands or ultimately cares how Wikipedia works. Think of the money. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an "uninvolved" admin

Resolved

– sock with a grudge Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that this or this did not need to be removed. It just seems inappropriate that an admin that is pushing hard on the COM issue, is removing comments by the subject or others that may not be in their interest. Thank you in advance for consideration. 211.138.124.252 (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem other than logging out to make posts on ANI. Seems like you're either abusing the IP or are already blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there's an interesting outburst of obvious socks since User:Freakshownerd's blocking - seemingly either him or sympathisers. User:Overturn_deletion_to_censure_Tarc! messes with an FSN DRV (and a CoM-like outburst on his talk page, now deleted), and User:K. Hausen Maem pops up with a boringly familiar misrepresentation of the FSN block saga. [63] Hm. Rd232 ^talk 15:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be collapsed per WP:DENY? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a part of a long-running pattern of abuse, so I'd hope that some light will remain shined on this. Note Overturn and censure Tarc (talk · contribs) (similar to the above, minus the exclamation point) from about a month ago. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone look at this please?

[64] This FAQ is unlike anything I would expect Wikipedia to have. Maybe it is needed? Cat clean (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Nevermind it has some helpful information. Cat clean (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual, but then again so is the subject matter of the article. Have you raised this on the article's talk page? Otherwise, there is no reason to bring this here. — Coren ^(talk) 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there has been a lot of bad calls on adding this information on biographies so I posted at the Biography noteboard and some editors have been helping clean off the problems. I agree it is tough subject matter but that article uses some bad sourcing to add names. Cat clean (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV and potential vandalism on the Alvin C. York article

There seems to be a new ip editor who has been making a lot of edits to the Alvin C. York article. Although some of the information this IP has been adding "might" be useful for the article this users lack of WP knowledge has caused a lot of damage to the article. I would like to request that this article be restricted for editing by experienced editors to reduce the harmful edits that have been occurring. --Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to where it was on Aug 24 so the anon user can add his material more slowly and get help with the wiki markup for their sources. Hope this helps. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on my watchlist for a long time, but I confess that I don't watch it closely because I don't have the time or interest to keep track of the various conflicts and POV issues that crop up there on a frequent basis. IMO, it would be a good candidate for the "pending changes" program. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and I agree that putting it on the pending changes list is a good compromise. This will allow the anon IP editor to contribute in a way that will allow more seasoned WP editors to constructively guide the editor. I have reviewed the edits and it doesnt appear to me that the editor is being malicious, they just don't understand the rules of WP. --Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed the request for "pending changes protection" so any changes or additions can be easily vetted. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xeworlebi

User has reverted many edits on List of Hellcats episodes and List of V (2009 TV series) episodes while putting very vague edit summaries. We have discussed the V episode list here. Furthermore, after I try to improve the ariticle(s) on many acounts, the user simply just reverts my edits. I can see this being an opinionated issue, and therefore the main issue with these revisions was only the overview table in both articles.

Begoon suggested many things regarding the issue, one of which was to open a discussion, which I did do: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Series Overview. After I did this, I went on from the V episode list to edit the Hellcats episode list, not knowing that the same user would be a (main) contributor there. I also went ahead and removed the overview (seeing this as far more redundant than the V episode list one). Suddenly we are now in a edit war over this episode list. In order to try and come up with some solution, I suggested that we remove that overview, after he reverted it, until there is more information and then discuss what we can do (maybe time could solve the problem). He reverted that, and another user, who was banned for similar activity on multiple other articles comes in and contributes to the edit war. Finally, I start a conversation on his talkpage, hoping maybe we can try talking again. However, instead of a response there, I get a warning for edit-warring on my talk page.

Are there any opinions/help that I (we) can get? ChaosMaster_Chat 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user has now responded on his talk page and has reported me for edit warring. ChaosMaster_Chat 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this user (ChaosMaster16) has been reported for excessive edit-warring (6 reverts under 2 hours) here. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at List of V (2009 TV series) episodes you both look involved. I don't know who started this protracted edit warring, I'm not even sure what it's about. I see a short discussion on eachother's talk page about the edit waring, but no discussion of the substantive changes. The analysis on List of Hellcats episodes is harder because there's a user that's been making unexplained factual changes and has been blocked. But there are similar warring going on at that page as well.

