Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

BLP edit warring on British Jews

British Jews has been the subject of much contention this week, due to a dispute over the BLP-worthiness of categorizing Ed Miliband as a British Jew. I considered reporting this to WP:ANEW, but given the potential BLP concerns and the behavior of the parties involved, I think the complexity of the issue merits a report here, instead. Here's the (rather long) timeline:

Tl;dr version: There are four or five parties, all established editors, edit warring repeatedly over the inclusion of a BLP mention in British Jews.

11 August: Youreallycan (talk · contribs) removes Miliband from the list with the edit summary "Removing Ed Milliband from the infobox - he is not even in the catagory British Jew". Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) reverts YRC ("rv edits not rooted in Wikipedia policies/guidelines.") 12 August: YRC re-removes Miliband ("Ed Milliband is a living person that is not even in the catagory British Jew - is clearly not notable as a british Jew - open a RFC") Nomoskedasticity re-reverts ("I thought you weren't editing articles") YRC and Nomoskedasticity go for ("As per my commentsd - living person that is not even in the BLP cat British Jew") another ("is this really the right time for you to get into an edit-war??") round ("POv pushing BLP violator") Viriditas (talk · contribs) joins in the reverting ("Take it to the talk page"). He is reverted by YRC ("BLP - you open a discuasiohn - the subject is not even in the wiki cat British Jew so does not belong in the infobox here") Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs) reverts ("No basis in policy for this deletion."). YRC reverts his revert ("BLP - the subject is living and we have not even catagorised him as a British Jew - so there clearly needs discussion in regars to this disputed addion"). Viriditas files an ANEW report against YRC. A few minutes later, I full-protect the article for two days. On the ANEW report Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) enjoins YRC from editing "British Jews, List of British Jews, Ed Milliband, or any related page" until the (mostly unrelated) Arbcom request against YRC has been resolved. Since the page has been protected and YRC told to not edit related articles, Black Kite (talk · contribs) closes the report with no further action. About ten minutes after the ANEW report is closed, Viriditas opens a discussion of the issue at Talk:British_Jews#Removal_of_Miliband. 12 August - 15 August: With the article full-protected, extensive discussion about the issue goes on at [[Talk:British_Jews; however, neither side apparently convinces the other. 15 August: After the full-protection wears off, Nomoskedasticity returns Ed Miliband to the list ("per talk page discussion") Reverted by Snowded (talk · contribs) ("No consensus for change") Revert reverted by Viriditas ("Actually, there is a clear consensus for restoring the image and not a single argument explaining why we shouldn't") In the course of three consecutive edits, YRC reverts ("not - no consensus - that it is clearly still disputed and about a living Marxist athiest brought up in a secular family being tagged and promoted as a notable British Jew") I notice the revert-warring, but then see that the argument seems to have moved on to the talk page. I decide that perhaps the combatants have realized they were doing it again, and decided to go the disucssion route rather than the edit-warring route. 16 August: Turns out I was wrong. Gabriel Stijena (talk · contribs) reverts YRC ("you need a consensus on talk page for removing these pics") Snowded reverts Gabriel ("There has never been consensus on the talk page to add them, please wait until its resolved") Viriditas reverts Snowded ("On the contrary, I see an overwhelming consensus. Objecting for the sake of objecting while ignoring consensus is disruptive") Snowded reverts Viriditas ("Four editors four and three against is neither overwealming nor is it a concensus. stop edit warring,") Nomoskedasticity reverts Snowded ("rv per WP:OR, the obvious basis for Snowded's editing here") Discussion continues on the talk page, but no one is getting anywhere.

Given the possible BLP concerns here, as well as the length and breadth of the edit warring over time and number of users, I think this whole situation needs more scrutiny. Full-protection didn't get the message across, and blocking any of these users would presumably be contentious enough that one admin shouldn't do it without consulting others, so I'm now opening up what should be done to community discussion. (Please also note that YRC is currently undergoing an RfC which will most likely end in him agreeing to restrictions including a time-limited editing break, followed by (among other things) a time-limited topic ban on BLPs. This fact may or may not affect community opinion of how to deal with the British Jews situation) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Messy but not a record. The YRC RFc/U should not enter into this discussion -- it has not been closed at this point, and it is unreasonable to use bills of attainder in any case <g>. What we have is a categorisation dispute - and there is no really perfect noticeboard to resolve such an issue. My own position is that categorisation of living persons is fraught with peril, and that if there is any dispute, that such categorisation should be deprecated from the start. I suppose this might lead to the "wrong result" in some cases, but I suggest that there is no harm in not categorising a living person, while there is conceivable harm in categorising a living person. Advantage: not categorising. Collect (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's time the consensus at the RFC was weighed up etc, not many more comments look forthcoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• At the core it's still a content dispute; why not push suggest the involved parties towards dispute resolution? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of where one stands on the issue, I think most would agree that categorizing subjects as Jewish is an ongoing, contentious issue. The British Jews article is just a macrocosm of that problem. Frankly, I don't think there's any good way to deal with it generally, or at least not any way that would be approved by consensus. For the current issue, just get rid of the gallery in the infobox. If that's unacceptable to the community, then require that any person listed in the infobox be categorized as Jewish on their page. If whether they should be so categorized is in dispute, until that dispute is resolved, they can't be placed in the British Jews article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Second that - common sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that YRC does not accept that anybody should be described as a British Jew: "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself". As someone who identifies as a British Jew, I obviously do not agree with this assessment, which I find personally offensive. But, regardless of my own views, this position does suggest that YRC should not be involved in such edits, since he appears to regard his own (minority) view as more important than Wikipedia guidelines and talkpage consensus. RolandR (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a discussion on how we deal with the article, or just another excuse to have a go at YRC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is ANI a place to discuss how to deal with an article? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a discussion on how we deal with the article, or just another excuse to have a go at YRC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Of course it's a discussion on the article. If YRC believes that the description, or self-description, of a person as a British Jew is "racist in itself", then it is very hard to see how he can be editing objectively and in good faith on the article British Jews. RolandR (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see little evidence of 'objectivity' or 'good faith' in many others involved in the discussion either. Yes, it is possible to cherry-pick a rather silly comment by YRC to 'demonstrate' his lack of neutrality - would you like me to see what I can find from the 'other side'? Or would it instead be better to move ahead, and act on Bbb23s proposal? I've seen no arguments against so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, as far as I'm concerned the reason for this thread is that there's some serious disruption - by multiple people - going on on that article. It's based on a content dispute, yes, but the content isn't the problem I want to see addressed. What I want to see addressed is that no matter what the cause of it is, we need the disruption to stop. And I'm fresh out of good ideas for how to make that happen smoothly, so I'm hoping other people will weigh in here with ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, any other user would have been blocked on hitting 5RR in the space of just over an hour. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23's proposal would make a good topic for an RfC. I don't agree that ANI is the place to adopt it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@Roland - "Part of the problem here is that YRC does not accept that anybody should be described as a British Jew" - I said, (and that comment was part of a talkpage discussion and should not be presented as a single comment like that) "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself" - I don't agree with that at all - I meant, to focus on race is racist in itself - you are taking the wrong interpretation of my comment, I didn't mean in a negative way at all - There are many other people that have stronger ties and connections that I do accept we can describe them as British Jews , British Sikhs etc - but Miliband is a Marxist atheist born in England and brought up in a secular family - I think its undue to add his picture to the infobox of the British Jew article under such a situation - he is not even in the British Jew category after discussion and sensitive consideration/discussion he was placed in the British people of Jewish descent. Its clearly a disputed and contentious issue/portrayal - users should find someone less contentious to add and stop stuffing him back in. - Youreallycan 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewishness is not a race. I have suggested several times that if you are not inclined to learn properly about Jewishness and Judaism it would be constructive to leave related topics to people who do understand them. Part of the disruption we are now experiencing is that you have declined to learn and yet continue to edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So - if its not a race and hes a Marxist Atheist brought up in a secular family then he clearly does not belong in the infobox of a Wiki British Jew article does he - Is it contentious/disputable, is he a living person - Yes, yes, yes - so stop stuffing him back in. - Youreallycan

The concept you are clearly unfamiliar with is ethnicity. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, can we try to not re-litigate the content dispute here? What would it take to get you all to stop reverting? Would you be willing to go to the WP:DRN or mediation? Would you be willing to open an RfC on the issue? My main concern here is the the revert-churn on that article has to stop, so what resolution methods could we send you to that would enable you all to stop reverting? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Category - British Jew (Ethnic group) - perhaps clarification is required. - They have stuffed him in anyways - contentious or not and I certainly won't be editing the article again anyways - if they like a Secular Marxist Atheist that much let them keep him - this is exactly the problem and the BLP violation through adding him to the infobox - its not clear that he is being added to an article about an ethnic group only - have a read - there are clear issues and its vague - in this article British Jews, Ethnic/Ethnicity is not mentioned at all in the lede. Youreallycan 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ed* Milliband a Marxist? Eh? Secretlondon (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ralph, his father, was reliably noted as such AFAICT in a large number of places. [1] may or may not be sufficient to label Ed an "atheist." It is a better source for calling David an atheist. It is certainly not usable to assert Jewshness to Ed per BLP standards. Collect (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't enough, for he has not said, "I am an atheist". He has said "I don't believe in God". There are reliable survey statistics showing that the majority of people who do not believe in God do not self-identify as atheists, but prefer another label like "agnostic" or "uninterested in religion". Per BLPCAT, we have to go by self-identification, and until and unless Miliband says "I am an atheist" we do not have any grounds for attributing that self-identification to him. --JN466 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: YRC has decided to begin his one-month editing break, BLP topic ban, etc as of now(ish), so he won't be contributing to this thread or the article in question for the foreseeable future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why this should be an issue because all the sources on the Talk:British Jews page seem to support that Ed Miliband is Jewish. In fact no source indicating otherwise has been presented. Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've presented a bunch of sources illustrating the difficulty. They are reproduced below. I note that British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom ... if we redirected British Jews to Judaism in the United Kingdom, then Miliband would be gone straight away. Alternatively, if we were to move the article to Britons of Jewish descent, I'd have no problem including Miliband. JN466 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your sources don't illustrate any difficulty at all. Here's the diff of my response on the article talk page (which is surely where this discussion belongs). Anyway, why on earth would we redirect British Jews to Judaism in the UK?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Because British Muslims redirects to Islam in the United Kingdom? You do realise that putting Miliband in the infobox of British Jews is in some ways just as absurd as putting Salman Rushdie in the infobox for British Muslims? --JN466 22:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're not aware of the significant differences between Islam and Jewishness, perhaps you could make an effort to learn? The equivalence you're trying to make is just not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is Miliband's self-identification. And from the sources I've seen, including those below, he doesn't self-identify as a Jew, even as he acknowledges that his Jewish background is an important part of who he is. You may say that according to the Jewish perspective, he is and always remains a Jew, whether he practices Judaism or not. It matters diddlysquat. From the Catholic perspective, everyone baptised a Catholic is a Catholic forever – semel catholicus, semper catholicus – even if they loudly proclaim they are not, and instead aver they are Buddhist. The Catholic perspective on such a person is equally irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we wouldn't display such a person in the infobox of a British Catholics article on the strength of what Catholicism says. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, and it does not privilege culturally or religiously conditioned views that attribute identities to people against their will. Get over it. --JN466 23:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If differences or otherwise are irrelevant, then perhaps you could cease drawing equivalences. Once again, if self-identification is the only thing that matters, then we can go with what Miliband has said about himself, which leads quite directly to the conclusion that he is Jewish in the only way that matters. We might disagree on that matter, but I'm not the one who continues to make points and then say that they are irrelevant when challenged on them. I'm quite happy to stick to discussion on the basis of self-identification as policy requires. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jayen—you say "…from the sources I've seen […] he doesn't self-identify as a Jew…"[2] I disagree, and I believe the following constitutes self-identification:

"There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous."[3]

The above is an intact, whole paragraph from a reliable source containing a quite clear quote from Miliband. I think that it is obvious that Miliband is saying that he is a nonobservant Jew. As editors I think we should be careful not to misconstrue the phrase "I'm Jewish". It means "I'm Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have long given up the idea that there is any point talking to you about this issue. As far as I am concerned, you should be topic-banned from categorisation disputes, and anything similar, and I'll be making a proposal to that effect below. JN466 15:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad someone brought the matter here it is a behavioural issue, I don't know whey the content is being discussed again. I attempted to summarise the position here. There are two questions, one is the ethnicity one and the other is if Millibrand should be listed. If the ethnicity question can be sourced (ie Judaism is about birth etc. etc) then the question still stands as to if someone who has declared (and whose parents declared) that they were no longer practicing counts as representative of British Jews to the point of being one of six people selected. I only got involved in this issue very recently (having come from another ANI thread) but it is impossible to get any discussion going. At no stage has there being any consensus for the inclusion of Millibrand. As of last night four editors were for, three against and as of this morning there are more against. Despite that, three editors Nomoskedasticity, Veriditas and Bus Stop have persistently inserted him variously claiming an "Overwhelming consensus", or original research, or bias by other editors etc. If you look through the talk page you will see that the three editors mentioned will only engage on the ethnicity issue, they have persistently refused to discuss the consensus issue. Yesterday I suggested that if they were unhappy they should raise an RfC and that if they felt they could justify the accusations they were making against other editors they should bring it to ANI. Instead we just got another direct change to the article. On the content issue I think Jayen466 summarises it well above. ----Snowded ^TALK 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Snowded—can you show me any source suggesting that a person who is "no longer practicing"[4] is no longer considered a Jew? Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not for content issues Bus stop, or for repeating discussions that have already taken place ----Snowded ^TALK 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• An incident this morning (well on Singapore time which is where I am at the moment) illustrates my point that this is a behavioural issue. In response to my suggestion that four editors for inclusion and four against did not constitute a consensus for change, Viriditas stated "Wrong. No consensus on Wikipedia is determined by numbers, only by arguments, of which you and three others seem to have none". This is the same editor who also claimed an "overwhelming consensus" when the editor count was 4-3. I came to this article without any background in the issue following a link from the RfC case. I looked at the debate and added my opinion but it has been impossible to get any discussion of the issue other than a "He is Jewish the sources say it end of argument" type statements. Then every day or so one of the protagonists adds the picture claiming that they have won the argument. I think the issue of Jewishness as somehow different from all other religions in claiming ethnicity not belief needs examination and proper sourcing. That might be set up separately from the specific article. The issue of behaviour linked to consensus however is a stand alone issue ----Snowded ^TALK 02:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with the policy on consensus. It is not determined by a majority vote but by the quality of arguments. We rely on sources, not on personal opinions. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • And your position (to clarify) is that your and three others have advanced arguments of quality, while the four who oppose you have advanced none? Further that you can determine this and edit the article accordingly without an RfC, mediation or any of the other processes for dispute resolution?----Snowded ^TALK 04:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
      • My position is that your actions and the actions of others here in this regard, is no different than let's say, a group of trolls trying to create a local consensus contrary to our site-wide policies. You're not making arguments based on reliable sources, you're not following our policy on original research, and you aren't following our policy regarding living people, the two criteria of which (self-identifies as a Jew, relevant to the topic) are met. Now, I'm not saying you are trolling, but your behavior is virtually indistinguishable from a troll. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you for clarifying that. As I said, irrespective of how the two issues are resolved (ethnicity + inclusion in the montage), any resolution is prevented when editors take the position you have above and use it to justify edit warring. But that is for the community to resolve. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some sources to take into account

Extended Content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/9880/ Quote: The Jewish Telegraph in Manchester has reported that reaction to Ed Miliband's election as Labour leader was greeted by "stunned faces", noting concern over whether he may become the "first prime minister in recent history who could not be described as a friend of Israel". http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2010/10/01/miliband-not-a-friend-of-israel Quote: The Jewish community have reportedly offered a mixed reaction to the election of Ed Miliband to the Labour leadership. The Jewish Telegraph, based in the North of England, expressed a lukewarm image of Mr Miliband, who is from a Jewish background. Its leading article argued that he had "nailed his colours to the Palestinian mast" during a fringe event at the Labour party conference. It also claimed that he "has rarely publicly associated himself with... the Jewish community". 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/30/ed-miliband-north-jewish-reaction Quote: There is also recognition that for all the fame of his family's name he has "never identified with the British Jewish community". [...] "It's an aspect of the Miliband brothers which hasn't really come up in all the many discussions we've had with friends during the election. There have been plenty of opinions one way or the other, and I think quite a few people wonder if Labour has made the right choice. But their Jewishness hasn't really figured." One reason, suggests Neil Roland, an artist and photographer related to the Laski family, one of Manchester's great Jewish dynasties, could be that "Ed has very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things. He and David would not be where they are today without their Jewish background, but it is often the case that the ones from the community who make good in England, which really means making good in the secular world, are those who have given up the religious aspect." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-reveals-agenda-for-power-with-labour-and-a-personal-insight-6508358.html Quote: "Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense. I don't wish I had had a more religious upbringing but I have Jewish friends who were part of the Jewish community growing up, going to Jewish youth clubs and other things. I think I felt slightly jealous. My parents' community was the Left community." He does not think Britons mind whether politicians are religious or not, in contrast with America: "I think that's rather a good thing and it speaks well for us as a country." He does not regret having no faith to draw strength from. "No, because my belief comes from a set of values about the kind of society I believe in. It's a very strong part of who I am. Different people come to their politics from different vantage points. I think you can have equally strong politics." JN466 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of confusion here between Judaism as a religious belief, and Jewish as an ethnic/cultural category. As I noted above, I call myself as British Jew. I am also a Marxist and an atheist, and I see no contradiction there. It's not up to anyone else to tell me how to define myself. Similarly, if Ed Miliband, or anyone else, calls themselves a Jew, it's simply not our role to tell them "No, you are not". On the other hand, if someone does not call themselves a Jew, or specifically rejects such a description, it's not our role to insist that they are. We go by what reliable sources report, not by our own interpretation.

On another issue, YRC is unequivocally wrong. Ed Miliband is not a Marxist, and I very much doubt that anyone could find a reliable source stating that he is. In fact, if anyone produced a source making such a claim, I would straight away take it to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. In my opinion, making such a patently incorrect claim would automatically render the source unreliable. RolandR (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good analysis Roland, I agree entirely. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have frequently argued in these pages that labeling someone simply as "jew" is meaningless. Any such label must be accompanied by a description of in which sense they are consider themselves to be so.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that point -- but it's not quite the argument that others are making. The argument of some is that we can identify people as Jews only if they are Jewish in a religious sense (hence all the blather about not identifying Miliband as Jewish given that he is a Marxist atheist, non-practicing, etc). Our article on Miliband does in fact make clear in what sense he is Jewish -- but the issue now is that some object to including him in British Jews because he isn't religious, and that view requires a misunderstanding of what being Jewish means/can mean. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of categories for potentially complex issues like ethnicity, sexuality and gender identity basically misguided and should be abandoned. Somethings can be easily categorized (e.g. perhaps citizenship, and place of birth and other either/or type categories ). As it is used now those categories are is frequently more misleading than informative. And they tend to just become battlegrounds for different kinds of boosterism. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no devotion to categories; they are meant to be navigational aids, but I'm doubtful about their value in those terms, and I wouldn't oppose eliminating them. But again that's not what's at issue here, and doing away with categories wouldn't resolve the present dispute (re British Jews). If we insist on including in that article only people who are religious/practicing Jews, we would end up with an article that seriously misrepresents the topic of "British Jews". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not true, Nomo, at least not in my case. If I had seen a strong statement from Miliband somewhere that he identifies as a Jew – at least culturally as well as ethnically, even though he does not believe in God – I would have no problem having him there. It's just that there are so many statements about, from himself and others, Jewish and not, that he does not identify as a Jew, nor with the Jewish community, that he has "very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things", etc., that I feel it is us imposing the label on him when he has to some considerable extent rejected it. In addition, the article, British Jews, is at present heavily slanted towards the religious (rather than cultural or ethnic) meaning of the term, which compounds the problem. --JN466 15:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true of some. As for self-identification: once again, I agree that we should focus on that. If we do, then once again you're leading us astray: "very pointedly dismissed the Jewish side of things" is a quote from some photographer, not from Miliband himself. Others have provided above a number of statements from Miliband himself on this matter, so I won't burden the section by reproducing them again here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A statement from a biographer is exactly the best kind of source for summarising selfidentification. People often make conflicting statements during their lifetimes that can lead to different interpretations, if Milliband's biographers generally conclude that he has rejected a jewish identity then we cannot classify him as having such and identity - that would be OR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, which is it -- self-identification or biographers? Anyway, the person JN is quoting is hardly a Miliband biographer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some more things he said in the Jewish Chronicle, a little after he became Labour leader, and after criticisms of his stance from British Jews, incl. that he might be the first prime minister who was "not a friend of Israel":

He is keen to address this issue: “I consider myself as a friend of Israel... I have lots of relatives living in Israel. I admire many of the aims of the founders of Israel. I have absolutely no truck with people who question the legitimacy of Israel.

"But the reason I said what I said is that sometimes you have to be honest with your friends. As a friend of Israel you worry that some of the things the government has done haven’t necessarily promoted Israel’s long term interests. I mentioned the blockade and what happened with the flotilla, but just for the record, I absolutely condemn Hamas rocket attacks on civilians in Israel.”

I ask him why he didn’t you move more quickly to reassure the Jewish community? He concedes there is some bridge building to be done: “There is a task for me to get to know the Jewish community better as the leader of the Labour Party and it’s something that I take very seriously.

"And there’s a task for the community to get to know me.. I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country. I think it’s very important for me, whether I was Jewish or not, to put that on the record. And my door is very much open.”

Notwithstanding what he says in the JC about his own personal background and upbringing, the way he talks about "British Jews" there, and says "his door is open", it is not my impression that he felt like he was talking about his own community. He is, rather, talking about a community which he feels he, as a political leader, needs "to get to know better". People do not talk like this about their own community. Of course, it may be that as time goes by, he will indeed become closer to the Jewish community, and his self-identification will change. So I am always prepared to look at new sources, but as of now, I don't feel we have what it takes to support a "British Jew" categorisation, as opposed to a "Briton of Jewish descent" categorisation. JN466 16:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: User:Bus stop topic-banned from Jewish categorisation, broadly construed

It is my impression that User:Bus stop has been at the heart of innumerable conflicts around Jewish categorisation. He is listed as the most prolific contributor to Talk:Ed Miliband, and as far as I can tell practically all his or her contributions there are about whether Ed Miliband is Jewish (Off2riorob has a similar number of contributions to the talk page, even thirty more if you count contributions by the Youreallycan account, but then Rob actually took Ed Miliband to GA status). I remember even Jayjg telling Bus stop that they're being too reckless around these issues. It's my belief that the encyclopedia is better off if Bus stop is taken out of these disputes, and that there are other, more reasonable editors around who can champion views in his part of the POV spectrum. JN466 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. JN466 15:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- being a prolific contributor to a talk page is not a reason for a topic-ban. Personally, I find Bus-stop to be a pain in the ass (excessively verbose, repetitive, etc.) and it often pains me to find myself arguing for an outcome that he also favors (though typically on different grounds), but there is no reasonable case for a topic-ban here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you just made it. --JN466 16:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
    • If we banned everyone I thought was a pain in the ass, this would be a very small place. Bus-stop is not being disruptive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Being a constant pain in the ass on talk pages is disruptive because time dealing with editors who are a pain subtracts from time people have (or want to contribute) to work on articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, Bus stop is being disruptive. And banning that kind of behaviour would make this place more suitable for scholarly discourse. We can and need to become the platform where the best minds in the world will watch over the content. But that is not going to happen while Randy from Boisie is dominating the conversation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I have suggested this repeatedly in the past, as the result of multiple incidents. He is incapable of engaging in rational debate on the subject. He cherry-picks quotes out of context. He engages in endless WP:OR. He invents bogus terminology to try to get round policy. He drags topics off-topic at the merest provocation. For a typical example of this I recommend reading Talk:Adam Levine/Archive 1#Is it Wikipedia's job to assert that someone has a Jewish 'Identity'?, Talk:Adam Levine#Another source, and Talk:Adam Levine#Jewish, another source. Bus stop seems to be under the misapprehension that Wikipedia is a court of law, and we are here to make definitive statements regarding an individual's ethnicity. We aren't. That isn't our job. His endless disruption needs to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis of Bus-stop's style of behaviour, and agree it needs to change or be restrained by the community. It is our job to say as much as can be said about a person's beliefs and heritage that is relevant and not an unreasonable intrusion into their personal life. We are a kind of court of knowledge, and reasonable debate and our policies and guidelines are our tools. When an editor cannot or will not employ these, they must be excluded from the debate, because competency and a commitment to our policies and guidelines are required. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose He has strong views, he's paid his dues, and this is not warranted in this case...Modernist (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing here warrants topic banning. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Simply pointing out that Bus stop had been previously subjected to an indefinite site ban, and since he has been returned to editing, I think partially due to efforts lobbying for him to be allowed to do so by some parties like myself, he has still shown the same tendencies toward less than well-considered, or possibly even rational, discussion which led to the initial ban, particularly regarding one of his few fields of interest, Judaism, and particularly a denial of the temporary conversion of Bob Dylan to a form of Christianity. I tend to think that there may be sufficient cause for perhaps an ArbCom request regarding him now or in the future, but would think that at least the evidence presented here isn't sufficient for any sort of sanction. By saying that, however, I am in no way implying that there might not exist sufficient evidence for such, just that it hasn't been presented. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want evidence of recent behaviour by bus stop that might justify a topic ban, I'd recommend reading Talk:British Jews#Removal of Miliband, where Bus stop was seemingly intent on turning a debate on article content into a court of law, seeking an authoritative 'ruling' on a question to which there can be no definitive answer, and even if there could be, it isn't Wikipedia's purpose to do such things. Consider this statement:

Snowded—should reliable sources define Jews by a definition applicable to another identity? We assume that reliable sources have done their homework in this regard. It is axiomatic that each identity has its own definition. We assume that a multitude of sources have not overlooked some aspect of the definition of a Jew and we assume they are applying the criteria pertinent to Jews. All information at Wikipedia is filtered through reliable sources. Why aren't there any sources saying that perhaps Ed Miliband may not be Jewish? Don't any reliable news outlets or biographers want to get the scoop on that piece of information? If there were any reason to think that Ed Miliband were not Jewish would not some source have conveyed that piece of information by now? Yet neither you nor any other editor is showing us any source suggesting that the individual might not be Jewish. I suggest that we adhere to the findings of those reliable sources that are available to us. Bus stop (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC) [5]

Classic Bus stop language, as he argues that "each identity has its own definition". In the case of Jews, this is self-evidently not the case - , there are multiple and conflicting definitions - not that 'an identity' can have a definition. People define things, and frequently redefine them depending on context. That this isn't an 'axiom from sociology for example is probably because it is so blindingly obvious that it doesn't need to be. (And what the hell does he mean by an 'identity'? Something that goes on an identity card? It is entirely possible to 'identify with' many things at once. Nobody has a single abstract 'identity' anyway.) We have an article on the subject (to which Bus stop is a frequent talk-page contributor) that makes this entirely clear: Who is a Jew?. Bus stop knows that 'Jewishness' isn't clear-cut, yet continues relentlessly to argue that Wikipedia must make definitive pronouncements in its own voice as to whether an individual is Jewish or not. This isn't merely disruptive, it is entirely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. He should be topic banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose because it takes two, or often many more than two, to tango and in this case at least five editors are jumping around a hot potato topic about a Jewish-born prominent British politician, i.e. Ed Miliband. User Bus stop (talk · contribs) is a very knowledgeable and skilled editor. He does feel passionately about some subjects and he is tenacious and determined in justifiably asking for clarity about definitions especially as they relate to the complex intersection between a secular POV and one, say, coming from the classical POV of Judaism. What happens is that some editors feel that he is over-stepping WP "behavioral" rules when all he is in effect doing is repeating requests that are always logical, accurate and to the point. A better solution would be to impose a WP:FULLLOCK on the Ed Miliband article and let the warring editors cool off. Or treat all the arguing editors equally. It is a pity that editors cannot have frank and honest ongoing debates without resorting to this kind of request for draconian intervention that would be counter-productive in this instance and WP would be the loser. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia's job to define who is or isn't a Jew. You seem to be making the same mistake as Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "It isn't Wikipedia's job to define who is or isn't a Jew."[6] That is correct. What we are doing is evaluating the propriety versus the impropriety of the inclusion of Ed Miliband in a photo-box which already exists at an article titled British Jews. I feel you are blowing the question up to unmanageable proportions when you make a pronouncement such as "It isn't Wikipedia's job to define who is or isn't a Jew." It has to be added that obviously it isn't. Bus stop (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please answer the question in the section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A simple question for Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Andy. I do note that there are several editors who try to psss off clear violations of conduct guidelines as "frank and open discussion" or something similar, when others would often describe it as off-topic tendentious and disruptive editing. It may well be the case that in at least some cases they are themselves not competent to perceive the difference between them, and I think that refusal to act according to conduct guidelines, or seemingly even acknowledge them, is a very serious problem that more than one editor involved here probably has, and that may well be ultimately only addressible in all instances by request for ArbCom involvement. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While John Carter has a bee in his bonnet that I cannot help, I fully agree with Andy's observation that it is definitely NOT WP's job to define anyone's religion or lack thereof, and in fact I have long opposed the practice of WP's growing lists and categories of Jews, see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews, somewhat to no avail, so we are in agreement that it's overdone. But editors (and hence probably readers of WP) seem to want that kind of ethnic and religious information inserted into articles even about Jews who are far-removed from their own religion. And that's where the problem arises, since Judaism regards a Jew as both a member of an ethnicity as well as of a religion/spiritual beliefs and practices (see the key Who is a Jew? article especially Who is a Jew?#Jewish by birth), unlike any other religion that does NOT consider ethnicity part of being Christian or Muslim or Hindu for example, because while on the one hand WP does not care and does not and should not decide anyone's religious status, HOWEVER when the religion itself historically defines a Jew as one born to a Jewish mother (as is the case with the Milibands) then according to both the broad and narrow definitions of that religion that person is Jewish regardless of what WP may think. WP cannot redefine what Judaism holds, that would itself be a violation of WP:NOTMADEUP by WP itself! WP can only work with the working and accepted definitions extant in the real world. IZAK (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by the Halakha. If you really can't understand the difference between Wikipedia making a statement that "this person is Jewish by the criteria of a particular religion (which very often the individual concerned doesn't adhere to)" and "this person is Jewish", I suggest you avoid such topics in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, it would be a very sad day if WP was in any way an expression of Halacha! So don't worry about that. I agree with you on that score. No Halachic scholar would consult WP about those matters so you needn't worry, we are safe here in a state of blissful confusion obviously needing our own version of The Guide for the Perplexed. I do NOT say (and never have) that WP is bound by Halacha! And I am not involved in such topics defining who is Jewish and who is not (because it's a waste of time, and most folks will just never get it!), but evidently some editors want to, and there is no need to crucify them at ANI for having the courage of their convictions! In fact I support REMOVAL of all mention in articles, or via lists and categories that make any mention of any subject's Jewishness when that subject does NOT self-identify as Jewish , see my long-standing position at User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. But regardless of what either you or I think, the fact and reality remains that as far as the the TOPIC of Jews and Judaism is concerned it IS a factor as explained in the Who is a Jew? article because of complications arsing from historical Judaism's definition of a Jew as being both a member of an ethnicity (regardless of how that person views themselves) as well as of a religion. This is a complication unique to Jews and Judaism and that is why some editors, and readers of WP, take it seriously because they know it's an important subject. You cannot wish things away and tell people to ignore the unique realities and true facts about any particular religion. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity is by definition self-defined. That is what ethnicity means. If it isn't self-defined, it isn't ethnicity. As for the realities being 'unique', as a former anthropology student, I know enough to suspect that the premise is dubious at best - and you are still suggesting that a religion that people don't adhere to is somehow relevant to 'true facts' in this matter. To put it bluntly (and rudely), as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it isn't - if the person in question isn't a follower of Judaism, we are no more bound to consider the relevance of the perspectives of that faith than we are to consider the relevance of road traffic regulations in Ulan Bator, unless the person concerned also does. Ed Miliband isn't a follower of the Judaic faith. Any discussion of how he is seen by that faith is off-topic. As for only supporting the mention of a person's ethnic Jewishness if they self-identify as such, that is a start - but sadly, when contributors endlessly trawl through sources in order to find a comment made in passing in order to provide 'evidence', and then slap a label on individuals not because their ethnicity is relevant to anything, but instead to add one more to the list of Jewish 'X's or whatever, this 'self-identification' becomes a joke. It is totally unencyclopaedic. This isn't an ethnoreligious database. We shouldn't be going around trying to 'prove' that people are of one ethnicity or another - if for no other reason than that ethnicity is not only self-defined, it is contextual. As came up in another of these tedious debates, Harrison Ford once stated that "I feel Irish as a person and jewish as an actor". He may well have been joking, it is hard to tell. What is blindingly obvious though is that a statement like that shouldn't be used to support assertions that "Harrison Ford affirms his Jewish identity for our purposes", as Bus stop claimed in a gargantuan heap of WP:OR [7]. This is the problem with Bus stop. He thinks that it is Wikipedia's 'purpose' to categorise individuals by ethnicity. It isn't, as I hope that you would agree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I can't argue with your statement, and indeed it is overdone to dig up people's ethnic identities, something I avoid on WP. However: I cannot help but notice that unlike you and me far too many WP biographies get into it, not just about being ethnically Jewish, but WP bios almost always break down the ethnic ID's of American personalities in the USA see Category:American people by ethnic or national origin with 263 sub-categories !!! : Italian (e.g. Category:American people of Italian descent) and even breaking it down to sub-sub categories such as Category:American people of Italian-Jewish descent, Irish (e.g. Category:American people of Irish descent), Scandinavian, German, Greek, African, Latino, Asian etc etc etc and hence Jewish also Category:American people of Jewish descent with sub-sub-categries e.g.: Category:American people of Russian-Jewish descent etc etc etc since Jews have in any case been treated as an ethnicity apart by gentiles over the millennia, regardless of Jewish Law. In the USA ethnic consciousness abounds. There are parades all the time all over the place celebrating ethnic origins and ethnic pride, so it's no wonder that this spills over on to the English-language WP, to the bewilderment perhaps of the UK-based editors where the ethnic origins of public personalities is not trumpeted as much as it is in the USA. So perhaps that's part of the problem with the Milibands of Britain being analyzed under an American-ethnic style microscope. But as for me, this kind of stuff is just a royal waste of time as far as I am concerned. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this sort of wrangling about religious affiliation should be tamped down.→StaniStani  21:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Stan: It can't be helped when it involves topics related to Jews and Judaism because of problems stemming from the Jewish religion itself (and not from WP or from editors) as fully explained in the Who is a Jew? article. Personally, I have avoided those kind of situations and do not get involved, and I am not involved with talks about Ed Miliband's status and honestly I don't care because Ed is free to do with his life as he wishes, but that is not the point here, but I can understand why it is important to some editors, because it is a key theological and ethnic issue as far as the broad subjects Jews and Judaism are concerned that makes it into this frustrating issue, that any person with serious Jewish studies behind them would know. So it's always going to be around no matter who or what is blocked or banned or censored. It is a perennial issue in Israeli and Jewish communal politics, and this is just a small example of how it can bubble over. So better to keep all parties talking and hearing them out rather than taking a quick fix and blocking the un-blockable where only WP loses in the end when gifted and informed editors are penalized for their zeal that can and should be harnessed. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support he is wasting a lot of people's valuable time with his tagging contests.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a transparent attempt to change the subject of this thread and to deflect responsibility from the editors failing to subscribe to our policies and guidelines and to place the blame on a single editor regarding a subject that is not under discussion. In other words, this is a "hey look over there" proposal, distracting us from looking directly at the problem. The real problem is that multiple editors have failed to use reliable sources as they were intended and have failed to edit in accordance with BLP. In this case, the problem is not Bus stop, but his past problems are being used to color this dispute unfavorably. To summarize: an image of a British Jew was added to an article about British Jews because the subject identified as a British Jew in reliable sources and because it was relevant. However, we are being told by the disputants above that 1) there is no such thing as a British Jew, and 2) even though the subject self-identifies, a Jew isn't really a Jew unless that Jew meets an arbitrary set of criteria established by a Wikipedia editor, a set of criteria that is not found in any reliable source. Far from proposing a topic ban on Bus stop, it appears that his accusers have been promoting original research, ignoring sources, and promoting their own, unpublished criteria of who can be considered Jewish. With this in mind, this proposal should be seen for what it is—a distraction from the real problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  Viriditas, looking at the three definitions of Jewishness – religious, ethnic, cultural – could we not agree that (1) Miliband has explicitly rejected self-identification as a Jew in the religious sense (2) Miliband has emphatically confirmed that he is of Jewish descent, and that this has strongly affected who he is (3) Miliband has said that he did not grow up in the Jewish community, and has also stated that it is his job as Labour leader to get to know the Jewish community? Could we not then further agree that the glass is more than half empty, and that this state of affairs is admirably described by saying he is of Jewish descent? JN466 10:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't recall any sources where Miliband has "emphatically confirmed" that he is "of Jewish descent", and the fact that you are so emphatically stating the point without sources goes directly to Viriditas's assertion that you are misusing/ignoring the sources we have, doing/promoting original research, and thus failing to adhere to BLP policy. But this discussion really belongs on article talk pages, not ANI, and we could make better progress there if you would withdraw your proposal re Bus-stop so that this thread can be closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  He has said he is Jewish, but not in a religious sense, and has spoken at length about his parents' escape from Nazi German; and he has said that he did not grow up in the Jewish community and should make an effort as Labour leader to get to know it. So there is no question that he is of Jewish descent: he is. The question mark was never about that, but about weighing the absence of religious and cultural identification. But I will tell you something – I will flip-flop on this. The reason is that I see he wrote a lengthy piece about his Jewishness quite recently in The New Statesman. And that to me shifts the balance in the dispute about including him in the British Jews article. However, I will not retract this proposal. Bus stop's comments in the Harrison Ford article e.g. were ridiculous, and Bus stop simply does not help us resolve these disputes. JN466 16:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  Okay. It might help get us to a resolution on the article(s) if you could post about this new source on the talk page of British Jews. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  I will also add my support, given this new source, for Miliband's inclusion in the article. If we are going to have such articles at all, this is the sort of sourcing that is required - an in-depth discussion by the person involved of his relationship with the said ethnicity, where he makes it clear that he indeed considers himself a member. Like Jayen466 though, I still support a topic ban on this subject for Bus stop, for multiple the reasons already given. His presence in such discussions disrupts them to the degree that article content suffers, as contributors actually interested in finding material of clear relevance to articles, rather than in shoe-horning in individuals on the basis of WP:OR, Google-mining, Wikilawyering, and other dubious practices are deterred from taking part. Indeed, it is notable that such behaviour (not confined to Bus stop alone, nor solely to one side of the debate) led to the New Statesman source apparently being missed, in spite of its obvious relevance. Bus stop cited a Huffington Post article which itself cites the NS article - but in amongst the hoo-ha and kerfuffle, nobody seems to have looked for the original. This is desperately poor reasearch - and looking for articles of direct relevance to the subject we are discussing is precisely the sort of research we are supposed to be engaged in. (As an aside, I think that this debate might also have been resolved more easily if the 'British Jews' article was clearer about its topic - British persons who consider themselves to be Jewish by ethnicity - and possibly converts to Judaism who don't consider themselves ethnically Jewish, though I'm not entirely sure about the latter.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I had no idea what a hornets nest I was entering on this one, but its impossible to have any sort of discussion on the subject. All you get is a constant repetition of a single narrow interpretation of selected sources. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I recall a long sequence at Talk:Judaism [8] where the editor seems to think "Jew" and "Judaism" should be the subject of one article - and argued that at length. In fact, I quite suggest everyone here read those discussions, and see where the problem appears to lie - which is not just in categorisation, alas. (nodding to Slrubenstein) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Sometimes, with the best will in the world, it is better for certain editors to stay away from certain topics. This is a case in point. --John (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• There have been an absurd number of recent ANI cases where editors have been subject to requests to be sanctioned over incidents in which the editor in question is actually right. That isn't what ANI is for. The lightweight topic ban procedure at ANI (which I generally think has been a huge improvement) should not be abused in this manner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  Could you clarify what it is that you are suggesting Bus stop is 'right' over? We appear to have been discussing what a substantial number of contributors see as a long-term pattern of disruptive behaviour, rather than a single incident. And as I've already pointed out above, the latest issue might well have been resolved more quickly, with the same ('right') result, had Bus stop not engaged in his usual OR, synthesis, and general obstructionism in the debate. Rather for looking for new sources, he argues endlessly about the exact meanings of existing ones, even when they clearly don't support his POV-driven efforts. And let's not pretend that his contributions to these topics are motivated by a wish to improve Wikipedia's encyclopaedic content. This is self-evidently untrue. He has one objective, and one objective alone. To classify people as 'Jews' or 'non-Jews', preferably in the most direct in-your-face manner possible. If this seems implausible to those unacquainted with his behaviour, I recommend reading the tedious discussions in Talk:Adam Levine/Archive 1, where Bus stop repeatedly objected to proposed article content on the basis that it didn't contain the exact sentence "Levine is Jewish", but instead told readers that Levine considered himself to be so, explained where he got his Jewish ethnicity from, and what his perspective on Judaism is. This obsessive insistence on turning the project into Jimbo's Jumbo Jew-Spotter's Guide is what this discussion is about - and if it is 'right', I must have fallen through a wormhole into another universe entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  The only problem with your statement is that in this instance, Bus stop has not engaged in "his usual OR, synthesis, and general obstructionism". Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support per AndyTheGrump. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if there is a specific problem with this page and its edits, then deal with it there. but this overall generally construed thing seems a bit much. Soosim (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not about this page, it's a long and ongoing problem. Those well aware of the problem, please help document the most egregious cases. --JN466 10:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Question Given the disagreement, above, about the sufficiency of the evidence and conclusions to be drawn, is there a reason why RfC/U should not be the procedure to pursue first? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

  Were this the first instance of such misconduct, I would probably agree with you. The fact that the editor was previously indefinitely site banned for conduct relating to the same general topic, however, does raise very serious recidivism questions. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per maunus, andy and nom. This editor is disruptive because he is relentlessly pushing the categorization of people as Jewish and is a major drain on the time of others as shown by, for example, the archives of Ed Miliband and Adam Levine. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per others. There is a clear history of disruptive and questionable history with this editor, unfortunately, and this seems to be a continuation of earlier behavior. I myself think that there is questionable behavior on the part of other editors related to the general topic of Judaism, possibly/probably sufficient for ArbCom review, but that is not in and of itself sufficient reason to not support sanctions against this editor. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disproportionate response. Topic banning from Miliband if and only if YouReallyCan is also topic-banned might be reasonable... Carrite (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  I did not initiate a suggestion that Ed Miliband be added to the photo-box at the article British Jews. I never added "Ed Miliband" to that photo-box. I did not initiate the discussion at that article's Talk page about this. I only weighed in after the discussion was underway. My involvement in other discussions I think has followed a similar pattern: I have entered discussions that were already underway. Editors in this thread have mentioned my input to discussions at articles "Adam Levine", "Harrison Ford", and "Bob Dylan" so I am going to respond to those:

  The first discussion involving Jewishness and Adam Levine begins here. You do not see me enter that discussion until it is long underway.

  The first discussion involving Jewishness and Harrison Ford begins here. You do not see me enter that discussion until it is long underway.

  The first discussion involving Jewishness and Bob Dylan begins here. You do not see me enter that discussion until it is long underway. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  If this is true, then it appears that Jayen and others are not fairly representing the facts, and appear to be misrepresenting your role in these disputes. Based on the above, Jayen's claim that you are "the heart of innumerable conflicts around Jewish categorisation" appears to be false. Can you talk about why you think Jayen and others are trying to shut you up? Are they biased in some way, perhaps because they have been personally involved in other disputes with you? Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  Did you notice that Bus stop is the most prolific contributor by some margin to Talk:Adam Levine? And all of their contributions argue for just one thing: that "The article Adam Levine should clearly be stating that Adam Levine is Jewish". Even though Adam Levine is not Jewish according to Halakhic law on account of having a non-Jewish mother, refused a bar mitzvah when he was a kid, and eschews formal religious practice. For reference, the current article wording is, Levine has Jewish ancestry on both sides of his family (his father and maternal grandfather were Jewish), and considers himself Jewish, though according to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalized, spiritual way of life". He chose not to have a Bar Mitzvah as a child.[6] The talk page consensus is that those are accurately reported and well sourced facts. Bus stop however said, The language presently in the article is misleading and not supported by sources. When we read that he "considers himself Jewish" we are reading an implication that he might not be Jewish. That implication should be removed. Come again? The upshot is that Bus stop argues for clear statements in Wikipedia's voice that people are Jewish, even when there are complexities like a non-Jewish mother, and deprecates statements casting subjects' Jewishness in doubt. The history of the previous site ban is here, and the matter apparently began here, when it was said Bus stop was "the primary figure in a months-long edit war at List of notable people who converted to Christianity and other articles mentioning Bob Dylan's conversion to Christianity. He has been blocked three times for edits relating to Bob Dylan's conversion. [1] [2] [3] He contends that Bob Dylan never converted to Christianity, despite the existence of multiple reliable sources reporting the contrary." That thread resulted in an indef block. There is a history of disruptive behaviour going back more than five years here, and it's always related to the same single issue. --JN466 01:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are two sides to the "ethno-tagging" charge. I won't try to employ a succinct term to encompass something as sensitive as an area of perennial disagreement among editors. I am saddened that others freely employ terms like "ethno-tagging". I want this project to be a place that houses rational discussion in the absence of meaningless name-calling. If we don't take the time to spell out what we are saying, we might as well be hurling rocks. Reliable sources are our key to addressing and resolving the issues that beset us—not original research. Concerning living people "self-identification" can be an important component among the reliable sources considered. Adam Levine "self-identifies" as being Jewish many times in numerous reliably-sourced quotes. Wouldn't it be original research to argue that he is not Jewish because his mother might not be Jewish?

I only think that every editor has a Weltanschauung, or world view. I am not blaming any editor who might disagree with me over a point. But we have to have rational discussion. How could I be the heart of a conflict if I have joined a discussion after it was already long underway? It is often edits in article space which necessitate Talk page discussions. In the case of the "British Jews" article this involved the addition and removal of "Ed Miliband" from the photo-box by other editors—not by me. Thus a problematic situation existed long before I had any input at that article's Talk page concerning the question of the permissibility of "Ed Miliband" in that photo-box. Clearly the discussion on the Talk page was called for and Viriditas did the right thing in initiating that discussion. But a salient point is that I did not initiate the discussion. And again—I did not ever add or remove Ed Miliband's name from the photo-box. A contentious situation was already underway before I weighed in. I tried to do so rationally, with the support of sources. This has been the case at other similar situations at other articles. I have weighed in after discussions were underway.

When was the last time I typed anything on the Adam Levine Talk page—November of 2011? Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. November last year, when you dragged the last few remaining bones of the long-dead horse from its grave, and proceeded yet again to whack away once more with your usual vigour, seemingly unaware of its demise: [9]. Quote: "The article Adam Levine should clearly be stating that Adam Levine is Jewish. We have an abundance of sources in which he says that he is Jewish and in which others say in reference to Adam Levine that he is Jewish". The article already said that Levine considers himself Jewish, that he had Jewish ancestry, and went into detail into his relationship with Judaism. This seems not to have satisfied you though, as usual. This it the problem with your behaviour. It isn't so much that you start these debates - they are probably inevitable - it is that you completely fail to recognise when it is time to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, my impression is that you join these disputes and then post so much and so frequently that these disputes come to be about you. You have not only been the most frequent poster at the Levine talk page, your posts are frequently longer than those of everyone else involved. This comment from Bbb23 to you on the Levine talk page is typical: "No wonder this thread is so long - you don't listen, you just repeat yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)" Consider what Nomoskedasticity said, above, while arguing against a topic ban: "Personally, I find Bus-stop to be a pain in the ass (excessively verbose, repetitive, etc.) and it often pains me to find myself arguing for an outcome that he also favors (though typically on different grounds)." This is someone who is on your side. Could you possibly entertain the idea that it might be time for some self-reflection? How do you explain the reactions you engender from other editors? --JN466 10:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

JN466—"self-identification" had already been established when you presented a second source providing "self-identification". This source was already providing "self-identification" when you presented us with this source. You only conceded that we could include "Ed Miliband" in the photo-box at the article "British Jews" after you provided that source. But in the interim you provided us with lots of sources that in light of the "self-identification" already established, were largely irrelevant. Here for instance, and here—are sources that have little bearing on whether we should include this individual in the photo-box. Yes, "self-identification" was established by the source that you presented. In it we read: "I am Jewish".[10]. But we already had this source in which we read: "I'm Jewish".[11] That is "self-identification". It is a source that was presented much earlier. And it is relevant. The question before us concerned the propriety of including "Ed Miliband" in the photo-box at the article British Jews. In light of the fact that we had "self-identification" for Ed Miliband, your sources presented in this thread and on the "British Jews" Talk page were besides the point. Your source which provided "self-identification", found in The New Statesman, was a good source; it reinforced "self-identification". I am not meaning to detract from the quality and the relevancy of that source. But you and certain other editors seem to hold the opinion that if sources show that a person is a secular Jew/nonreligious Jew/nonobservant Jew/nonpracticing Jew, that somehow Jewishness is eroded to some degree in that individual. I don't believe that is the case. We are always looking to see what sources say and what our policies are. In the case of Ed Miliband no source has been presented even remotely suggesting that he might not be Jewish or that this was in doubt. Our policies place a great deal of importance on "self-identification" in these sorts of matters. Therefore in my opinion it was established a long time ago (a week ago) that Ed Milband was acceptable for the photo-box. Bus stop (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked you whether you could reflect on the fact that multiple editors keep telling you that you post walls of text repeating arguments you have already made, and that have already been responded to. In response you post another wall of text repeating the same arguments you have already made, and without addressing the question actually asked of you. The question was, "How do you explain the reactions you engender from other editors" who describe your posts as "verbose" and "repetitive" and say "you don't listen"? --JN466 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, without going into broader issues, I do not think you are reading it carefully. The statement that a person considers himself Jewish, but .... is akin to the statement that someone considers himself honest, but ... -- it is a way of denigrating and casting doubt on the person's self-definition. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

From the article: 'Levine has Jewish ancestry on both sides of his family (his father and maternal grandfather were Jewish), and considers himself Jewish, though according to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalized, spiritual way of life". He chose not to have a Bar Mitzvah as a child. Is there a 'but' in there? I can't see it. How exactly does referring to someone's own self-identification in detail, rather than resorting to Bus stop-style quoting of 'anyone who describes anyone else as Jewish' as authority on the subject constitute 'casting doubt'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump|—please tell me if there is a proximal reason that I should be topic-banned. I believe the most recent kerfuffle took place at the "British Jews" article. Did anything transpire there, involving me, that you find questionable? Bus stop (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you ask, yes, your very involvement as a habitual POV-pusher is reason enough. In relation to this topic, your involvement is self-evidently contrary to the interests of Wikipedia. Your sole objective is to indulge in yet more obsessive-compulsive Jew-tagging, with complete disdain for any attempt at neutrality, objectivity, or encyclopaedic style. You have been engaged in the same disruptive behaviour for five years. You have been told multiple times, by multiple contributors to just shut up, drop the stick, and find something else to obsess over. Even those who (broadly speaking) have a similar perspective to you are telling you to stop. But no. You refuse to. On that basis, you are unfit to edit, comment, or otherwise participate in any topic involving issues as to whether someone is to be described as Jewish or not. Wikipedia isn't an ethnoreligious database. It isn't a court of law (Halachic or otherwise - though if it was a court of Halachic law, Levine wouldn't be Jewish, as I'm sure you are aware). We aren't here to determine 'who is a what', just because you think it matters. If we removed every reference to individual's ethnicity, I doubt if 90% of our readers would notice, and of the remaining 10%, a large proportion would be the sort of people who's interests in the subject are rather different from your own. It may surprise you to read this, but an obsession with 'determining' who is Jewish is a minority interest, along with stamp collecting or train-spotting. Most of us don't care, and we don't like having to spend endless hours arguing about the exact wording of articles about individuals who's ethnicity isn't even remotely relevant to the reason they are written about in Wikipedia. Your behaviour amounts to de-facto trolling, regardless of your intent - and your intent is in itself incompatible with the objectives of the project. You seem quite capable of contributing constructively to subjects beyond issues of Judaism and Jewishness - why not just give it a try? I'm sure you'll find that the people you've chosen to obsess over will manage well enough without your efforts here. It isn't as if you are their sole representative in the Wikipedia community, after all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that rant. Other fair-minded editors should take note—AndyTheGrump has no recent diffs to present. Bus stop (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What would you know about 'fair-mindedness'? You asked a question, I answered it. Still, if you want a diff, how about this recent one one, where yet again you try to side-track a discussion on other matters (in this case your own behaviour) into a content dispute - and drag up the same old arguments, and the same old sources, that have already been argued over umpteen times before. [12] You were asked a specific question, which incidentally you still haven't answered - instead you engaged in yet more soapboxing about your obsession. Please get it into your head that it is your behaviour that is at issue here: it would be equally disruptive, and equally meriting sanctions ,if you behaved in the same way in disputes about music genres, Star Wars characters, or the classification of locomotive tenders on the Clevedon branch line of the Great Western Railway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• For heaven's sake, please shut down this nonsense proposal. If one side of the "there is no such thing as Jewish identity" content dispute deserves to be banned from the encyclopedia, then so does the other. If it's a content question whether we should acknowledge group identity here on the project we can hash that out as a content matter. If it's a behavioral question, which site bans are supposed to address, then both sides of this dispuate have been hacking away and filing administrative disputes against each other for years now, and we should not dignify their tendentiousness by joining in their latest squabble. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon—you say "both sides of this dispute have been hacking away and filing administrative disputes against each other for years now".[13] Let me just point out that I have never filed an administrative dispute against anyone. Bus stop (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon, That is a gross misrepresentation of the debate. I've seen nobody argue that "there is no such thing as Jewish identity". The question is whether such 'identity' (a fluid term, not an unequivocal 'fact', even for individuals by the way) is a matter of encyclopaedic interest in regard to individuals who's 'identity' is of little relevance to their notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per my above comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second request to close - So far as I see, the !votes above are 11 in favor of the proposal and 7 opposed. I assume, as always, the closing admin will in fact review the comments as well. Should the proposal fail, I have already stated that I believe there is sufficient basis for a request for arbitration, and I do not necessarily believe that the failure of this proposal, if it does fail, would make that any less reasonable. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem leaving this open for longer. But regardless of the closer's conclusions, this thread has exposed a serious problem that may only be truly resolved by a more formal process. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole—the serious problem this thread has exposed is that several editors resist the inclusion of a man named Ed Miliband in a photo-box at an article called British Jews. As Viriditas correctly points out: "This is a transparent attempt to change the subject of this thread and to deflect responsibility from the editors failing to subscribe to our policies and guidelines and to place the blame on a single editor regarding a subject that is not under discussion." Read the rest of his post here. If you think Viriditas' words are mere hyperbole you have to read the abominable "discussion" concerning this which can be found on the "British Jews" Talk page here. I urge any closing administrator to look at that. Of the several problematic editors participating in that thread I think one is most exemplary of utter dismal grasp of fundamental Wikipedia standard operating procedure. That is User:Snowded. This individual has only posted sparsely in this AN/I thread. User:Snowded has continued to participate in ongoing discussions on that page right up until almost the present. It boggles my mind that the ideas advanced by this individual are not met with disapproval—but they are not. Read for instance this post. In reference to The New Statesman article in which Ed Miliband says explicitly "I am Jewish", User:Snowded says:

"I read it when it came out and I agree its essential reading. I am less sure its conclusive. It shows the complex relationship that many people have with a religious/ethnic background of which (as the article clearly states) they were never a park. The self-identification in that article is qualified. There are however two issues here. The first, is the non-practicing issue on Jewishness in general, and there is a stronger argument there for self-identification, although I think it would have to be unqualified. The second is the criterial for inclusion in this article - its not automatic that someone who . If the article was about British people from a jewish background I would be in favour, but its about British Jews. Editors have to reach some form of agreement there about who qualifies to represent the community as a whole by being chosen for one of the pictures. I think that requires something more than the New Statesman article. Personally I think given the title of the argument it requires practice, or at the least a very strong and clear identity not a very mixed one."

In a nutshell User:Snowded is of the opinion that articulate "self-identification" of the form of "I am Jewish" is still insufficient for the purpose of the placement of "Ed Miliband" into a photo-box for "British Jews". The New Statesman article can be found here. User:Snowded was a major participant in all parts of the discussion of the past two weeks concerning this issue. AndyTheGrump has not uttered a peep about this behavior displayed by User:Snowded. There is a little bias at work.

Viriditas correctly states in this section of this thread: "The real problem is that multiple editors have failed to use reliable sources as they were intended and have failed to edit in accordance with BLP."[14] Bus stop (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have been trying to ignore this but it won't go away. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit receives a lot of attention from people with a particular interest—sometimes that's good, but in cases like this, it's not. There is no reasonable basis for anonymous strangers to agree on an objective means of determining whether or not X is a Y when Y is something as fluid as being Jewish, and it is not the role of Wikipedia to ensure that everyone who might possibly be considered Jewish should be so labeled. The very fact that there is an argument which cannot be resolved by clear secondary sources shows that obsessing over whether X is Jewish does not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Except it's not a fact, and there is no such argument. This was resolved a long time ago, but several editors refuse to allow a BLP who says "Yes, I'm Jewish" over and over again in source after source to be categorized as Jewish. Far from what you claim, Bus stop is not the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Johnuniq—you say "There is no reasonable basis for anonymous strangers to agree on an objective means of determining whether or not 'X is a Y'"[15] That is a reasonable statement. Then—should we have a photo-box at the article British Jews? The existence of the photo-box requires decisions to be made as to who is a Jew and who isn't a Jew. Should the photo-box be eliminated? That is a reasonable solution to this problem if this problem is as intractable as many editors feel that it is. Let me say right from the get-go that I would not miss the photo-box if it were eliminated from the "British Jews" article. I would support its removal from all such articles. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I also have to concur with what Viriditas says above, that "it's not a fact". We actually are not determining "facts". We merely use "self-identification" as the gold-standard for purposes involving living people. If a photo-box is to be kept, and it is not 100% clear that an article such as "British Jews" must have a photo-box, then it follows that we are tasked with deciding who goes into it. There is no factuality associated with such decisions. We simply establish working guidelines and adhere to them—for the narrow purpose of populating the photo-box. Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please answer the question in the section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A simple question for Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk)

AndyTheGrump—as you've posted this here, here, here, and here, it would seem to me that it might constitute a variety of harassment. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please answer the question in the section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A simple question for Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the relevant guideline here is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which, as per that page, is a form of disruptive editing. We don't often see such editing on a noticeboard, do we? John Carter (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and the above would be one more instance. Any closing admin should take into account the apparently flippant attitude towards this process, of one of the key accusers, regarding me and my editing activity. AndyTheGrump wants me banned for reasons that do not necessarily relate to the benefit of the encyclopedia but rather to his particularly antagonistic relationship to me. I don't think I am the cause of this. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The above editors' almost total refusal to in any way respond to or even clearly acknowledge one of the most obvious problematic behaviors, refusal to get to the point and obfuscation, is rather clearly demonstrated above. A reasonable point has been raised repeatedly, asking the accused to actually directly address a key point, and that editor has gone out of his way to perhaps demonstrate the same behavior he is accused of in refusing to directly address the matter. John Carter (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

John Carter—there is an important difference between saying nothing while using many words to do so, and saying something in an admittedly and perhaps unfortunately long form but with the redeeming virtue of containing some nugget of communication. I hope I don't spew hot air. I try to me mindful of what I am trying to say. And I try not to be excessively long-winded. Please feel free to tell me to clarify something if I have not been clear. Bus stop (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bus stop, please answer the question in the section below: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A simple question for Bus stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I believe you are engaging in behavior that could be characterized as hounding. I think I understand correctly that your wish to have me topic-banned would best fall under the heading of personal vendetta. I won't be responding to future posts of this type and I am of two minds as to the wisdom of responding even this last time to your repetitious posts that serve highly dubious purpose. Have a good day. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"highly dubious purpose"? Would you care to either expand on that, or withdraw it? What purpose beyond looking to the interests of appropriate Wikipedia content are you suggesting I have? That is a serious allegation, and I expect a clear and appropriate response. Without one, I shall have to consider what action will be appropriate - and you will certainly have to explain yourself directly in your defence - no chance of off-topic waffle there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A simple question for Bus stop

As asked above by JN466 (twice): How do you explain the reactions you engender from other editors who describe your posts as "verbose" and "repetitive" and say "you don't listen"?. [16][17] Please respond to the question asked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Back on Topic

If the parties can't agree and won't go to DRN or Mediation, than perhaps they will do an RfC? It looks like they need more uninvolved editor's opinions. And just settle it. Either the leader of the Labor Party is in some sense a British Jew or he is not, according to the considered Judgment of the community. That's all we can do for that. Edit warring and six editors arguing about it for over a week, is not getting the job done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Either the leader of the [Labour] Party is in some sense a British Jew or he is not". - or in some senses he is, and some senses he isn't. This is the root of the problem. You are apparently asking the community to make a 'Judgement' (nice capitalisation) regarding someone's ethnicity. This is not what Wikipedia is for. If something is unclear, we have no business 'deciding' it for ourselves. Ethnicity is fluid, contextual, and often just plain contradictory. If Wikipedia is actually going to 'get the job done', it will do it a lot quicker if it stops representing opinion as fact, and obsessing about which box we can shove people into. The relentless POV-pushing that goes on in regard to this topic is utterly out of proportion to its significance to article content. It is worth noting that when the question as to whether Miliband's ethnicity was significant, the ethnotaggers resorted to citing an article about the subject from a Guardian blog. Except the article wasn't about his ethnicity as such, it was about how little it had been commented on, and about how this was part of a wider trend - with ethnicity, religion (or lack of) and the like becoming increasingly insignificant in British politics. [18] If Miliband is a 'British Jew' (if...) it certainly isn't what he is notable for. The British public appears (with the exception of POV-pushers and taggers of various kinds) not to care. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you have strong opinions on the content question. But for content there is no substitute around here for assessing consensus. If considered judgment on the content question turns your way, so be it. If it does not, so be it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You need to look at the behaviour - the three editors who have edit warred to say he is Jewish have done so on the basis that it is the consensus position. THey have done this even though they have been four against three, and now four against four. Their response to challenge is that they are right and those opposed are wrong. Suggestions that we call an RfC or mediation have been ignored. Instead they wait a day then change the article. Wikipedia is governed by behavioural control and the community needs to deal with this. You can't make progress with editors who claim consensus because they think they are right, change the article to conform with that and refuse to engage in normal process. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine blocks/bans/page locks for tendentious editing, but obviously it takes more than one "side" to insert or delete content repeatedly over time. Just stop that and settle the content issue (full stop), using WP:Dispute resolution. If you don't open a DRN, or mediation, or RfC, you cannot blame anyone else for not doing so, so just do it. Those who then refuse to participate in content DR put themselves on thin ice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you have good intentions here but I think you are being naive. DR requires both parties to engage and there is no indication that this would be possible, the opposite in fact. Suggestions of an RfC resulted in the article to being edited with a false claim of consensus. I came into this one as a neutral and the atmosphere is poisonous (and I've seen a lot of contentious issues over the last seven years). Attempts to structure the problem, get a discussion going meet with blank rejection. In those circumstances it needs neutral parties to look at the behaviour issues. The "it takes both sides" is an easy response, sometimes you have to put the effort it to look at behaviour. That after all is what ANI is for.----Snowded ^TALK 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. The root of it, and the solution to it, is enunciated in this Arbcom principal earlier this year:

Sober eyes

2) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Passed 11 to 0, 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think any experienced editor knows that, the issue is to get the participants to a state where it is possible to define the problem for third party review. I think you are really missing the point here but we probably have to agree to disagree, maybe you should engage and see what response you get. Its all too easy to throw out a 'plague on both your houses judgement", sometimes its valid sometimes it isn't. As I say engage with the editors concerned and If your experience is different from mine all to the good. ----Snowded ^TALK 14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In the beginning of the end, (where talk page discussion is at impasse) it doesn't take any agreement to open the DRN, mediation proposal, or RfC. All it takes is one good faith effort by one editor to do it (and name the proposed parties and/or provide notice). Thereafter, any effort to obstruct consensus making, is more easily identified, recorded, and handled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think I have edited this article. I tend to think that Miliband should be included, but am certainly open to discussion and persuasion. If there is to be such a discussion, however, it needs to go further than this one article, since the problem arises on very many pages. There appear to be two entrenched positions, with many other editors in between. On the one hand, we have editors who wish to sprinkle the label "Jewish" over every possible article. Some of these editors, I fear, have POV motives -- whether these result from antisemitic or from Jewish chauvinist prejudices. (See the discussion at Hunt the Jew for a recent example.) On the other hand, some editors wish to remove nearly all examples of such labels, possibly even in cases where they are justified. In some cases, as this discussion well illustrates, there is a lamentable confusion between the religion of Judaism and the ethnic/cultural identification as a Jew. An RfC, or mediation, or whatever other form of dispute resolution, needs to look at these issues as a whole, and help develop a consistent position for all articles. Otherwise, even if we resolve the specific problem with British Jews, we will find the same dispute cropping up elsewhere every other week. RolandR (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Well thought out but sometimes it is easier (and more subtle) to focus on one example and work from there, in doing so, perhaps principals of universal application will suggest themselves and also the pitfalls (of un-tailored solution) will be more easily explored. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is primarily about one person (Milliband) how about an IAR solution: get someone from WM UK to call Milliband's office, explain the issue we're having (we have an internal disagreement on how to interpret a particular source), and just plain ask whether Milliband wants to be included in the category. Then go ahead and do whatever he says. This should probably be done by an OTRS volunteer so the response can be ticketed. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am missing the reference to who exactly said that Jew is the only name of a people that can be used both in a derogatory and praising manner, depending on how you pronounce it. For some reason British Jew sounds quite offensive to me. Or is that just my imagination playing tricks again? ... No, definitely offensive. Maybe it is the fact that the guy did not win the Nobel Prize yet, and has too many enemies who would want to use Wikipedia in improper ways. Or maybe it is the font I am using. At any rate, offensive. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I call myself a British Jew, so obviously I don't find it offensive. I don't call myself a "Jewish Brit": first, because I don't actually like or use the term "Brit", and secondly because I see the word "Jewish" as an adjective describing how I behave. I don't observe any Jewish religious practices; Jew is a description of my ethnic and cultural heritage and upbringing. But both my view, and Ysaniv's above, are subjective, and cannot take precedence over reliable sources. RolandR (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewish Brit, sounds a bit better to me, but it's British, so I guess it's an WP:ENGVAR thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here. For some reason Jewish Brit sounds like you like the guy. But what would I know, being not really a Brit nor a Jew. Anyone care to call me a Jew to my face? We are already in AN/I, we really won't have to walk far. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 01:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The idea that the word "Jew" in itself should be a putdown is offensive to many Jews and non-Jews. On the other hand, few people would disagree that "Jew lawyer" is a putdown, while "Jewish lawyer" is not. Such is the legacy of a long history of anti-semitism. --JN466 10:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Atheist Jew. Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me? :) Seriously now, unless someone declares himself or herself to be of a particular faith or race, Wikipedia has no business reporting on such matters. And that my friends, is as clear as the fact that there is order in the universe, regardless of what name we give it. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 03:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The term I see sometimes is secular Jew.[19]. As far as the insistence on self-identification, I don't think that helps the subject or our readers. Unless the matter is actually contentious, it's fine to go by good secondary sources just like for anything else, rather than demanding first-person attestation. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, unlike the Count the way you pronounce secular Jew is offensive, as I do not recall stateing a faith or a race. Therefore, I would like to ask you, 66.127.54.117, with all due respect: Were you talking to me? →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Since 66.127.54.117 is not reponding I would like to ask that his comment and my response to it be revdeleted. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"Secular Jew" is the term I've heard for what Count Iblis proposed calling "atheist Jew". I gave a link to an article using it, that I don't think was supposed to be offensive. That part was remarking on the earlier between you and Count Iblis, giving an existing recognized term as an alternative to Count Iblis's suggestion. The part about self-identification was addressed mostly to you. I don't agree with you that "unless someone declares himself or herself... Wikipedia has no business reporting on such matters". Self-identification is a good way to resolve cases where there's doubt or contention, but generally if we have secondary sourcing documenting the relevance of something, then we should use it. It would be silly for WP to refuse to describe Barack Obama as African-American if we couldn't source it to him directly, since it's of enormous relevance to understanding current US politics and it's covered by massive amounts of other sourcing. We would look for a self-identification if there were conflicting reliable sources arguing that his name was originally O'Bama and his background was actually Irish rather than African, and we weren't sure what to do.

By traditional Wikipedia practices, secondary sources are actually preferable to self-identification since we are supposed to use sources independent of the subject, but for something like this I can understand treating it a bit differently.

FWIW, I do not understand what it is that Yaniv256 is finding offensive. If there is something, maybe someone else could explain it to me. My impression is that Yaniv256 is being unnecessarily combative, but maybe I made some kind of faux pas unintentionally. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No harm done. For the record, I was not referring to you would have been just fine. →Yaniv256 ^talk _contribs 04:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I subscribe to the faith of Woody Allen, Kenneth Arrow, Isaac Asimov, Bob Dylan, Albert Einstein, Paul Erdős, Sigmund Freud, Milton Friedman, Stephen Jay Gould, Karl Marks, Itzhak Perlman, George Soros and Jesus. Do you really think that little box of yours fits them in any way, shape, or form? →Yaniv256 ^wind _roads 17:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Jew or not Jew? app withdrawn by Apple after French court case

Editors may be interested in a recent Huffington Post article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/24/jew-or-not-jew-iphone-app_n_1111730.html

PARIS -- French anti-racism groups dropped a lawsuit Thursday against Apple Inc. over an iPhone app called "Jew or not Jew?" after it was removed from circulation worldwide. [...] SOS Racisme, MRAP, the Union of Jewish Students of France and a group called J'accuse joined in a lawsuit against Apple, arguing that the app violated France's strict laws banning the compiling of people's personal details without their consent. Under the French penal code, stocking personal details including race, sexuality, political leanings or religious affiliation is punishable by five-year prison sentences and fines of up to euro300,000 ($411,000).

There is currently a discussion on the wikien-l mailing list whether or not this could be a problem for French Wikimedians and French Wikipedia. --JN466 10:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not very clear what you're getting at, Jayen. Are you suggesting that the iPhone app is similar to Wikipedia in some way? Or is that you think putting personal information about someone in their article breaches French data protection law? Both of those sound pretty unlikely to me. Formerip (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that what Jayen is pointing out is that a certain number of editors go around "ethno-tagging" people who do not self-identify as a Fooian, in particular concerning Jews because (from my limited understanding acquired by being involved in wrangling/debates over this) apparently someone is Jewish (ethnically I believe) if one of their parents, or mother is, so they are definitely Jewish (religiously as well), even if they have publicly stated that they are atheists and do not practise etc. etc., and they still get catted as "Jews/Fooians" against their wishes IMHO - see Wikipedia:CAT/R (A Nobel prize-winning scientist who clearly stated that he was not religiously Jewish (name escapes me) is still catted and on the list of Jewish Nobel prize winners for example.) And this is akin to what the Apple app was doing, compiling people's personal (religious/ethnic) affiliations without their consent (or necessarily their agreement). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard Feynman? RolandR (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be the one, cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Niels Bohr as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I get the background. I guess what I would ask is how is the app similar to Wikipedia? Or, how, precisely, might Wikipedia be in breach of French law? Formerip (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It may not be a problem confined solely to French law, either. EU contributors in general might have to consider whether the more blatant forms of google-mining-for-the-purposes-of-ethnotagging might possibly fall within the scope of the EU Data Protection Directive and related national legislation (i.e. the Data Protection Act in the UK). I'm no lawyer etc, etc, but it seems possible that these laws may be a factor too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I sense over-excitement. These links may be helpful: [20] [21]

European Data Protection law may well apply to checkuser though, in case anyone is stuck for something to whine about at the moment. Formerip (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd not assume that Google-mining to add another entry to a 'List of Xish Ys' would necessarily be seen as "publication... of any journalistic, literary or artistic material". It looks to me more like compiling a list of Xish Ys - which is to say "processing of personal data" as described in the EU Data Protection Directive. [22]. As for your second link, I fail to see its relevance to the present discussion. It is taken as read that we are referring to material already published. The question is to what extent can such material be 'mined' for the purpose of compiling structured lists concerning ethnicity etc. At this point, maybe we do need legal advice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No we don't. You go get some if you like. EU Directives don't directly confer rights to individuals, so we are just looking at national law on a country-by-country basis. For the UK, at least, there's no question to be answered about "mining" data, whatever that means that's different from collecting it. That's what the second link shows. A website that republishes people's personal data (presumably in a structured way - I don't imagine anyone set up a website just to publish this one woman's details, and the site is described as a "directory website") such as home address is not in breach of the Act. So there's no way that a website that republishes the information that actor Luke Cohen is Jewish can be in breach. If it were normal WP practice to get the information by ringing round synagogues, then there would be a data protection issue. Formerip (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read what I've written previously. The UK Data Protection Act (1988) which you previously linked provides an exemption for "processing... undertaken with a view to the publication by any person of any journalistic, literary or artistic material...". If compiling a list of Xish Ys for the sole purpose of publishing a list of Xish Ys is self-evidently 'journalism', the entire point of the Act is null and void. In my humble not-a-lawyer opinion. I'm not talking about putting reliably sourced and relevant information into journalistic articles. The Act exempts journalism. Does it exempt collecting data for the purpose of compiling lists that are intended for publication? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. The second link again. The site talked about is a database of people's addresses and other personal details. Just random people. It may be a massive state-sponsored invasion of privacy, but it's legal. Formerip (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The database in question is the electoral register - names and addresses. It doesn't list ethnicity, or sexual preferences, or other personal details. Get your facts right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh for Jesus's fuck's sake. Email casework at ico dot gsi dot gov dot uk and ask them to burst your bubble gently. Formerip (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Formerip seems to have blown a fuse, I'll point out the ICO's webpage on the UK Electoral Register: [23]. Firstly, it notes that the information on the register relates to "name, address, nationality and age". Nothing whatsoever about ethnicity, faith or sexuality - the topics of significance here. Secondly, there are two versions of the register. Listing on the first, 'full' version is compulsory, but "It is a crime for anyone who has a copy of the full register to pass information from this register onto others if they do not have a lawful reason to see it". There is also a second 'edited' register from which it is possible to opt out - this is the one which is sold. Anyway, this is entirely beside the point. The Data Protection act makes explicit provisions for "Sensitive personal data" including "the racial or ethnic origin of the data subject", "his religious beliefs or other beliefs of a similar nature" and "his sexual life" amongst other things, and I see no reason to assume that claiming to be a journalist while adding such material to a database (which is what adding individuals to a Wikipedia 'list of Xish Ys' involves) would necessarily be seen as an adequate defence. Hence my suggestion that we may need legal advice, rather than the opinions of those who aren't actually qualified to say. Incidentally, does anyone know which particular French legislation led to Apple withdrawing their app? Was it the French enactment of the EU DAta Protection Directive? If so, it may be of significance to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely too fucking right we don't need the opinions of those who aren't actually qualified to say. That's why I've given you the email address so you can get the legal advice you're after. It's a dedicated email helpline for public enquiries about the legislation. What are you waiting for? Formerip (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are suggesting I should ask for legal advice on behalf of the Wikimedia foundation? I don't need legal advice for myself (or at least I hope I don't) - I'm not using Wikipedia for the purposes of constructing ethnicity databases. Others are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Aside from any legal uncertainty, I think there is just something imprudent and impudent about publishing lists of people we deem to be Jews, gays and gypsies. I have no problem with nuanced descriptions of a person's faith and heritage forming part of a BLP where it is relevant, but labeling them in an infobox or categorising them as simply "Jew" is ambiguous and often misleading. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It turns out the French Wikipedia does not use Jew or LGBT cats at all, nor infobox statements neither. I quite like it. :)) JN466 00:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point from Jayen, as the LGBT catting tends to be very polemical to say the least, with similar slanging matches and hissy fits going on at certain articles where people's sexuality is THE big issue. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, in reply to your question above, no it's not the EU Data Protection thingy, read the Huff Post article, it explains it. Basically, here in France they are not even allowed to determine your religion and ethnicity for the national census, this is supposedly to avoid the possible racist exploitation of such information but paradoxically gives rise to right-wing politicians claiming that 85% of France's prison population are black or Arab (with absolutely no possible base upon which to found such statements apart from "heard it from the prison warders"). Also, as there are no statistics available, it is very easy for the true French to believe they are being overrun by hordes of saracens from their former colonies, and certain elements of the media pander to these fears, as does the Front National which scored a quite disturbing 18% in the recent French presidential elections. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan and AfDs

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

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

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

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

Clarification, The deletion review[24] has been wrongly portrayed above. The article was CSD G7ed by Author Geo Swan while an ongoing AfD was discussing it, Due to CSD G7 the article got quickly deleted, and the ongoing AfD (now moot) had to be closed. But another editor User:Joshuaism unaware that it was author Geo Swan had asked from CSD G7[25] started deletion review with WP:AOBF towards Bushranger for closing the discussion and deleting the article. After the discussion at Deletion review the AfD was reopened again and finally closed as delete--DBigXray 11:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. For the record I have no history of editing or confrontation with Geo Swan anywhere on Wikipedia, and i have no malice against Geo Swan nor with his creations. I have no interest in Geo Swan's contributions whatsoever. I am active at military weapons, ships, History and terrorism related articles. I came across these articles via the categories on terrorism related articles . I have also created BIOs of few militants and militant organizations myself and I have also improved a number of articles on notable Guantanamo prisoners if they agree with the policies "irrespective of who created it" . I nominate articles only when I am fully convinced that they are clear cases of policy violation "irrespective of who created it" . AS the admins have access to deleted pages, they are free to check the deleted pages from my AFDs that I have also nominated several non-notable BIOs and articles created by editors other than Geo Swan if they do not satisfy the guidelines.
2. on Bundling I dont get any special joy in bundling these articles but I have started doing it as I was requested by AFD sorters and AFD contributors to WP:BUNDLE these AfD's for better discussion as single AFDs had to be relisted several times. I accepted that sane advice. Later on few editors protested against bundling and I accepted that and started nominating problematic articles individually.
3. Finally we should always "remember" that it is not me but the community who decides what article to keep and what to delete based on the consensus at AfDs. I am only highlighting that these articles that have problem. Also note that the notability of these articles could not be established even after 6 years and even after extensive search I could not find any sign of notability of the subject and thats when i decide to AfD it, Many other AfD contributors have also tried and came to conclusion that these were poorly sourced WP:BLP articles violating WP:BLPPRIMARY. And ALL of these Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles have either been deleted or redirected.
4. S Marshall above prefers to violate WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person, making false misleading accusations of bad faith. He has never addressed the subjects of the article but only concentrated on making personal attacks on the AFD nominator on these AFDs. S Marshall falsely accused me of making "quite virulent accusations" here on this AFD. I have never made any accusation against MArshall ever, forget about "virulent" or "quite virulent". On the other hand we can see SMarshall had accused me of a Crusade on an AfD which itself is a severe Bad faith accusation on his part to which i left a civil and sane reply on Marshall's talk page[26] to stick to the content and stop doing WP:AOBF. And in reply to that I was threatened by Marshall to be dragged to ANI (Which he has done). From what i See , accusing me of making "quite virulent accusations" is clear case of Lying WP:ABF and WP:AOBF by SMarshall opposite to WP:AGF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geo Swan here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replies and comments from other users

• Anyone who nominates this stuff should be given a barnstar. At this point, Geo Swan should be topic-banned from any military/War on Terror/Guantanamo-related article. We've been cleaning up his mess for, what, a year now? Either we're sifting through dozens and dozens of primary-sourced prisoner BLPs at AfD or addressing the junk still leftover in userspace via MfD. Enough is enough. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• as you say, if one is determining on not having articles on an issue, a good course is to prohibit their proponents from even speaking up. I said above why I will defend unpopular positions, and this suggestion is an illustration of what will happen if at least some people do not do so. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamental problem of Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strongly Oppose as being in direct opposition to fundamental Wikipedia values and policies. See my longer comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose First my decision on AfD Solely depends on the notability and its adherence to the wikipedia policies and my WP:BEFORE not becuase an XYZ user had created it. The proposal wants me to check the article creator first which is simply ridiculous and will give a wrong message and set a wrong precedent, one should be more concerned about the content rather than the contributer. Its the over-emphasis on contributer that creates so much WP:Drama DBigXray 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No special treatment for Guantanamo captives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Dickmojo

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

---

At User talk:Dickmojo, I declined an unblock request and revoked talk page access - the reasons are on the talk page. Dickmojo is now claiming (by email) that I acted improperly as I had acted in a previous dispute about acupuncture - the details of that case are all still there on the talk page. At the time of my current action, I had forgotten about the acupuncture issue and was not aware that this is the same person. But as Dickmojo is alleging bad faith on my part, I thought I'd better ask for a review - if anyone thinks I did act improperly, or even disagrees with me for any reason, please feel free to revert or amend my actions as you see fit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The revocation of talk page privileges was warranted based on pugnacious BLP violations. Dickmojo clearly wouldn't accept that he can't repeat allegations of criminal activity as fact, and wanted to continue repeating them in his discussion of an unblock. It's really no different from an editor who is blocked for attacking another editor and then repeats the attack in an appeal discussion. Good call.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reviewed Talk:Julia Gillard some more now too, and have redacted and rev-deleted more edits that I think were BLP violations - edits that represented the various allegations as "undisputed fact". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Good block. Should email access be removed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Has 4 unanswered UTRS tickets re: the block currently. Secretlondon (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed he's gotten away with that username for a year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Re email access - he hasn't emailed me again, so unless he misuses it in some other way, I don't think there's a pressing need to disable it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by two users

• user Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• user Wolbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• article José Benítez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• article Mario Rincón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page José Benítez was recently moved from its diacriticless version with a 6-1 majority. In the RM, it was also requested that the addition to the lede "known professionally as Jose Benitez" be removed. 5 of the 6 editors in the majority supported this (the sixth did not address the point).

After the move, I removed the clause. Fyunck(click) the added it back (diff), mentioning that this type of addition is currently being discussed in an rfc. However, the rfc is discussing whether the additions should be allowed, not whether they are mandatory. Thus, the rfc discussion does not override what has been decided on the article talkpage, which is why I then reverted back. Wolbo then reverted back (diff), edit summary: "That was an RM and unrelated to this edit", apparently without checking the discussion on the article talkpage. The page has now been protected, so the change that has been decided cannot be implemented.

The RM included 3 other articles, one of which (Mario Rincón) had the same type of addition to the lede, thus the decision applied to it too. I removed the clause there too, and Wolbo added it back (diff) with the same erroneous edit summary. This page is not protected, but I will not engage in an edit war.

I request that these users are warned, and that the protected page is unprotected, so that the change that was decided on the talkpage can be implemented.

HandsomeFella (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of users: Fyunck(click), Wolbo.

HandsomeFella (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are misguided, HandsomeFella. Our current WP:AT policy is very clear about it. It states in "Treatment of alternative names": "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph."

What is it we don't understand about the word "should" ?

Adding "significant" alternative renderings is mandatory. Removing them goes against current policy.

In the case of tennis players, they always compete under a name without diacritics per ITF agreement. When a person conducts most or all of their notable activities under a name that differs from their official name, then it's hard to make the case that it is not a significant alternative rendering.

5 editors voting in a RM somewhere, that doesn't change our written policy. They should be warned for disruptive editing. WP is not about outnumbering others, it is about trying to apply current consensus (as expressed in our policies). Cheers. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Just dropping the diacritic/s does not amount to "significant other name" or "significant other spelling". After all, this is not about Colonel Khadafi/Gaddaffi/Ghadafi. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does when most all the English press uses that alternate spelling. When the ITF, ATP, WTA, Wimbledon, Australian Open, Olympics, etc...use that alternate spelling. When players register with the governing bodies of tennis use that alternate spelling. Heck some have the own personal websites and are shown with signatures that have that alternate spelling. It is very significant and why wikipedia looks at all English sources to resolve these things. We certainly don't just chop it out of every article as though it doesn't exist. That's a disservice to our readers and not what we stand for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

HandsomeFella is right. Just dropping diacritics doesn't necessarily make for a "significant" alternative.

It is "usage" that makes an alternative significant or not. If an alternative rendering is used by the subject himself in connection with his own activities AND used by most of the sources about the topic, then how it is not significant? Why keep away that information from our readers? Don't we try to offer "complete" information? That's why our policies state that we should include them. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Significant other spelling" has nothing to do with usage. It has to do with how much the spelling differs. If the difference is only minute, and anyone reading the article is able to read the name anyway, then not only is it pointless to add that clause, it's also an insult to the reader's intelligence.

The fact that ATF requires players to register without diacritics – here we can really talk about "forcing", an expression frequently used by diacritic-haters – does not require the encyclopedia that wikipedia has the ambitions of being to adopt the same principles, as it by definition will introduce incorrect spellings.

HandsomeFella (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That's your fabrication. Fact is that our current AT policy does not make any such reservations or conditions on how much a rendering needs to "differ" before we can consider it "significant" . It simply states that we should include them.

It would be ridiculous to warn editors for doing what our current policies ask us to do.

It is more and more looking as if a certain group of editors is working from an Anglophobic POV, rather than from a NPOV. First they move articles to diacritics title, and then they go on to remove all traces of anglicized spelling in the article (even when that rendering is found in almost all sources used for the article). I wonder why this is allowed to continue. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• This has been discussed over and over and over again; it's frustrating that MakeSense64 and Fyunck(click) continue to act as though this RfC never happened. bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That RfC clearly didn't ask or address any question about what renderings should be mentioned in the lede or not. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The RfC asked "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names"; that, and more specifically the WP:STAGENAME line of argument, was comprehensively rejected. If you haven't yet been able to read the RfC on your own essay, I could provide diffs. It has also been rejected at various subsequent RMs wherever Fyunck(click) has turned up; I'd be amazed if you hadn't seen any of those, but again more diffs from RM closures &c could be provided if necessary. But that's the point? More diffs, and more consensuses, won't stop the same old claims being brought up at the next RM. There is one cause for confidence, though; we've mostly got over the problem of undiscussed moves (sometimes editing the redirect to make a move back nontrivial). It still happens occasionally but nowadays RMs are used a lot more, and that's a Good Thing. bobrayner (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

An rfc on a single personal tennis essay is hardly groundbreaking. And the question of "Can a wikiproject require no-diacritics names" was ridiculous as that's not what the essay says at all. I do not support the requirement of banning of diacritics. I support using as many English sources available to determine common usage in English. Wherever you or IIO show up you quote that essay so that's why it often shows up when I'm in a conversation. I can't help what you write. As far as undiscussed moves, yes luckily the anti-anglo gang has stopped that stuff, after some warnings, at least in tennis circles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• The division of labour here over the last four months has been that the leader and author of WP:TENNISNAMES User:MakeSense64 edits MOS and Talk pages, while the 2 followers Fyunck(click) and Wolbo make the actual edits to article space.
  

The charge of MakeSense64 that dozens of editors who rejected WP:TENNISNAMES RfC, or as shown in overwhelming support in a series RMs since, are "anglophobic" is not born out in the 1,000s of new article creations during the London 2012 Olympics, where 100s of "anglophobic" London 2012 editors worked together to create correctly spelled new BLPs for French, Spanish and East European athletes. If every London 2012 editor on en.wp is also "anglophobic" then for better or worse MakeSense64, Fyunck(click) and Wolbo need to adjust to live in the London 2012 world where foreigners have foreign names. A partial list of articles affected is below:

Note that the 100x articles affected don't include any big-ticket or visible BLPs like Björn Borg, nor does it include native-English speakers with non-ITF registration compliant names like Renée Richards. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply - The facts remain that WP:AT policy states that we should include all significant alternative renderings (as well as give them a redirect). And WP:LEDE repeats the same principle. And our policies do not state any conditions on how "different" a rendering needs to be to be considered "significant". Votes in a RfC on an essay held in my userspace do not change or replace our written policy.

Hence it makes no sense to ask that editors who apply our clearly written AT policy, should be warned for doing so. The editors who go on taking turns to remove well sourced alternative renderings, they should be warned for going against our current AT policy.

That's what we are looking at here. If you have anything relevant to say about it, then you are welcome. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

more reply - And we have ringleader In ictu oculi whispering as a puppetmaster into the ears of editors like HandsomeFella. He tells him what articles to put up for rm so he can stay cleaner. My bottom line is always what is the prevailing swing of things in all the English sources I can find. I just don't pull these things out of a hat. IIO and his band of brothers simply take turns removing sourced info. They should be warned for doing this and going against current wiki policy. Remember we aren't talking about removing diacritics here...not at all. We are talking about banning from wikipedia any mention of the fact that tennis players have names commonly spelled without diacritics in almost all English and tennis sources. In ictu oculi wants to ban all mention of any common English spelling of a player's name.... anywhere in an article. No matter how many English sources spell it the same way, no matter if the player, while in English speaking countries, spells or signs their own name without diacritics, In ictu oculi wants that information excised from an article. I don't feel that's right so I stand up for it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense64, looking through the box above "The editors who go on taking turns to remove well sourced alternative renderings, they should be warned for going against our current AT policy." will require notification of 20 editors who have attempted to revert these ledes (in each case Fyunck and Wolbo's ledes remain on top) that they are being "warned" by you at ANI. Do you wish to notify them all of them with ANI notices? If so the notifications should probably extend outside the 20 editors to include editors who reverted these ledes when applied outside tennis. I have already left a heads up on Joy(Shallot)'s Talk page, as I expected this is where you would go. Do you intend to notify the other 19? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ha, speak of the devil. Hello Joy! In ictu oculi (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh. It seems that an uninvolved admin will need to finally block or topic-ban Fyunck(click) to prevent their advocacy against diacritics, which is as unrelenting as it is bizarre. The violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTBATTLE, WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT, ... is quite clear by now. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Joy, if you're proposing a topic-block on Fyunck for "Björn Borg, known in Tennis as Bjorn Borg" type ledes. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – and that goes for Wolbo and MakeSense64 too. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Just to show how ridiculous this is becoming. Last year in a broad RfC Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, people like @bobrayner and @Handsomefella were among the editors who voted in Support of a proposal that contained this wording: "Common renderings without diacritics (where used in English-language sources) may also appear in the body of the article if that rendering can be cited to reliable sources. Both native and non-diacritic renderings must be adequately cited." . Now they are here to argue the case that some editors should be warned or banned for doing so. Enough said. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And in turn you ironically fail to see the difference between people engaging in an exchange of ideas and arguments at an RfC, and incessant disruptive editing to have their way, with little regard for anything else, for months or even years. Frankly, the latter is why the more recent RfC was so slanted towards more support for diacritics - because some of the people who so vehemently oppose them appear to be jerks. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the "incessant disruptive editing" you are talking about? It's nice to see that you would put my essay on a par with a major guideline page, but you make it look as if the RfC on my essay was a "more recent" RfC on diacritics. That's quite a stretch. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

MakeSense, what is your definition of "significant other spelling"? I mean, if there are significant other spellings, there must be insignificant ones – right? I'm not referring to spelling mistakes, to be clear. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to move in circles, I already addressed that point in my earlier response to you. And you recently voted in "Support" of a proposal that made it depend on usage in our sources. So I just happen to agree with your definition of "significant" when it comes to alternative renderings. Also remember that wp does not avoid "wrong spellings" as long as they are common. It may even be used as the title if the "wrong" spelling is most common. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I also find it ridiculous to mention/emphasize the diacritics-stripped versions of names, in cases when it is obvious to everybody how to remove the diacritics (as it was mentioned by HandsomeFella in the cases of "José Benítez" / "Jose Benitez" and "Mario Rincón" / "Mario Rincon"). On the other hand, it might be too harsh to topic-ban the two users just for that (unless they violate other guidelines). A clear-cut Wikipedia policy/guideline would be the long-term solution to this kind of problems. Of course, I also understand that it is very hard to reach a consensus in this question. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply - The point is not to show how to remove diacritics. The point has always been to mention it when the person in question conducted most (if not all) his activities under an alternative rendering of his name, and is usually found as such in sources. That is not stupid information. If you know nothing about tennis, then how are you so sure that Mario Rincón and Mario Rincon are the same person? Yes, it is likely, but it is not guaranteed. We have a clear-cut policy that we should mention significant alternative names. This and other arguments have been brought up many times, but the group of editors who is here to vote that some people should be banned, do never address such points, they don't answer questions. Even when you bring up a workable phrasing from a RfC where they voted Support, they have no comments. These editors should be warned for stonewalling, it is their behavior that should be looked into.

Some editors have objected on the basis of WP:OPENPARA. But our WP:AT policy does not say that alternatives should be included in the opening paragraph, it says they should be in the WP:LEDE , so it can also be at the bottom of the lede. Maybe that would be a workable compromise. Here is an example where alternative renderings are mentioned at the end of lede, on the basis of what appears in the credits for the articles, and even includes some common "incorrect" spellings: Tesshō Genda. That's how it should be if different renderings are common in English-language sources. We try inform our readers, don't we? And including all relevant information, inevitable means that some of the information will be obvious or appear unnecessary for some informed readers. That doesn't need to insult their intelligence. Do you always feel insulted when you read something that is obvious to you? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage talk page/Witherspoon Institute

Forum:

I'm sorry for bringing this trivial matter here, but I don't know of any more appropriate forum. If you can suggest a better one, I would be glad to close this report and move the issue elsewhere.

Background:

Discussion on Talk:Witherspoon Institute hit a brick wall because there's just me and User:Belchfire, and we are unable to come to agreement regarding some material that he kept removing from the article.[27][28] (As this was a violation of WP:BRD, I left a notice on his talk page[29] which he removed without comment.[30])

The material removed from the article concerns Witherspoon's opposition to same-sex marriage, so I decided to invite more editors who have some interest in the subject by leaving a short, neutral note on Talk:Same-sex marriage, carefully designed to comply with WP:CANVAS.[31]

Issue:

Belchfire responded by hatting the note so that it would not be seen, while accusing me of votestacking.[32] To the best of my understanding, this is a direct violation of WP:TPG. I reverted the hatting exactly once and notified him of the violation.[33] He responded by removing the notification without comment[34] and edit-warring to restore the hatting[35].

Complications:

What's funny is that this is apparently a trap for me to fall into, as his comment is "Report if you like, watch out for the boomerang". As a result, I fully expect him to be ready to put as negative a spin on my behavior as possible, bringing in out-of-context diffs that are unrelated to this issue. In the text of the hat, he also acknowledges that he is familiar with WP:TPG. Presumably, he is suggesting that he can defend his actions through some interpretation of that policy. I guess I'm just calling his bluff and trusting any admins who respond to have good sense.

Goal:

I would like him to agree to remove the hatting. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Update:

An uninvolved editor, perhaps in response to the report, removed the hatting.[36] If Belchfire doesn't edit-war to restore it, then this report should be closed. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment While Belchfire probably should not have hatted StillStanding's comment, StillStanding certainly could have picked a better venue for asking for another opinion then posting to an article's talk page. WP:THIRD comes to mind, since only two editors were involved. However this new ANI incident is another example of WP:DE, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LAWYER issues related to StillStanding.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  16:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Er... 2 days ago you and Belchfire launched a federal case against StillStanding for refactoring other peoples' talkpage comments. Remember? Now you're teaming up to refactor his comments and complaining about his response. I'm not sure which party in this thread is most hypocritical, but at bottom I see a small group of partisan editors treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground. This doesn't reflect well on any of you, and it's not going to end well. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I am in no way condoning Belchfires hat, as I indicated above. I fail to see how you can draw such a conclusion. Furthermore, in the previous ANI that I raised on my own, without any coordination from any other editors, was for the sole purpose of having someone that Still believed to be "neutral" inform him that his refactoring was unacceptable. In that thread I also displayed my displeasure of the piling on when other editors started to engage.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer  18:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You're leveraging this incident to build a case for some sort of substantial sanction against StillStanding. And he may well deserve such a sanction, but the level of hypocrisy and gamesmanship on display here is really disappointing. If StillStanding hats someone's comment, he's at fault. And if someone hats StillStanding's comment, he's also at fault? MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • He is certainly at fault for bringing this up here. It was unnecessary and to be frank, a bit pointy. He could have addressed this at many other venues but chose the drama option. But hey, let's AGF and chalk it up to the fact he didn't know this was an improper venue and next time he will know better. I'm out of this one.  little green rosetta(talk)
          central scrutinizer  19:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Huh. And yet here was the perfect place for you and Belchfire to launnch you particular veendetta agaainst him. Really really not buying your conveniently shifting standards of what is or is not appropriate. --Calton | Talk 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Problem: This obnoxious and disruptive behavior by StillStanding(247) is not a first-time occurrence. In fact, it's becoming a habit:

1. Here, he is seeking help at Homosexuality to back him up at Focus on the Family [37]
2. Here, he is seeking help at Sexual abuse to back him up at Boy Scouts of America [38]
3. Here, he is seeking help at spanking to back him up at James Dobson [39]
4. Here, he is seeking help at Same sex marriage to back him up at Witherspoon Institute [40]

Still-24 has an array of tools available when new eyes are needed in a discussion, including RfC, DRN, Third Opinion, and noticeboards dedicated to NPOV, OR, BLP, and other matters. Why doesn't he use them??? The answer should be obvious: he's not looking for neutral editors. He's looking for editors to help him obtain his preferred outcome in content disputes. This motivation is clearly illustrated here [41] in Still-24's own words. (Q:"Are you here to build an encyclopedia?" A:"I'm here to fix some articles.")

These are disruptive attempts to create false consensus [42] by cross-posting inappropriate notifications [43], seeking to attract partisan editors in violation of our policy on consensus-building [44]:

"Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable."

Still-24 has already had the problem with this behavior explained to him by an admin, [45] but he simply doesn't listen to anything that he doesn't want to hear. Hatting his off-topic posts on Talk pages is done per policy [46]:

"Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archival or removal."

That is all. Belchfire-TALK 18:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So hatting inappropriate posts is OK? That's funny, because when StillStanding hatted your inappropriate commentary, you ran to AN/I to try to get him sanctioned. That was two days ago. And now you're hatting his comments ("per policy") and demanding we sanction him. I'm sure there's an explanation for this besides simple hypocrisy and gamesmanship, but I'm struggling to find it. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that an editor has a poor grasp of policy is not uncivil. And by the way, there is an essay that should be governing your behavior right now. Just sayin'. Belchfire-TALK 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Belchfire, without even commenting on anything else, it is grossly innapropriate to tell an admin on ANI to mind his or her own business. This is ANI. Admins will comment on the threads here, that is part of how Wikipedia works. Your response to MastCell, a highly regarded administrator, is unacceptable behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's fine; I've said what I have to say here anyway, and I'll leave this for other admins to sort out. MastCell ^Talk 19:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside the prejudicial "highly regarded" descriptor, if MastCell was here to act in his capacity as an admin, I'm pretty sure he would have said so by now. Instead, it seems to me he is here in some other capacity. As are you, KC. Both of you: if you're here to admin, then do it. If not, then what's really going on here? Are either of you involved in the incidents? If not, then what's really going on here? WP:MYOB seems to fit the bill. If you're not here to clarify and/or enforce policy, then why are you sticking up for one party in a dispute where you emphatically say that all sides are guilty? I smell something, and it ain't flowers. Belchfire-TALK 19:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

He is "being adminny" by responding here, as am I. If you peruse the extensive archives of this page, you will find most of it is simply discussing the issues brought here. I'm not sure who you are addressing the rest of your comments to, but so far as I can tell, Mastcell did not "stick up" for anyone, he commented, as is appropriate, on the incongruence of your reporting Still for hatting and asking for sanctions a couple of days ago, and then turning around and hatting his comments. Your approach here is combative and insulting to the very admins who are trying to help with problems. Not a recommended approach. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Belchfire, I'm not sure where you got the idea that an admin has to actively put on their admin hat to be acting as an admin. At AN/I, it's more often the opposite. (not-an-admin) - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My $.02: if you all don't find a way to work out these issues without going to AN/I every two days you're all gonna end up before Arbcom. If that happens, no one is going to be happy with the result (which will likely be a combo of blocks and topic bans for all involved and discretionary sanctions on these articles). Sædon^talk 19:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this thought occurred to me. I posted this anyhow, because I didn't see any other way to get Belchfire to stop edit-warring in violation of WP:TPG. If you have advice on a better way, I am entirely open to it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I'm inclined to take it to arbcom now. It seems as though every time I expand looking at articles on these topics, I find another fight involving most of the same people. I've given up either editing the articles or discussing them in talk. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We could do that, but it's going to be as much about Belchfire and the WikiProject Conservatism group as it is about me. I've been working on my personal skills and done a much better job as of late on getting along with others. But it doesn't seem to apply to this particular group; their behavior has been hostile from the start and has remained so. They're free to disagree with me, but edit-warring to violate WP:TPG is too much. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be an RfC on WikiProject Conservatism, but you're not helping things by distracting us from that goal. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Right now, though, I'd really like to be able to post an invitation without having it hatted over and over again. So, yes, it's a separate issue, but it's a pressing one for me. If there were a better venue, I'd use it.

While I'm on the topic, I should probably comment that I've read WP:CANVAS and it appears to be entirely acceptable to write a neutral invitation addressed at all editors on an article. My choice of articles has always been dictated by the nature of the disagreement. In this case, we have a dispute about same-sex marriage so I posted to Same-sex marriage. The same is true for the other examples that Belchfire gathered; they're all no-brainers based on the topic. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything left for me to comment on, and since Belchfire has not restored the hatting, this report looks like it's concluded. There are some still-open issues that were some raised here, and they'll be followed up on, but in a more appropriate forum. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Belchfire, you would do good to tone it down. This is "Administrators' Noticeboard/ Incidents" (note the apostrophe after Administrators). The primary function of this board is for admins to offer guidance, although anyone is welcome to participate. Telling an admin to mind his own business, when this board is designed for precisely what MastCell is doing, is clearly out of line here. Try going to WP:AE and telling one of the Arbs to piss off and see how far that gets you. Stillstanding brought the issue here and presented it in a neutral fashion, something I would want to encourage since the events between you two have been less so, previously. MastCell's comments are instructive and appropriate here and he was acting as an admin. Your comments are not appropriate. The majority of the function of being an admin doesn't require the tools, only common sense and objectivity. I suggest you read up a bit on admins so you can understand that in the future, and don't make the mistake of telling anyone participating in a discussion at AN/I to "mind their own business". And since you haven't read up yet, please note that I'm acting as an admin here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesluxley

Jamesluxley (talk · contribs) has been creating some highly confused OR screeds at Oikema and elsewhere (see AfD) and has disclosed a link to his private homepage ([47], [48]) which explains the agenda behind it – an agenda that, frankly, can only be described as lunatic. Given the degree of obvious delusion displayed in these ravings [49][50], can we cut the story short and apply the inevitable indef-block right away rather than wait until it all moves even further down the inexorable road of wiki-madness? (I guess I count as "involved" now, having brought the page to AfD.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh dear, " I believe Wikipedia is a front operation also. They delete almost everything I add or write". It's blatantly clear from this person's weird ideas that we do not have someone here who would be a useful contributor to the project, for obvious reasons. I've imposed an indef block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I've also reverted this change, as it was sourced only by a translation of "πορνείο = brothel", and there's no way we can trust any of this guy's unsourced factual claims. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Just FYI, πορνείο actually is Greek for brothel, so at least he got that right.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, the translation was right ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually, πορνείο is Modern Greek (whereas the article he was editing deals with ancient Greece). The Attic Greek word was πορνεῖον. Deor (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• I was torn for a while as to what tool to use. I've decided to use the edit tool to supply a rationale, that you can all refer to with "per Uncle G", to the AFD discussion. ☺ That was a bit of a lurch, changing tracks from a week of Cyrillic to NT Greek. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm glad some sanity has been restored. What we should all learn from this experience is: never "put" your womenfolk "in a house", because it means something nasty, and it doesn't end well [51]. ("Or so they say, but I don't believe it.") – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • "This is linguistics and that is a science", you know. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
      • My brain is hurting. His webpage reads like the initial napkin scribblings of a Dan Brown novel, written by an advocate of those Super Sekret Biblical Dokuments that used to be sold in the back of tabloids. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know if this is of any interest, but shortly after I reverted the very first edits that Jamesluxley made I got this friendly warning from an IP:
  • "Hi. I can see that you have reverted a contribution made by user:Jamesluxley on the article Frederik's Church. I just want to warn you that this user may be an old "villain" Haabet from the Danish wikipedia, a user who is known as being false positive while inserting nonsense. Please keep an eye on him! -93.160.114.90 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)"
• Even though I edit on the Danish Wikipedia, this one seems to have been banned before my time, so I can't say if there are any similarities, but I notice that Jamesluxley does apparently claim to know some Danish and Swedish (as well as his first edit on English Wikipedia was to a Danish related article). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And if you read his web site, there's some Danish stuff there - Carlsberg is a Buddhist Viking United Nations conspiracy, or something like that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • That's from Jamesluxley (talk · contribs), which the Danish Wikipedia deals with by simply reverting and blanking. Haabet (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Haabet (talk · contribs) the English Wikipedia has already blocked and there's no reason to suspect that they're the same person. In any case, Haabet signed xyrself with xyr actual name over on the Danish Wikipedia, and that was (and is) someone else. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Just in case anyone is still interested, he's been further updating his site with his account of his experience at Wikipedia - here. (But don't blame me if your brain melts and starts dripping out your ears before you get to the end). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh my god, my brain, look, it's dripping all over my keyboard nmnm,kjekjdfm,nm,n,nm,nm and it's only your faullkllllmmnmnbnnmnmn,lklkljmn,m ..... Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, folks. Ridiculing people isn't going to get them to go away any faster: conspiracy theorists thrive on ridicule. We've established that this content isn't appropriate in the slightest, so let's quietly keep it that way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

user:History2007

I'm dealing with an editor (History2007, talk) of an article whose work is highly questionable. When I arrived at the article Suetonius on Christians the editor had misspelled a central name every time it was used. S/he had described Suetonius as confused five times. At the moment s/he talks about contempt five times. I find this POV. Repetitions abound. For example, the second parts of the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs of the lede are just repetitions of opinions from later in the text. Most of the article was based on the opinions of scholars who don't supply any evidence for their claims and the editor didn't indicate by name that s/he was citing opinions of these scholars. With some effort I seem to have the user citing names for opinions now. However, now, whenever I try to remove a repetition of material s/he reinserts it and has just reached the limit of my tolerance, claiming that I have 3RRed. Having dealt before with what I consider a disruptive editor who didn't understand 3RR, I will head off the issue here and seek help from you. -- spin^control 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I consider myself notified. And yes, I did say that you crossed WP:3RR after I had left you a message to avoid it. You did cross WP:3RR after notification. That is clear.

My feeling is that the real issue is Doktor spin's statement just above that an article is questionable because it is based on "opinions of scholars who don't supply any evidence for their claims", after having been requested a number of times to read WP:V. Just today, his characterization of scholarly opinions as "less than verifiable" was responded to on WP:V by another user, as it been explained to him before elsewhere. Dr Spin seems to think that some scholars are "nitwits" (his word, not mine), other scholars generate "hot air" (his word, not mine), others are wrong, etc.

And by the way the issue of "contempt" is that expressed by the Roman historians such as Pliny, Suetonius, etc., not among Wikipedia editors. It is a "content issue" not appropriate here, and I added another reference for it by Stephen Benko. But again that is a content issue, as are all possible misspellings.

As for "Suetonius being confused", yes, there are again multiple scholars who say that (and is in fact the 'majority scholarly view'), and that was why it was in the article. And it is again a content issue, supported by multiple scholarly references. I would, however, note that the characterization of scholars as "nitwits" as mentioned on Doktor spin's talk page, and changes that deviate from source by calling scholarly opinions POV has gone too far.

As for my work being "questionable" Doktor spin, after writing 600 articles, and many on DYK, I have a feeling I may know what I am doing, after all - although I am getting really, really tired of having to explain WP:V to users again and again.

By the way, here are the 4 diffs:

• [52]
• [53]
• [54]
• [55]

As for "not understanding 3RR", the policy is both simple and clear:

"Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

And there are clearly 4 of those now. What is not a content issue is Doktor spin's crossing of WP:3RR after notification. That is a bright-line rule breach. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If I had crossed the 3RR History2007 would have done so as well. However, as I understand it, no particular edit has reached the 3RR, though I think History2007 has certainly displayed a penchant for both disruptive and biased editing. His/her main contributions seem to have been, rather than dealing with content, to paint the primary source Suetonius as confused and contemptuous, based on scholars who don't usually spend more than a paragraph or two on the issue, so they usually don't provide anything more than untinged opinions. The proposition that Suetonius is confused is unfalsifiable, as R.T. France has indicated. I could cite other scholars in the article on the issue, but that would just continue the cycle of escalation.

History2007 seems to confuse the issue here with what is said on talk pages. If I think that people who use POV terms such as "pagan" are nitwits and said it in an article then there might be something to complain about. If I said that a scholar was wrong in an article without a source for doing so there might be something to complain about. However, as this hasn't happened, s/he doesn't understand that what is on the talk pages has no effect in the article and is irrelevant here.

As to the list of reverts, let's look at them. The first:

• [56]

If one looks at the diff, they'll see that the material which deals with dating has been moved after the new section on dating. Perhaps, History2007 could have paid more attention and saved us this error. Next,

• [57]

This is unrelated to the previous edit and involves the repetition of material found later in the article. Then,

• [58]

A rewording unrelated to any previous edit. Finally,

• [59]

This involves the removal of a reinsertion of the repeated material mentioned in the first diff above. In fact, I cut "Most scholars agree that this expulsion of some Jews around AD 49-50 is consistent with the chronology of Paul and the time frame Suetonius refers to" from the text, yet it remains there... well, the original statement of it. I find History2007 somewhat confused about the 3RR and I don't see why things have to be repeated for no apparent justification. -- spin^control 15:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not so. But I am not even going to respond to this, or watch this again for another half a day. Will be a waste of time. The reverts are clear ("whether involving the same or different material"), and I made sure I did not do 4. You should know how WP:3RR works, given that you were blocked for it in March 2009.

But your calling other editors "disruptive" is just not OK. Not ok at all.... and does require some action. I will stop now. A real waste of time here.... History2007 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You made sure you did not do 4. Instead, according to the definition you seem to be using, you did 5 in 2 1/2 hours:

• (reinsertion)
• (reordering)
• (renamed section)
• (rewriting with omission)
• (removal of bolding)

-- spin^control 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Spin, you are clearly at 3RR. Have you actually read WP:3RR? Ah, should have checked your block record first. It's a long time ago, but 2 blocks for 3RR plus a 3rd block, and you've been warned. Your removal of material from the lead, which you call repetition, was your first in the last 24 hours (although part of a sequence stretching beyond 24 hours). Later you "Removed reinserted repetitions of POV opinions." Then you removed the word "some". Time to stop. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit shocked, Dougweller. You're functionally saying any correction of fact is a revert (as in the case of the "some"), as is the pruning of any reduplication. --spin^control 20:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Spin, a revert is a revert whether you're right or wrong, except in blatant vandalism, and a clear violation of BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

IIUC, this seems to mean that any notion of "revert" has been defined out of Wiki:revert such that it now means "change (non-self-correcting)". Is this correct? -- spin^control 02:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It means "reverting what's been removed". If somebody removes someting you inserted, and then you reinsert that content - or vice versa - regardless of what else you do in that edit, it's a revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is something like--though not quite--what I understood, but not what Dougweller (or History2007) has indicated: any removal (or, functionally, any change that doesn't simply add) is now claimed to constitute a revert. There is no sign of returning to a prior state, as entailed by a real world use of the term. -- spin^control 04:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I really do not want to spend time on this, but trust me Doktor spin, reading the policy helps. It says:

• A revert "can involve as little as one word".

• "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."

So if editor A make 10 changes without an intervening edit from editor B that is one revert. If editor B has made an intervening change, then that sequence will become two reverts, etc. The policy is simple and clear.

On that note, now that we are here, perhaps someone could also help explain the issue of "majority view" to Doktor spin. I do not seem to have succeeded in explaining that. The glaring example of why that explanation is needed is that he wrote 3 subsections with a sentence at the end which said something like:

• Nevertheless, most scholars date the event to around AD 49-50

Now since when does policy suggest that minority opinion should come first, then majority opinion follows it at the end, with the "nevertheless" attached? That is not how Wikipedia works. Someone needs to explain that. It is like saying "nevertheless most geologists hold that the earth is round". History2007 (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember that photo you wanted me to look at? I took this sentence,

"Most historians date the expulsion of some Jews from Rome to around AD 49-50 and the chronology of Paul coincides with that date, and is consistent with the time frame Suetonius refers to."

which had basically no context and I provided it with one as it now follows after a chronological argument (excluding Cassius Dio's 41, Orosius's 49 and examining the Gallio inscription, the most complex, which yields a date range--which you did not appreciate and disfigured). The argument ended with a date range for the expulsion of 47 to 53. Despite that date range many Christian scholars and a few Jewish scholars--most of whom provide no argument and usually resort to claiming that most scholars believe it--accept the restricted date range. Hence, I contextualized the complete statement cited above with a "nevertheless" in order to show that there was a noticeable difference between the date range in Slingerland's six peer-reviewed articles and the opinions of others (usually expressed in single paragraphs of popular books).

The sentence was placed in the most logical place for it, ie with the discussion of the date range from the Gallio inscription and that follows the other issues. Benko, M. Stern and others support the 41 dating. A number of other scholars are happy to cite Orosius despite his debunking. The most substantial and most interesting is left to last. It is with this that the "Most historians" statement, which remained the same as when you wrote it here, was attached to the discussion on the date range with the contrastive adverb "nevertheless" placed before it as an anaphoric hook. -- spin^control 12:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this is the appropriate place to delve into Roman history, so I will be brief. As Doktor spin just stated above:

• He presented long arguments within the article to support the "date range 47 to 53", which he knows to be the minority opinion, given the next statement here.

• He then added a statement to the end that "nevertheless most scholars date the event to around 49-50" which he knows to be the majority opinion.

That is clear. I am sorry, but despite his good intentions, there seem to be "problems" in this user's comprehension of Wikipedia policy, as manifested by the statement that started this thread, namely his rejection of "opinions of scholars who don't supply any evidence for their claims", after 4 years on Wikipedia. This is further manifested by the questions asked on Secondary source and WT:V after having been asked to read WP:V, and the very existence of this continuing discussion. I am sorry, but I am not at all certain how I can explain the relevant Wikipedia policies to the user in this case. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Look History2007, you whinged about something and now you are saying that you aren't interested in the clarification. My issue here is the fitness of the material you have put into that article. So just a reminder. In this diff you made the following change:

"at the instigation of Chrestus" became "at the instigation of Cherstus"

at the same time changing most other instances of "Chrestus" to the erroneous "Cherstus" and constructed this gem:

"Suetonius misheard 'Cherstus' as 'Cherstus'"

the first of which you changed a minute later to 'Chrestus', but in reality you needed to say "Suetonius misheard 'Christus' as 'Chrestus'", all the while claiming "Suetonius is somewhat confused". It stayed that way with additions for weeks. You were so interested in the confusion of Suetonius that you actually inserted this factoid five times:

"Suetonius is somewhat confused..."

"The confusion of Suetonius..."

"...the confusion of Suetonius..."

"Suetonius is somewhat confused..."

"The confusion of Suetonius..."

There was stuff in the lede like:

"Suetonius is somewhat confused in this passage and refers to 'Cherstus' as the leader of Christians"

when Suetonius mentioned neither "Cherstus" not Christians.

The article was filled with untinged opinions of theologians, all unattributed in the text, giving those opinions the status of facts, rather than the unsupported popular conjectures that they are. Not a single historian in the field of classics is cited anywhere in the discussion of a Latin writer, so it becomes difficult to claim that the references in the article were WP:RS. Not a single scholarly paper was cited, so no peer-reviewed opinion appeared in the article. Just

"Most scholars assume that..."

"Scholars generally agree that..."

"Most historians..."

As no opinion was attributed to the opiner in the text it is hard to tell where the cited opinion stopped and the OR--such as the following--started,

"The passage was likely written before 96 AD, when the Romans still viewed Christianity as a Jewish sect."

The lede was filled with recyclings of this mess, mixing few facts with opinions and confusion, just copying selected sentences from what was already written and flushing out the lede until it bloated to the size of the main section of the article.

You then abandoned it that way, hardly ever having provided an edit summary. When for example I introduced some scholarly argument and contrast to balance the article, you merely ratted through googlebooks to find more favorable opinions to flood the article. There was no point in my introducing more scholarship to balance the result: such escalation bloats an article while making it unreadable. Hopefully two good things have come out of this exchange: you're now supplying edit summaries and you are now introducing the people responsible for the opinions you are purveying. -- spin^control 22:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

While I love a good ancient Roman history discussion, this appears to be little more than a content dispute discussion now. I don't think any of the above justifies the 3RR violation should that be the actual case.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no ancient history discussion here. It's a description of careless tendentious editing of material and an editor who shows no sign of understanding the material. So perhaps there is a content dispute. -- spin^control 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The original AN/I filing appears to state that History2007 is the disruptive editor violating 3RR. It appears that User:Doktorspin has violated the 3RR with disruptive edit warring believing the right to correct information is an exemption from3RR. It is not. While his good faith is not questioned, this seems a classic case of what we used to call a boomarang but now refer to as Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. I was not interested in 3RR violating and only mentioned it because a system gamer hurled it at me. It's strange that you didn't read much of what I said in the filing. I was interested in the editing that sold nothing but opinions as content, that showed no interest in the subject and that needed to escalate when contrast was introduced. -- spin^control 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you were not interested in making a mistake. Can you show how the other editor was gaming the system? Seems like a very serious accusation. The rest really is your opinion of the editor and their intent and "I was interested in the editing that sold nothing but opinions as content" just seems like an admission that this is a content dispute.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll withdraw the accusation of "gaming the system", apologize and plead ignorance of the inner workings of the 3RR such that 1) the rule no longer deals with reverts but any changes and 2) that any number of these reverts when done in sequence becomes a single revert unless an editor interrupts that sequence occasionally. So if another editor inserts something during a sequence one can construct a case for 3RR violation, given that "revert" doesn't mean "revert", but any change of prior material. I now know that this is the case and need to catch an editor in the act of serial "reverts" to make sure I get a few edits in, such that the one "revert" becomes a series. -- spin^control 22:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been with Wikipedia now for over 5 years and I still had to ask for a clarification on 3RR just the other night.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My advice now naturally is to work out when other editors are asleep and then you can "revert" as much as your heart desires and it's still only one "revert". -- spin^control 23:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Doktor spin has now embraced the WP:3RR policy, following his apology above. Can we also clarify the "majority view" issue please? History2007 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't embraced it, though it is clear you have. I will however remember what the definition of Wiki:revert is.

What exactly do you mean by the "majority view" here? Do you mean the majority view of history scholars? Perhaps you could start citing a few. Do you mean the views published in scholarly journals? You will remember that the flat earth belief was the "majority view" for millennia. If I cite from several articles by a scholar that have undergone peer review (ie several scholars have had to support publication) and published in various scholarly journals do you think it is a reasonable response to ridicule the writer (whose first name is Dixon), referring to him as "Dixie" 12, because he has the temerity to espouse views discordant with the generalities you've found on googlebooks? -- spin^control 03:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope someone else can explain what "majority view" means. I have not been getting vary far. I have provided you with a link to the policy before - a few times in fact. Perhaps "reading the policy" may be a good idea. Believe me, I am really (I mean really) tired of holding tutorials on policy here. There should really be a help center of some type to explain policy to you - go on WP:Help desk and ask.. When you say that Dixie/Dixon has "the temerity to espouse views discordant with the generalities" that means that you know he has the minority view and is going against what the majority of scholars say. The guideline WP:RS/AC makes it clear how that is to be stated. So:

• If 70% of scholars say the earth is round, and 30% say the earth is flat, the "flat earth group" is the minority view. The round earth group is the majority view.

Is that not obvious from policy? But why do I bother wasting my life holding tutorials here? Why do I bother? History2007 (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

IjonTichyIjonTichy - The Zeitgeist Movement

Can an uninvolved admin look at the situation at Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement?

User:IjonTichyIjonTichy appears to be disruptive at The Zeitgeist Movement by edit warring and reverting the contributions of other editors, very often with reasons not based on policy, guidelines and also reasons which aren't always articulated or are vague. The editor also appears to frequently avoid addressing specific questions and issues and goes instead on side tangents in relation to the topic and makes comments that can only be described as bizarre and irrelevant. For example [60]:

"And, of course, another, and important, reason to include the link is that it discusses ideas from a female and a feminist perspective. Given that almost all of the authors of our secondary and primary resources on TZM, as well as the majority of WP editors (including, it seems, the majority, if not all, of the currently-active editors on the TZM article) may be males. Given that many WP readers are females, it would be probably refreshing for them to browse our article on Brown and perhaps even read her article ('Does work really work'). [BTW my wife liked Brown's work. Admittedly not a very scientific experiment since it is based on a single data point...] Regards"

Which is followed by a long tangent about statistics about the number of male editors. As another example, here is a relevant exchange:

• Wall of text [61]
• direct question from Darkness shines [62]
• Wall of text [63]
• Succinct points by Darkness and Bbb23 [64]
• Wall of text [65]

In the rather length pastes of text I don't see any reliable sources to back up the position of IjonTichyIjonTichy. He now appears to be engaging in ad hominem personal attacks against editors on their talk pages: [66] (bizarrely it appears he expects the editor read "tens of hours of TZM documentary films, tens of hours of TZM-produced lectures"), also see [67]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I will comment more fully later if required (I have to go out), but can I add that this is yet another example of a long-standing issue regarding IjonTichyIjonTichy's disrupltive behaviour. He seems incapable of comprehending wikipedia policies - or alternatively, comprehends them, but chooses to ignore them in pursuit of his endless promotion of the movement he is involved with. Either way, he has done far too much damage for far too long, and in my opinion needs to be blocked indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would have suggested a topic ban but it seems this is the only topic area he edits in. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest an indefinite block because, though warned over and over, no change in behavior has followed. He is like an A.I. machine that takes in information and then uses that negatively in a black comedy of wiki-lawyering. Sorry, but that is the pattern. Though he seems 'friendly' at times, he is actually deadly with his single minded promotion advocacy of Venus Project/Zeitgeist. That is maybe understandable because he advocates for them, but he is not a neutral editor, he is using Wikipedia like a blog for his thinking. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Having been in a similar situation while writing about a fringe movement, the editors working on this article have my sympathy. That being said, ITIT's writings are actually pretty entertaining, to me at least. Anyway, I think a topic ban might be an Ok solution. If this is the only topic he cares about, it would more or less have the same result as a block, and be easier to get support for. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I never really got involved in the TZM article, but over at Technological unemployment ITIT seemed to want it to have lengthy essays in support of TZM. There were copyvio problems at one point in the past, but I think ITIT has already learned that lesson. bobrayner (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also worth mentioning is that he as a member of the movement has a wp:coi. I've hoped that his membership of the movement could benefit of the article, under the assumption that IjonTichyIjonTichy will actually know more about the movement and its positions and be able to point us to reliable sources. However, this hasn't happened. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that making it out to be a COI issue might be stretching things a little. He is a supporter of a political movement, but so are a large number of Wikipedia contributors. Do we describe a supported of the Democratic Party editing an article on Romney, or a Republican making edits regarding Obama as having a COI? Not as far as I'm aware - and the fact that IjonTichyIjonTichy is a supporter of a smaller, fringe movement shouldn't alter the principle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it's rather an issue of a bias which he is unable to overcome and hence rather a question of wp:competence that cp:coi. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by uninvolved Jorgath

I propose that IjonTichyIjonTichy be placed under an indefinite topic ban from mainspace edits regarding the Zeitgeist Movement, broadly construed. ITIT is free to edit talk pages in that area, provided he follows all other policies of course. I'm basing this off of the model we use for notable people who wish to contribute to their own article - they generally can request edits on the talk page, but not edit it themselves. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. The only way this is worse than a topic ban is if sock/meat puppetry becomes involved. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If he is going to fill talk pages with interminable sermons, rants and this-because-of-that-because-of-the-other synthesis and OR, that would achieve nothing beyond pissing off other contributors even more. If TZM want to find someone to represent their interests regarding our article on them (an idea that many other TZM supporters seem not to have grasped), they should be able to find someone less clueless and verbose. If they can't, it is their problem, not ours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if he does, that's where other policies and guidelines come in. Like WP:TPG, for instance. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

...Which are the very policies his latest interminable screeds are in violation of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...How about this addition: "ITIT is also placed under heightened scrutiny in regards to talk-page edits in this topic area, and faces escalating blocks for any disruption or disregard of policy in such edits." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rants and screeds cannot help but foul up the talk pages he trolls. Binksternet (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Binksternet; if you're gong to topic ban him, include discussing the topic, on article and user talk pages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal by IRWolfie-

Topic ban IjonTichyIjonTichy from the Zeitgeist movement, broadly construed. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support As nom. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. I'd prefer the one I proposed over this, but I'd prefer this over doing nothing. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but wider ban, more severe. Editor is far too deeply involved in the Z movement, cannot think independently, cannot be of any use to the encyclopedia except as an example. Binksternet (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, though as I said above, I think an indefinite block would be preferable. If this is to have any chance to work though, it will need an uninvolved person explaining in detail to IjonTichyIjonTichy exactly what it entails, and making clear that it includes everything he does on Wikipedia, whether in articles, on talk pages, or anywhere else, and that 'broadly' means that he can't do anything that remotely links to TZM, to anyone involved with TZM, or to anything that TZM is involved in. And that it specifically includes trying to Wikilawyer around the ban. He has to accept that anything which looks like a ban violation in our opinion, not his will result in an indefinite block. Clearly he will need to have a specific exception for somewhere to ask specific questions relating to the scope of the ban, and should he want to do so, to eventually ask for the ban to be lifted (a sub-page in his user space maybe - or one in the user space of a volunteer admin?), but otherwise, a ban is exactly what it says, and no arguing. And he needs to be aware that regardless of issues relating to TZM advocacy, his behaviour on talk pages has been unacceptable, and that any further verbose screeds of original research and the like, of endless failures to accept clear consensus, and all the rest are likely to also have serious repercussions, regardless of the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  That sounds like a pretty much perfect explanation to me, and I'd have no problems with your posting of it on ITIT's talk page should this proposal be passed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per my above comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Pragmatic support: I don't think ITIT is malicious; I have no intention of pushing them off-wiki entirely; but the ongoing TZM thing isn't helping anyone. Some time spent improving articles on other stuff could be helpful. If there are other problems on other articles, well, we cross that bridge when we get to it, but I hope IjonTichyIjonTichy can make some genuine improvements elsewhere bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Much of the disruption is exactly in these long repetitive posts on talk pages. Regular editors learn to ignore them, but a contributor new to the subject will find the walls of text off-putting. A site ban might be kinder. It'd be great if he took an interest in fly fishing, or postmodernist theater or something, but I don't think that's likely. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I have put up with Ijon's argument style and pro-TZM agenda for a very long time. His repetitive verbosity is numbing, and even more so when he is being dignified and civil, although lately, I have seen him descend into personal attacks. And I have not borne the brunt of Ijon's endless discussion of the same issues; others far more involved in the article than I have. He has exasperated the patience of all who deal with him and should be banned from any edits related to TZM on any page in Wikipedia. As for Andy's comments about blocking him, that must wait for a later time if he violates the ban. Ijon may choose, as Andy understandably fears, to misinterpret the ban, but it is not his interpretation that controls whether he is blocked for violating it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Perhaps if he is forced to work only on topics where he isn't deeply biased he'll start to understand and accept Wikipedias policies. Worth a try. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I have been watching activity for a couple of weeks and it is clear that the user will never accept Wikipedia's procedures for writing neutral articles in connection with the Zeitgeist movement—it is too easy to use Wikipedia's reputation and Google ranking to promote one's favorite topic. The incomprehensible walls of text on talk pages are very unhelpful (see this whitelist request for a superb example). There are a couple of other SPAs active in the area (and 38 articles mentioning "zeitgeist movement", see search), so this won't be the end of the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQ! A lot of that unsurprisingly was IjonTichyIjonTichy adding TVP, TZM and RBE to unrelated "See Also" sections. I hope that behavior will be covered under "broadly construed". I've undone most of it. There was a couple of articles where it actually made at least a little bit of sense, I let them stay there. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that 'broadly construed', even if 'narrowly interpreted' would cover it perfectly well - though as you note it wasn't all ITIT's work - TZM promotion won't stop with his ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support IjonTichyIjonTichy seems to be the major stumbling block in regards to this topic-space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per bobrayner; suggest a simple paste and edit of AndyTheGrumpAndyTheGrump's comment would provide a good start to explaining the ban to IjonTichyIjonTichy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• support I think this is needed--a restriction for mainspace only will not prevent the disruption elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I had a feeling it was going to turn out like this a couple of months ago when I saw what he was doing and warned him at the time. Despite his 'ostensible' friendliness, he alternates that with withering attacks as an editing rationale and method. No place for that here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Even though I generally argue against Draconian solutions - in this case it is the only choice. I would expect that any "reincarnation" would be recognized quickly, for sure, from the style of his posts. Collect (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Sad it has to come to this, but for all the reasons given by others, this just can't go on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncool editing at Celtic F.C.

Ricky072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently added and then, after I removed it, restored with an edit-summary mentioning ZOMG censorship some controversial material relating to fans of Celtic F.C., sourced only to The Sun and a photo published by a self-styled Ultras' blog. He has since bolstered his argument with a link to a YouTube video. As I have edited the article extensively, could an uninvolved admin possibly educate this relatively new Wikipedian, who only edits in relation to Glasgow's two football clubs, on the finer points of WP:RS and WP:EDITWAR, etc? Thanks a lot. --John (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

He reverted your revert once and added an additional source (albeit not a good one), so its not really editwarring, although as this is IRA related, he probably needs to be aware (and doesnt know) that there is a 1RR regarding many troubles related matters so needs to be careful. Youtube is not a reliable source, however, im surprised this is deemed serious enough to raise here when it has been widely reported and is known to be the case. How about this source [68], a daily mail article talking about the police warning Celtic fans regarding IRA chanting? or the Guardian if tabloids are unacceptable [69] BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

the Independent, UTV, Telegraph, and i could find numerous other clearly reliable sources that back up the part about IRA chants. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian source is a decent one and, as I said to the user, I would support a talk page discussion towards adding something based from better sources. I cannot support the sort of hostility the user typically engages in, as exemplified more by the edit summary than the revert itself, though the revert is somewhat worrying when the user was blocked for 3RR only a few weeks ago and has received multiple warnings since. As I said, I am not looking for enforcement at this stage, but more of a word to the wise about sourcing, wikiquette and such matters. If this was accompanied by a friendly notification that further conduct like this would be likely to lead to a loss of privileges I would not complain, and neither I think could the user.--John (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How about a word to the wise about canvassing? Nobody Ent 19:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

john is to involved with the edits of the article/articles in questions as a admin he should be stepping aside and letting someone else look at it dependently and neutrally, i think ricky isnt being constitutive however i think john in his approach isnt helping either, im surprise john appears to have canvassed as a adminAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Nobody Ent to read over WP:CANVASS and state which part he thinks my single neutrally worded notification contravenes. Thus far, there has been no response. --John (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how posting a single discussion on the noticeboard which has possibly the most diverse group of frequenters on the project could possibly be construed as canvassing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

basalisk you are clearly unable to read but john posted on admin bwilkins user talk page asking him to take a look at this for him that is canvassing to me, but hey i am sure another wikipedia policies will be used to justify it, personally i dnt care as the user in question is basically breaking the rules but john isnt helping in my mind with his attuide towards itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. And asking an admin "Hey, please take a look" is not canvassing. Asking an admin "Hey, please come decide this in my favor" is canvassing. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest Ricky's editing has now reached a disruptive level. He has been warned and blocked by at least 4 admins yet shows no signs of change or even acknowledgemnt of what he may have done wrong. Adam4267 (talk)

I find this report here from John rather unusual, as is the canvassing aspect of his edits. Ricky072 is quite an inexperienced editor and should perhaps take note of what sources should be used and when. Monkeymanman (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It was quite obviously not canvassing. Ricky can only use the "inexperienced" excuse for so long. He has been warned what not to do many, many times and has been blocked aswell. IMO he has shown no signs of even trying to learn how to become a better editor and has argued with anyone that has suggested he is doing anything wrong. Adam4267 (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to close WQA

Of interest to readers of this board since (according to the proposal) "AN/I should be able to handle civility complaints (and it already does)." 28bytes (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

• Future time stamping to keep active longer... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Michigan External Link Spammer - repeat block evasion

97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs)

BLOCK EVASION

This IP address is the primary for this longterm Michigan external link spammer. An analysis of their IP ranges is here.

This particular address is for a Michigan library. Last May a 3-month block was set for abusive editing (presumably by a third party), and that block expired a few days ago.

Since their primary IP was blocked, the original ext link spammer (editor I am now complaining about) used several other IPs, as detailed here.

Earlier this month, the primary range of alternative IPs for the ext link spammer was blocked for 30 days as a result of my prior ANI against this editor. That block is still in effect.

However, the editor has been busy with the same old behaviors, and has received many short term blocks as detailed here

As I post this, 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs) is engaged in block evasion yet again.

ACTION SOUGHT: Please block 97.87.29.188 for another 3 months, and please re-start the 30-day clock that is now running (but is being circumvented) as a result of my prior ANI (link above). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

PS As I explained in the prior ANI this is chronic low level disruption of the climate pages. No single edit is really hugely terrible but the repeated posting of ext links with a demonstrated intent to not bother trying to actually improve anything is a large chronic disruption to that subject area. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ILLEGIT, "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart". An admin still has to push buttons to tell the server that the timer has restarted before the server erroneously allows it to expire on Sept 2. Since the current 30-day range block was put in place, this Michigan sock has engaged in 10 block-evading editing sessions (six of which were caught in time to impose short term blocks on specific IPs used). It is my belief the blocked range is for the user's home and they are slowed down now only by the inconvenience of editing elsewhere. Please do not let the 30-day range block erroneously expire on the server. The quoted policy says the act of evasion is what restarts the clock. We still need someone to push those buttons NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Moore & Co.

I only have access via cell phone while I travel, so would appreciate someone looking at this while I'm away. At Benjamin Moore & Co. I had removed added content as the formatting of the addition made it appear to be copy/paste from another source. The removal was questioned, then restored by a third party without addressing the concerns in the content removal. I hope that it's not a copyvio; but that needs to be clarified. --- Barek (talk) - 01:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like copyvio or close paraphrase too close to pass muster. The use of the trademark symbol makes it look very much like copyvio. I've reverted the editor who replaced it and asked if he'd checked it and told him about this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some of the content removed was in violation, but some of it was not, such as the awards section. I have made changes to the page to avoid issues of copyright violation that provide some coverage of the company by reliable, third party sources. I also have to say while this does seem to be an issue of obvious copyright infringement, only the content that was obvious should have been removed (i.e. sections with trademark symbols) per Wikipedia:COPYVIO#Dealing_with_copyright_violations. That I am supposed to prove that it's not copyright infringement absolves the accuser the responsibility of actually demonstrating that it is once the claim has been questioned. This doesn't seem to be the right way to go about the process of disputing copyright infringement claims. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!)

I don't have time to do anything at the moment, but I've added the article to my watchlist because the recent additions are promotional fluffery and need to be replaced with neutral text, regardless of any copyright issues. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

They have been. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Plateau99 and Zoophilia

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

---

Plateau99 (talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia for some time and has been solely focused on Zoophilia and its sub-articles for the past couple years. He has been blocked for edit warring three times in the past nine months on Zoophilia. A couple days ago, two experienced editors, Someone963852 (talk · contribs) & Bali ultimate (talk · contribs), began to rewrite the page, having found major issues with sourcing and neutrality. Plateau99 has since accused them of "anti-zoophile bias"; he initially tried to revert them but then opened a Dispute resolution noticeboard thread on which he stated that they should be reverted because "[their] version of the article is too anti-zoosexual". Plateau99 said of his version that "There were some citation problems, but the solution is not to erase all of the information at once. The solution is to find sources that match the sentences." This makes me think that he is here to advance an agenda, rather than what reliable sources say. Guerillero (talk · contribs) weighed in at DRN, and said The only thing I can think will help here is a topic ban or an indef block and the DRN can't help there. I agree with him, so I'm bringing this here to suggest a topic ban or a block. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The diffs are at DRN if you would like to see them. I can move them over here if anyone requests them. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I am not trying to advance an "agenda", I am only trying to ensure that the article in question (and others like it) are not censored. One of the things that makes Wikipedia good is its ban on censorship, and the recent edits at the article in question seem to counteract this rule. I also agree that the zoophilia and the law article had POV/neutrality issues -- however I think the recent edits made to the article may have gone too far.

I also want to point out that other editors such as Someone963852 have also been blocked from editing for edit warring. The reason I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:DRN was to resolve this dispute without another edit war. Plateau99 (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the recent changes that got Plateau99 and me blocked for a month. I included an explanation for each revert, which he failed to do. [70] I reworded this for a neutral tone, but Plateau99 reverted without an explanation (like he did to all my other changes he deemed as not "pro-zoophilia" enough). [71] There are several problems with this. Both the article he used are opinion pieces, and the sentence should not be stated as though it were a definite fact. The “opposed to forcing sex upon animals” is not anywhere in the “browpalm” source listed. Plus, nowhere does it make a statement that “most zoophiles are not cruel to animals” in the second reference used to cite that portion. The “scientam” ref says “In other recent surveys, the majority of zoophiles scoffed at the notion that they were abusive toward animals in any way—far from it, they said.” Those are opinions. From zoophiles. This is a section titled “against”. It is not a place for him to refute it with false content or biased opinions. It is against the neutral POV policy. [72] Plateau99 is adding false, pro-zoophilia content by using random sources (which do not back up those claims) to cover them up and make it seem legitimate. The link he used to source that added info does not exist News24.com Bestiality new Aids myth – SPCA], but the actual article is here - which is from the same site and matches the article name he was trying to add. What Plateau99 tried to add: "In Africa, a myth developed in which bestiality was believed to spread AIDS, and people avoided the meat or milk of such animals.” From the ‘’’actual’’’ source: "The National Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) says it is horrified at claims that having sex with an animal prevents people from getting Aids. The organisation says bestiality neither prevents Aids nor is it a cure for the deadly disease."

Those are just some few examples, there are more examples on the Zoophilia talk page and the history pages. Someone963852 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Plateau's edits look a lot like advocacy. [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] --Guerillero | My Talk 03:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Plateau You are correct that Wikipedia is not censored, but I don't think that that is the issue here. I'm not trying to insult you by saying you're advancing an agenda, but it seems like you want your view of the subject to dominate the article. On Wikipedia, we try (or are supposed to try, at least) to keep a neutral tone (WP:NPOV) by following what reliable sources say about the subject (WP:RS). Your statements at DRN suggested to me that you sought to write down your views, and then find sources to support them if possible--which is a problem in general, whether we're talking about Zoophilia or politics/religion/etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to point out that source about the AIDS myth was not originally posted by me; yes, I did re-add it, but was not aware of the fact that it was a bad link. Once it was proven to be a bad link, I did not re-add it. In addition, while my edits may appear to be "pro-zoophilia", keep in mind that I was attempting to keep a neutral tone (WP:NPOV) in the sense that I was trying to balance the article with views favorable to the subject, since there were already views condemning it.

I also believe that in an article about zoophiles, the opinions of zoophiles (the source of what the article is about) should at least partially be represented by a reputable source -- in this case, the Broward Palm Beach Times. The fact that the information in the Broward Times came from zoophiles does not make it invalid. In addition, sentences on Wikipedia do not have to exactly match what is said in the sources (which, without quotes, would be plagiarism), which is why sentences were added which did not exactly match what was in the source.

As I stated at the DRN, the sentence I said was taken out of context (and made to appear, in bad faith, that I had an "agenda") -- the sentence meant this: any sentence, made by me or any other person, should not be immediately deleted only because it lacks a source, and should be considered for inclusion if a source can be found. (And if a source cannot be found, then it should be deleted). Plateau99 (talk) 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You can not add a bunch of unsourced, non-neutral POV original research to an article, expect it to stay on, and have other editors find sources for it. And I doubt there even are sources to support those unencyclopedic content. Someone963852 (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Being neutral is not "anti-zoophilia." Someone963852 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case "anti-zoophilia" is referring to a POV in the opposite direction. In other words, when information which appeared to be "pro-zoophilia" was removed, those edits inadvertently caused the article to become potentially "POV'ed" in the other direction. I only bring up "anti-zoophilia" as the opposite of the term people keep using in bad faith ("pro-zoophilia"). In reality, there is no such thing as "pro-zoophilia" or "anti-zoophilia"; or at least, that's the way it's supposed to be on Wikipedia. Plateau99 (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an advocacy site, and there is no requirement for anything "pro-zoophilia" to be in such an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The same can be said for those who oppose zoophilia and view it as abuse (they also "advocate", just against it). Since those views were already represented in the article, it made sense to balance it with an opposing view. WP:NPOV is based on the idea that an article should not lean too much to one side, and that is what I was trying to do. Plateau99 (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Point out specific parts in the two articles where you think is "anti-zoophilia." Someone963852 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. NPOV does not mean equal space for all ideas; it means that non-mainstream ideas are included but not given undue weight --Guerillero | My Talk 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The good versions of the zoophilia Wikipedia article (i.e. the ones made by pro-zoophilia editor Plateau99) will always be there; but if the anti-zoo troll "someone963852" gets his way, the only way people will be able to see the good versions of the article will be to go to the top of the article and click "view history", and then click on one of Plateau99's revisions. Unfortunately, I believe that most people are probably not going to do that, and will only be exposed to the bigoted version made by Someone963852. From the "Beast Forum." [79]. Always remember kids, assume good faith - and happy editing!.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The main reason why I attempted to add information from sources which appeared to view zoophilia favorably was because the article was already suffering from WP:UNDUE, just in the other direction. It should also be noted that a number of concepts coming from those who oppose zoophilia could be considered "fringe"; in other words, those in favor of zoophilia have stated that those who oppose them are "fringe", and those against zoophilia have said that those in favor of it are "fringe" -- it depends on whose perspective one is looking from.

Also, the quote that User:Bali ultimate just cited was from a non-reputable site (a forum site). I cannot control what people think about what happens on Wikipedia, all I can do is say that such comments are not relevant. Also, Bali ultimate's use of sarcasm (maybe?) could be seen as borderline WP:PA. Plateau99 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not going to find any usable sources that advocate screwing animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, there have been some reliable sources which have favorable views towards zoophilia (not "screwing animals"). Plateau99 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Zoophilia is a clinical-sounding euphemism for screwing animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, zoophilia encompasses a range of different subjects, which may or may not include having sex with them (animals). For example, some zoophiles don't have sex with animals at all. Plateau99 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which category do you fall into? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which parts of the two articles do you see as too anti-zoophilia? Point it out. Someone963852 (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the zoophilia and the law article (as it is now) is very different from the way it was, it is difficult to say exactly what was/is "anti-zoophilia" in terms of content. But as the zoophilia and the law article stands right now, there is a section ("Common reasons for given laws") stating why zoophilia is banned, but nothing to counteract such claims. There used to be a section highlighting the impact that such laws had on zoophiles. But with that removed, only the opinions of those who oppose zoophilia are represented. Plateau99 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Because those reasons are what put those laws in in the first place. It is not anti nor pro anything. This has gone on far too long, and I'm sick of replying to you when you should be blocked from Wikipedia for repeatedly adding non-neutral POV, original research, false citations to make claims seem legitimate, and other contents that are against Wikipedia's policies. I wonder why you're still here and I hope an admin does something about it soon. Someone963852 (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again with the personal attacks. That alone should reason enough for you to be blocked, not me. I'm not sure what you mean by "false citations", but I can assure you that the citations I added were not "false". And as I stated before, I was trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines -- adding information to balance the zoophilia and the law article and satisfy WP:NPOV, trying to protect content from being erased (to satisfy Wikipedia's anti-censor policies), and prevent the blanking of large portions of information without a legitimate reason. I can see getting rid of a few sentences here and there which may not conform to NPOV standards, but the blanking of information (including cited information) is against Wikipedia's guidelines -- which is why I brought up the issue in DRN in the first place. Plateau99 (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not possible to find a valid source which endorses sex with animals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That is not true; there are in fact sources which view zoophilia favorably (they don't "endorse" sex with animals). Some of these sources include: Broward Palm Beach Times, Peter Singer (Princeton professor), Hani Militski, the Scientific American, etc. I also want to point out that my opinion of zoophilia has no relevance to the edits I make; they may appear "pro-zoophilia", but in reality what I'm trying to do is create a fair, neutral article (in good faith) which represents multiple viewpoints. Plateau99 (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Trolling. Duh. Say "Buh-Bye" to it. Doc talk 05:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked, indef. Clear case of disruptive agenda editing in my view. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you made the right decision there, good work. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources could be found that support a pro-pedophila point of view aas well, but don't think for one hot minute that sort of thing would ever be allowed to slant the Wikipedia's pedophile topic articles to make that activity come across as more favorable. Sex with animals is not a right, people are not being discriminated against because they are prevented from practicing it. WP:NPOV means to treat all significant points of view fairly; the view that zoophilia is normal or acceptable in society is so far down the scale of deviancy that it does not even register on the scale. It does not deserve and should not be given equal footing in any Wikipedia article alongside the overwhelming sources that are critical of and condemning of the practice. Tarc (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FP, I definitely don't object to the block, but your block notice says that the editor is blocked "temporarily" which might be confusing to anyone reviewing the history of this matter in the future. -- Atama頭 05:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed that now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous Topic Ban U-Turn

User:Adam4267 was given a topic ban from editing Celtic F.C. supporters and Green Brigade. The previous discussion is here. He has admitted that he was topic banned here. Now recently he has started re-editting the articles and has been involved in an edit war [80], [81], [82], [83], [84] etc. I believe this has breached his previous sanctions. Monkeymanman (talk) 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that the topic ban was shortened to three months: [85]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I left this message [[86]] on bletheringscot's talk page, which I think is relevant. 220.255.1.156 (talk) 09:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

He deleted it, so here it is:

Hi Blethering Scot. Just my take on the recent goings on at Celtic F.C supporters. I think this is a good example of why there should be stronger sanctions against canvassing on wikipedia. Personally I think Getefane has not been hostile (on this page, which is the only one I can speak of) - far from it, I think his patience is barnstaresque given his edits were deleted on numerous occasions with little or no explanation.

I think the central point is though that both yourself and AndyCrawford came ino this as a result of blatant canvassing [[87]] from adam4267 as far as I can make out. Ironically, andycrawford originally said the edit was "fine and sourced", but anyway, as a result of this canvassing the two of you appeared on this page.

why do you refer to me as andycrawford??? my username is andrewcrawfordAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is that as you both work closely with adam4267 on the football pages, where he clearly does a good job, I think you both had a conflict of interest and didn't treat this neutrally. My advice for the future would be don't respond to canvassing.

no offence i only edit Rangers F.C. article i dnt really care about any other football article on wikipedia nor do i work with adam, i have done conversation and arguments with him on the rangers issue nothing else, i have been editing other footballs article related to rangers because of the whole deabte on whether there dead or not i rather not be watchign and having to keep on top of them i rather work on tv shows articlesAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case,the reason I intentionally broke the 3RR rule on this page was actually to bring attention to what i thought was some underhand goings on with regard to canvassing, with the end result that adam4267, who has had a topic ban on this page previously, was able to hide behind other editors and didn't need to properly justify his deletions, which I'm sure given his history on this page (i.e. topic ban) was very convenient. All I would ask for is that you're more careful in this regard in future. 220.255.1.152 (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.150 (talk)

I have already said what I think of my topic ban here. I stand by that completely. That is all I will say on this. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I will repost what I asked you here. So why are you edit warring on an article that you were topic banned from? Monkeymanman (talk) 12:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My take on the matter - but I'd first like to NB that I get on well with Adam, we help each other out over at the Football WikiProject, so I'm sure certain editors will reject outright what I'm about to say. Adam had a 3 month topic ban in September 2011, and as far as I can see he adhered to it and has become a better editor since. Therefore he is more than welcome to continue to edit the articles in question again. I cannot see him edit warring or breaking 3RR recently, though the conduct of everybody involved on this article has been far from perfect. Is any admin intervention needed now? No. Does everybody need to take a chill pill, step back and use the talk page? Yes. I have added the article to my watchlist and will continue to monitor. Should anybody edit war or break 3RR, I will happily take appropriate action. Oh, and Monkeymanman - it takes two to tango. Why are you edit warring as well? GiantSnowman 14:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

1/ yes agreed everyone has behaved badly 2/ if you're going to make accusations, as against monkey man, please can you reference them so the rest of us know what you're on about (and it comes across as more civil 3/ yes it is a problem that you also work closely with adam4267, as it means you're not a neutral party. It would really help if one of his colleagues on the footy project at least pointed out to him where he could improve his behaviour220.255.1.159 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input GS. I agree Adam is a productive editor but he received a years topic ban (reduced to 3 months upon appeal) on this article. I simply stated that I believed his recent editing had breached his previous sanction. As to your last point I agree it takes two to tango as you say. However have you actually looked at the pages recent history? The last time I edited the article was August, 8th and it was to correct blatantly wrong material. I would like you to take your final comment back. Monkeymanman (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, does it matter if someone breached an expired topic ban? That's why topic bans have expiration dates, and why topic bans aren't always set indefinitely. We ask someone to stay away from a particular area of Wikipedia for a short time in the hopes that they can return to that area later and be productive rather than disruptive. If Adam is engaging in the same behavior that led to the previous topic ban, that's one thing, but violating an expired topic ban isn't a problem at all, because the topic ban no longer exists. -- Atama頭 16:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Monkeymanman - removing factually correct information from an intro (it's referenced later in the article), removing mention of Celtic as the SPL's joint-most successful club, again factually correct, removal of referenced information without comment in the edit summary, same again here. You are pro-Rangers; Adam is pro-Celtic. We get it - you guys ain't mates. Move on. This ANI was completely unncessary. GiantSnowman 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all i suggest the ip proves his claims of canvassing, i am 100 percent sure he cant so im expecting an apology. Also he was reported by me for breaking 3RR which he did and says he did it deliberately, its pretty clear there is no valid reason to include information on a non notable subject against BLP and on a page where it isnt relevant. I asked for the page to be protected as well to allow further discussion and avoid edit warring so what more does he want, this should be closed before it boomerangs back on them especially since the topic ban has long expired. And for the record i get on with Adam as there isn't a reason not to he does a hell of a lot of good work far more than most and whilst he should maybe of explained himself better at times i don't see anything wrong here. And accusing Andrew Crawford of having a conflict of interests is peculiar at best he has virtually no involvement in this whatsoever and i suggest he has been only dragged into this because he happened to agree with us.Blethering Scot 17:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand on what basis a defence is being launched for the editor in question.

• He has consistently indulged in reverting of content he doesn't like without sufficient justifcation/explanation. There is no ambiguity on this point. Look at the edit history - where are the explanations? Look at the talk page - where are the explanations? Ah but wait a minute, Adam has explained the deletion of at least one section of content... "please read WP:NPF". Yes, that is it (WP:JUSTAPOLICY). Discussions have taken place with other editors such as User:Blethering_Scot, yet throughout, the editor in question, still hitting the revert button, chooses to remain silent. Well not quite...
• This, a blatant act of canvassing through a barely-disguised ad hominen attack on yours truly, a clear breach of WP:NPA with some cheap, childish stereotypes derogating my reputation as a new editor, along the lines of "removing all the negative stuff about Rangers and adding negative stuff about Celtic". Complete nonsense of course, backed up with ZERO examples to support the allegation. I stumbled across the page which allowed me the opportunity to defend myself, though luckily other editors had stepped in on my behalf prior to that.

The issue of whether or not X editor supports Y team is totally irrelevant here GiantSnowman, this is about the breach of fundamental principles: justifying contributions, and respecting other editors.Gefetane (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam's three-month topic ban ended over eight months ago, so there's no way a breach could have happened this month. I see some mild edit warring but nothing much close to 3rr (am I missing something?) and meanwhile, the article page has been protected. This looks mostly like another FC content dispute to me and as such, I'd think it belongs on the article talk page. Hopefully, the editors will learn that the old back and forth mostly winds up as a hopeless waste of time. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I guess this was flagged up here more in case we do go back to those problems - hopefully we'll start heading in the other direction. I'm struggling to understand bletgeringscot's response. The canvassing, as has been noted several times, was here [[88]].It's all very well saying "it's pretty clear there is no valid reason to include the information" but I disagree and responded, on the talk page, with reasoned arguments referenced to wiki policies why I disagree and got no direct response on the points I raised. you also kept mentioning "going against concencus" when despite the canvassing it was pretty even.

Incidentally, if giant snowman had bothered to look at the edit history he would see the monkey man was about the only person not edit warring, but ce la vie.220.255.1.100 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, adam4267 has now moved onto the Green Brigade removing the reliably sourced information that helped get his previous topic ban, describing it as "fluff" 220.255.1.121 (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK. I was ready to close this as [expletive deleted] until I read the last remark--Adam again removed the "poppy protest", and if I remember correctly this was one of the things that led to the topic ban. I have no intention of rebooting this irritating threat full of irritating comments by people who irritate each other, but any subsequent removal of the material should be followed by consequences. I have reverted this edit based in large part on User:John's judicious commentary of 15 March 2011, on the article talk page, in reference to his edit of 13 March--what is good enough for John is good enough for me. It is time to let this go, Adam, or you might find yourself banned again. Another option is for everyone to get topic banned, or slapped around a bit, and the article to be fully protected. Really, this is too much. GiantSnowman, please give red cards all around. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Uncivil comments in Michael Servetus article

• User: Anatoly Ilych Belousov

• Article: Michael Servetus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Anatoly Ilych Belousov, who seems to be a SPA that is devoted to the promotion of the work of one particular scholar, has been repeatedly making uncivil and derogatory comments about me in his editions related to the Michael Servetus article, just because I questioned that undue relevance was given to what should be considered as fringe research. He first started throwing at me a COI accusation without even trying to make any previous approach, thus violating WP:AGF. The situation became so difficult for further editing the article that I opened a Dispute Resolution request. I edited the article according to the terms of the Dispute Resolution, limiting references to fringe research to one section and paragraph in the article, but this started a flame war of this user against me, including personal attacks and derogatory comments, both in edit summaries (see here and here) and also in the article's Talk page (see here and here) including violations of privacy, using this Talk page for outing private activities of editors rather than focusing on the contents of the article. I would expect that this uncivil behaviour be stopped. --Jdemarcos (talk) 12:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This case was previously discussed at DRN: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 42#Michael Servetus Especially note the closing comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO the only valid accusation (of those claimed above) is the violation of WP:PRIVACY in this edit summary (and I would say it is severe one). Other alleged violations of WP:PRIVACY include disclosing the information that was previously revealed by Jdemarcos, while I see no personal attacks or derogatory comments in the links to evidence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that claiming that I say "bullshit", or "You have no idea what you talk of... read a litle", or that my editing is "obnoxious" qualify as derogatory comments. While educated disagreement is acceptable, disqualification of other editors' intelligence or good faith is not. --Jdemarcos (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You are lying, and the administrators can check it. It is not true you were not listened, I already explained that. you were listened for more than two monthes. You disclosed information for everyone to know who u are. And U are closely connected to the people you refer to, Alcala and HIllar, even in the same picture. While a disclosure of private information could be indeed unpropper, the administrators could check you are seriously involved in the MSI, in referring your friends, and of course in editing everything that has to do with the Crown of Aragon. You are simply blocking anything that has to do with Gonzalez. far beyond the dispute. That is why your comment says " the document of naturalization is not a discovery , this proves it was known for 50 years". You keep with the same thing. That document was recovered by Gonzalez, and I explained in the edition summaries why. You know it, and after the dispute you main objetive is to try to attack Gonzalez. So, your intention is clear, change whole biography, and you tried to change the Zaporta references, but you cannot, because there is no previous document that says " Michael is converso cause of his relation to the Zaporta" before 1999. You tried to change it and write statements such as " it was known". False. Again, that discovery is by gonzalez, and you tried to diminish it. You started your edition saying he was just a pediatrician,.. and in your reasonins you start to talk of Alcala and HIllar, which you refer a lot, even you made those sections for them in freedom of consciousness, and so. And now when confronted with evidence you are so involved in an institution that expelled gonzalez in 2005, you say it is not my fault most of worldwide agree with you. No, they can agree with the old version of Servetus, but they do nto agree with you persuing anything related to Gonzalez. Such, as Zaporta, Naturalization( already explained in edition summaries), etc. ( besides the works). The disclosure of privacy , which is a pic,.., was for me a try to show to the administrators what was going on. Actually I understand it annoys De Marcos a lot, cause it shows what goes on. He persues gonzalez, according to the policy of the Michael Servetus Institute. And yes, that is obnoxious. And yes, you have no idea of what you talk of, as I noted, you added teh comment " by whom" in the manuscript of paris, and that same information was in many sources you were referring before. So I keep saying that. Read your own sources, which are in the pic with you. And, do not call the director of the MSI ( bachesopi user, also in the pic with you), the next day after you complain, in order to edit wikipedia. For me a COI. You are very involved, but none reacts to the information. But you lie. It was me who edited most of the dispute resolution, and it was just when you kept in your tries of editing things related to gonzalez, when I reacted, cause of your obsessions, which have nothing to do with disputes, but Gonzalez himself, as the policy of the MSI dictates you, and as the director tried to edit as well.--Anatoly Ilych Belousov (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:LIARLIAR - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA. Educated disagreement is OK, personal attacks are not, unauthorized disclosure of private information to support your accusations definitely is not. As for the template, it is customary to include it when a reference to authorship is lacking and therefore a claim is unsupported. It does not imply ignorance from the person who added it. Sometimes it is even used as a marker in order to come back when a valid reference is found, or other editors may find it first. That is common practice in Wikipedia that you may not be familiar with. --Jdemarcos (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Metalvayne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing by Havebased123

User:Havebased123 is disrupting Wikipedia through a number of IP addresses. Earlier evidence that the addresses are his can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Havebased123/Archive (which was closed without any action, because no blockable offenses had happened at the time and because IP adresses and acounts are not linked through checkuser anyway).

Now, User:77.255.102.142 has been blocked for repeatedly removing an AfD template from an article created by Havebased123, and for leaving a fake "you are blocked" message at another user's talk page ([89]) and otherwise vandalizing pages ([90]). The same behaviour was shown by User:77.254.128.139 and User:77.254.148.187 (e.g. this).

Page protection can help a bit here, but considering that this has now spread to different user talk pages as well, some stronger action may be needed. I am involved here (as the AfD nominator), but if other people feel that WP:DUCK indeed applies here, then they can decide what action may be the most effective and warranted here. Fram (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

and now add 178.37.91.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

178.37.68.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has reported for duty. Favonian (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• When filing the SPI listed above, I learned there are two IP ranges, both of which resolve to Poland. There is persistent abuse of multiple accounts for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia, in particular the following articles: Curiosity rover, Mars Science Laboratory, the currently listed for AfD article, Timeline of MSL Curiosity mission, as well as the previously listed article(s), MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 1 - 6 August 2012 (this was only the first of multiple pages created). The editor has been approached, then warned [91] with the only result being talk page blanking and static. Then several editors reversed tactics and tried rewards, barnstarring for good behavior, and compromise [92]. Although we did manage to achieve a few edit summaries, the prevention of further disruption to the same articles was not accomplished. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:IPWAI

Request several months' block of IPWAI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at least as it pertains to Joan Juliet Buck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. He keeps edit warring with the same material, trying to add a comment from a blog by Michael Totten when that area of article already has sufficient criticism: [93] [94] Doesn't seem to edit much else on Wikipedia and has been warned numerous times by myself and User: Scolaire at length to no avail (see prior diffs, [95], and [96]). I suggest several months' block because he has demonstrated time and again that he thinks he can just come back and do the same thing after two weeks (see prior diffs). thanks.--Aichikawa (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I changed the article links on IPWAI to user links. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked a mediator to look at this issue and am waiting for him or her to get back to us on this issue. I think what I put in is fair comment, public information and properly sourced. As far as what else I do on the wikipedia is nothing to do with it but it is false. I think I am very active on the wikipedia IPWAI (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You are using a passing comment in a blog as a source. And a near copy-and-paste of the source is arguably a copyright violation anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Joan_Juliet_Buck - all rather confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Acrow prop rename issue

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

---

I call attention to an editor who has consistently rv'ed my edits to the article currently named acrow prop. In spite of a lengthy re-write and wikification, along with a lengthy justification left on the talk page about both the edit and the name change, user User:Andy_Dingley has continued in these actions with the original comment an accusation that I am acting in bad faith due to a former issue over the spelling of the term "tachymetric" (a thread you can see here). Comments since then have been dismissive.

The background starts some time ago with some edits to the Timeline of steam power and related articles. These edits concerned the historical importance of Ivan Polzunov in the overall history of steam engine design, and I was not the only editor involved (see "Polzunov" in this archive and Talk:History_of_the_steam_engine mostly here). After these edits, Andy immediately accused me of bad faith editing ("pushing your same old prejudged POV") and various comments about my worthiness as an editor (a record which speaks for itself, IMHO) and "serious concerns over your technical competence". This followed by his wikistalking me to the bombsight article and the spelling issue, which he used as further evidence of my technical incompetence (in spite of being wrong). This finally culminates on the continued RVing of the Acrow prop article.

Normally I would simply 3RR this, but in this case as I am an involved editor, I'm not sure what the proper course of action is. I wield the admin bit rarely and with extreme trepidation, so if someone more used to this sort of thing can suggest a course of action, or simply do it, please save me the trouble!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this content issue at AN?

As to Acrow prop, then it's an entirely proper and sourced article on this common piece of construction equipment, and a specific brandname that has become generic in the UK for such props. If Maury wants to write a different article on jack posts, then feel free, but it's a POV CFORK to try and hijack this pre-existing article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

For bombsights, then the spelling issue is "tachymetric" (as it appears in the Norden manual) vs. "tachometric". Tachymetric is an important term here, crucial to the function of such bombsights - they move the crosshairs of an optical sight so as to track the bomber's relative movement over the ground. This "speed tracking" function is described as being tachymetric. As tachometric is such a common term, and with a meaning so closely associated with rotation (which has no relevance to the bombsight), it is highly misleading for Maury to use it in this way, even if he manages to dredge up some ancient etymological nit-pick to support him. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As to Polzunov, then see

• Talk:History_of_the_steam_engine#Should_Polzunov_have_a_section.3F
• Talk:History_of_the_steam_engine#Polzunov_section_removed
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley/Archive_2011_September#History_of_the_steam_engine_edit

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

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

2012 Assam violence

It looks like there's an ethnic edit war breaking out at 2012 Assam violence. I warned two edit warriors and blocked one for 48 hours when they continued, but I don't have the time or brainpower at the moment to look deeper into this -- any further action I might take would have to be blunt force. If anyone else can apply some admin expertise to it, that would be great. (It's already been semi-protected, but might need more than that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

the User:Sirahman was deleting references and making unsourced edits. I have reverted the article to last known good state and re-added all deleted references. WBRSin (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the user I blocked for continuing the edit war. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this here to this database. 76.16.72.26 (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking I'll crack out the discretionary sanctions there and see how that works... (my reverts to the article were of copyvios). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Telecineguy and spam promotion of book

Can someone tell User talk:Telecineguy to stop spamming multiple article pages and their talk pages with promotional content for a newly released book complete with the price and "ref" links directly to Amazon? thanks. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Side note: small correction - not that new George Obama; Damien Lewis (2010). Homeland: An Extraordinary Story of Hope and Survival. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-4391-7617-7..... Moxy (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

oops - I think that there are also issues with English not being the primary language of the user. Piecing things all together, the book was apparently "published" a number of years ago but was not "distributed" at that time.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor also does not understand that there is more than one Damian Lewis in the world. He keep trying to add it to the page for the actor. I don;t think we have an article for the author. MarnetteD | Talk 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios by E_salehat

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

---

E_salehat (talk · contribs) has been adding WP:COPYVIOs to Burma. The text is directly copied from [97] starting on page 5. I've reverted and left an explanation on the user's talk page, but have not got a response and the text keeps being re-added. Could some admin take care of this? TDL (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked until we get a response of some sort indicating this user has read our copyright policy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Nicki Minaj

User 1flyguyrob has created a section called "Female empowerment" on the Nicki Minaj article, and has added various unreliable sources that argue as if the BLP has widely supported the portrayal and interests of women. The user initially claimed that the BLP was a feminist, but has since removed this claim after I prompted him/her to do so. The section features various quotes put together to create almost an argument - that the BLP empowers and supports females. Although the BLP has commented on how females should be portrayed, the editor has chosen to represent this strongly and created a section based on original research. As to avoid WP:3RR, could an administrator look into this? I have spoke to the user on their talk page and on the article talk page (Talk:Nicki Minaj#feminist section) Jennie | ☎ 21:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(non-admin)1flyguyrob is a new user with only 548 edits who is still learning the ropes. This kind of content dispute belongs on the BLP noticeboard, although it appears the dispute has died down for now. You may also want to consider requesting semi-protection. Two concerns: the user is a SPA dedicated to Nicki Minaj-related articles, and they rarely use the talk page. A nice note on their talk page should help. It may also be instructive for a related WikiProject to get involved. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Recurrent disruptive editor in Reconquista

Can an administrator intervene in Reconquista about this user? It will be much appreciated. Please take a look at the ongoing dispute. Various issues with a disruptive editor edit warring (sometimes even erratic edits), breaking civility rules (not consensual, not contributing, failing to go to talk), tendentiousness, pushing his point of view, unexplained changes, showing defiant attitude, failing to provide reliable resources,... Keeps insisting even after another editor intervened against his disruptive editing. I urge an intervention, really WASTING my time. Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Holy moly. Without even studying the full recent history it's clear to me that Provocateur knows a thing or two about decent writing which others don't, as indicated in this revert of their edits, with a rather [...] edit summary. This is not good writing: "Twentieth-century Spanish historiography stressed the existence of a linear phenomenon by which Iberian kingdoms opposed and reconquered the Muslim kingdoms understood as a common enemy." Drmies (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Further evidence that WP:BOOMERANG needs to be cited here is found on the talk page. Provocateur left a lengthy explanation of their edits three days ago, which the plaintiff here didn't see fit to respond tom, and their commentary on Provocateur's talk page claims vandalism has taken place. Plaintiff also calls Provocateur a vandal on User talk:Akerbeltz, and then a moron. "Erratic"--yes, but on the other side. To boomerang it all off, they tell Provocateur to sign their comments and then leave an unsigned ANI notification. Inaki, I suggest you drop your complaint, start playing nice, and realize that, for instance, what the French educational system has to say about the Reconquista (an unverified statement on Roland being taught as historical truth, without dates or context given) has little bearing on the article. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• If Iñaki LL refuses to use the talkpage (other than "I don't have time for this shit") and continues the blanket-reverts, Iñaki LL needs to be topic-banned. It's quite simple. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  Disagree. Topic bans are for when an editor displays a particular bad behavior only in the context of a particular topic. Iñaki LL is displaying a disdain for the use of talk pages in general in the comment in question. Unless you're referring to the reversion side of it to justify the topic ban? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  I was merely looking at this particular case; if it is indeed a common problem/attitude, then yeah, something else must be done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)