This is better resolved at the edit warring noticeboard, and there's a discussion there now. You both need to discuss this and come to some sort of agreement. At the very least, can you two identify what it is you disagree on? (Cross posting this message to other discussion). Shadowjams (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user:Xenophrenic and Tea Party movement

Xenophrenic is misusing sources on the Tea Party movement article. I originally posted the basic issue here but in the interim I have added some clarrification to the section to accurately reflect the sourcing that is being used.

Consider the following section which Xenophrenic prefers. It contains a patently untrue statement which is not backed up by the study which is being cited. (emphasis mine)

A number of polls have also been conducted to examine Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. According to the CBS/New York Times poll, 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with just 11% of the general public and are more likely to believe President Obama was born outside the United States. [77] 74% of Tea Party supporters agree with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it."[79][80]

The highlighted sentence does not make the distinction that the survey was of Washington State Tea Party Supporters. The sourcing for the section does not really make it clear either, and to be fair Prof. Matt Barreto and Prof. Christopher Parker do an absolutely terrible job of pointing this out either. However from the actual poll you can clearly see that this is a poll of Washington State voters. I don't think that this poll should be used for the reasons stated at the NPOV messageboard, however if it is to be in there in any capacity then it must be noted from who the poll was taken. The implication from the text as Xenophrenic has selected is that the poll is representative of Tea Party Supporters throughout the US. I am awaiting some response on the NPOV messageboard regarding the issue in general, but in the meantime can we at least not misuse polling statistics to make an inference which is not supported by the study itself.

As Chistopher Parker stated himself regarding the other similar poll (this was a seven state poll also in the Tea Party Article) at 538.com link

Question to Parker - 5. Pulling it all together, what can we safely and confidently conclude about those who identify with the tea party movement and those who do not? Are their attitudes fundamentally different from other whites, from the American population as a whole, and if so, how so?

One way in which to view these preliminary results is that we should remain cautious, and not jump to firm conclusions. I say this, first, because the sampling frame I use differs from, say, recent polls conducted by Pew, Qunnipiac, the Washington Post, and USA Today/Gallup. Indeed, my results are relevant only to the states in which the survey was conducted, four of which (NV, MO, GA, and NC) voted for the Republican presidential candidate in at least seven of the last ten election cycles. Perhaps this is why my results appear at variance with national polls.

Editors on this page continue to use these polls and word them in a way to imply that they are representative of the entire movement. They usually claim that the sources that mention the studies don't make the clear distinction that Parker does above, but that does not change the fact that it is not correct. I understand that WP is not here to fix great wrongs but when the author of the study himself makes the statement it is only prudent that we correctly report on what they found, not misrepresent the findings for political purposes. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User notified. Arzel (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this not a content dispute? What admin action is being requested? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 604: / Line 604: @@
 :::::Hi John.  While I didn't raise this issue, or any of the issues others I've witnessed on this noticeboard, there's actually been plenty of edits throughout the history of the article and other areas of WP that I believe have been in violation of various rules.  For example, there have been many claims as to my whereabouts, as well as my living conditions, as well as my political views.  There have also been personal attacks against me and my organization and a wide variety of false allegations.  I'm not seeking any drama, but I do believe I have a right to counter the problems I have been witnessing on this platform over the years.  Despite your claims that I'm seeking attention, I've actually tried to keep myself not notable and have tried to keep personal details about myself to a bare minimum.  I've even turned down huge media opportunities in order to protect my privacy and security.  With regard to you the link you provided, and contrary to your claims, the media coverage of the JIDF [http://www.google.com/search?q=JIDF&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=nws:1,cd_min:2010,cd_max:2010,cdr:1&source=lnt has been fairly steady].  --[[User:DavidAppletree|DavidAppletree]] ([[User talk:DavidAppletree|talk]]) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 ::Look at the light side. DavidAppletree, to judge by the day and the way it's been spent, can't be him. Far too much ''melakha'', sitting out there bashing away on a computer keyboard. Must have roped in a [[Shabbos goy]]. :)[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
+:::::i don't see the humour here. this personal attack should be deleted. nishidani has had a fair share of action in the israel-arab conflict on wikipedia to know better than provoking other editors. [[Special:Contributions/174.112.83.21|174.112.83.21]] ([[User talk:174.112.83.21|talk]]) 22:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 :::I have never claimed to be an observant Jew.  I rest on Shabbos in my own way.  I hope to be more observant again, one day.  --[[User:DavidAppletree|DavidAppletree]] ([[User talk:DavidAppletree|talk]]) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 ::::So serious! Well, it's late here, so I must decline Ночь-мужик.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 21:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards