Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Geo Swan and AfDs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geo Swan here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replies and comments from other users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fundamental problem of Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strongly Oppose as being in direct opposition to fundamental Wikipedia values and policies. See my longer comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose First my decision on AfD Solely depends on the notability and its adherence to the wikipedia policies and my WP:BEFORE not becuase an XYZ user had created it. The proposal wants me to check the article creator first which is simply ridiculous and will give a wrong message and set a wrong precedent, one should be more concerned about the content rather than the contributer. Its the over-emphasis on contributer that creates so much WP:Drama DBigXray 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram. The problem is the person who creates the articles after than they can defend them, not the person nominating for deletion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If articles aren't encyclopedic need to go to AfD we shouldn't be forcing people to hold back. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with comment It seems to me that placing an arbitrary restriction on a user is a very slippery slope indeed. Any user should have the right to attempt to improve Wikipedia. However, it seems to me that a blitzkreig style nomination to AfD is problematic. Therefore, why not make it so that the creator or a significant contributor to an article, in combination with an established and known non-sock puppet user, can delay an AfD or the closure of an AfD upon request. Therefore, if a user needs more time to defend or improve his work, he can get it within reason. 67.0.130.248 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the most logical proposal I can currently see here. Also strongly against Fram's proposal as illogical given the facts in evidence (specifically article age). --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support and a harsh {{trout}} to every opposer. I think there is a serious misconception and I've never been more disappointed in my fellow editors. These articles were created over a span of years at a time when they were in line with policy. Not that this justifies keeping the articles. What it does justify is time in deleting them. It will take time to bring these articles in line with today's standards if they can be. Nominating these articles for AFD all at once amounts to WP:GAMING the system. It is impossible, literally impossible given the hours in 7 days, to fix years worth of work. Every one of you needs a trout for not seeing this. AFD is an effective process because editors on both sides are given time to discuss, research, and come to a consensus. Targetting an editor's articles and putting them all up for AFD in a short amount of time is going to give you a biased consensus because the effort needed for the keep side is substantially greater and literally impossible to reach. Your going to be deleting articles that can be improved. And FYI, I fall greatly on the deletionist side and even I see how wrong this is.--v/r - TP 14:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • BLP trumps ANY claim of "gaming" and such issues must be addressed IMMEDTIATELY upon being discovered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You've lost your mind. Gaming is the use of policies such as BLP and AFD in bad faith and requires a STRONG attention to what is going on. You need to look at what is going on before you blindly adhere to policy. Otherwise you're falling victim to exactly what they want you to do instead of using your noggin--v/r - TP 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Addressing problematic BLPs should not be delayed. Geo Swan or anyone else who wishes to develop the articles so that cease to be problematic should be allowed to request up to two or three articles to be userfied in their space at a time. As and when they develop these articles to a state where they can be placed in mainspace then the users can request copies of further articles to be made available for them to develop.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please look at the table below. DBigXray nominated 16 articles for deletion in a span of 7 days. What would you do if it were you? Fix them or tell the project to go fuck itself? The hounding nature of these AFD noms is going to hurt the project more than improve it. The task is made impossible to fix. Perhaps every one of these articles could be kept if given the proper attention. Perhaps Geo Swan might even be amiable to doing the work themselves. The delete and then ask questions later method isnt a viable method for a massive deletion of 6 year old articles that don't adhere to today's standards. If your concern is BLP, then point out specific BLP concerns to be addressed.--v/r - TP 20:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No special treatment for Guantanamo captives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think it is unreasonable to view a person's captivity at Guantanamo Bay as a status (like a career in music) which can generate multiple independent events of news coverage (capture, trial, protest, lawsuit, deal with Palau to resettle...). Wnt (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support On the basis of his statements and the problematic nature of the articles he's created since the RfC, Geo Swan is continuing to use Wikipedia to push his personal views, regardless of core policies such as WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't use a sledgehammer where a nutcracker will suffice.—S Marshall T/C 13:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: I agree that a strictly construed topic ban against creating such articles is merited, given GeoSwan's ongoing fervor in pushing articles which plainly fail of notability under current standards. I don't see that a ban against editing such articles is warranted; such should be reserved for persistent vandalism or edit warring, sins of which GeoSwan has not been guilty. Ravenswing 14:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It might make sense to issue a ban on creating articles of this sort directly in mainspace, while leaving it OK to edit existing articles, and also OK to submit proposed new articles through WP:AFC for approval/import by other editors if the articles meet standards. On general principles, I do like the idea of leaving AFC available as a filter, in cases of good faith but excessively enthusiastic article creation, where there's still reasonable likelihood of something of merit coming out of it. I'm neutral on the suggestion in this specific case for now, since I haven't (so far) examined the disputed editing enough to be sure it's the right thing. Note: This is revised from a !vote to a comment. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• oppose Yet another self-destructive wikilynching 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Holding something against a user for something created years ago doesn't even stand up at RFA applicants, but to honestly try and topic ban a user for something that was made back in 2011 should meet with a procedural close as the window on such matters has long since expired. Considering that the proposer of the current topic ban has a history of being involved in the matter, the opportunities for such things presented themselves long ago. A storm in a teacup perhaps, but these AFDs and much of the content already deleted or removed cannot be personally verified by a majority of users and the issues within do absolutely nothing to address the changing culture of Wikipedian's interpretation of notability guidelines. The matter is unfair to GeoSwan, regardless of a years old RFC, to address the concerns. A new RFC should be done, and from the events after THAT RfC bear reason to topic-ban, only THEN should such a proposal be brought forth. AGF still stands and much of this dispute falls under disruptive editing. GeoSwan should be given considerable time and leeway to address the matters in a formal setting and context that is not ArbCom. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am "holding something against a user" for creating similar things over years and years, right until now. I have left Geo Swan alone after the RfC, to make sure that any continuation of the problems wouldn't be caused by or blamed on me. This was requested by a number of people at the RfC. The result of this is not only that the problematic pages have stayed on Wikipedia for much longer (and have been joined by a few new ones), but also that aapparently any resolution I'm trying to find now is impossible because "Considering that the proposer of the current topic ban has a history of being involved in the matter, the opportunities for such things presented themselves long ago." Nothing has changed since the old RfC apart from me staying away from him for over a year, so there is no reason at all to request a new RfC. He has had all the time anyone could reasonably need, giving him even more time before any action is taken is not productive. Why did I need to point out two examples of problematic pages in his userspace, one from right before the RfC, one from afterwards? Didn't the RfC and the countless MfDs send a clear enough message about what is acceptable and what isn't? Fram (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    • As you say, the afc did not change things. The appropriate response to that is for you to stay away from him indefinitely. To the extent there is a case to be made, you are too involved to make it. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • No, not at all. Some people at the RfC indicated that if I left Geo Swan alone, the problem would magically disappear. Surprise: it didn't. There was no agreement that I did anything wrong, I voluntarily stayed away to give him a chance to clean up his act without even a semblance of any pressure. The result was that basically nothing happened, until a new round of AfDs by other people indicated that the problems with his articles (including some new ones) persisted. The solution is not to chase away the messenger. As for your invocation of "involved": I know of the problems that existed and exist, having first hand experience with them. I have tried to solve them by different means, while all you have done is stalling and trying to protect and serial BLP violator. If there is anyone who should stay away from this, it is you, not me. Your intervention in the RfC only led to dozens of poor articles on non notable subjects staying in the mainspace for a year longer, and BLP violations lingering around in userspace as well. Please don't lecture me on what I should do, and turn your attention to the actual problems instead. Fram (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as an unnecessary wrecking ball. Might be willing to support a topic ban on creation outside of AfC. This, however, is ridiculous. We would do better to limit the number of GeoSwan's articles that can be deleted in a given time period. Absolutely absurd and not in any way called for. --Nouniquenames (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously. This usr has caused nothing but time-wasting grief for the project in this topic area. The majority of these detainee BLPs have had to be deleted over the years. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose You've got to be kidding me. This is just is disgrace. Do we, as adults, hold no better problem solving skills then calling for the other parties head? It's like a fucking game of "who can call for desysop first", "who can call for topic ban first", "who can call for site ban first." Really, I'm just sick at the way Wikipedians are handling this issue. No historical perspective at all.--v/r - TP 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The analysis below indicates that the problematic articles are old. Unless people show that there Geo Swan is currently producing crap articles, then the past issues are irrelevant.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to refer to Arbcom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Hmm, and it's up to AN/I what constitutes a disruptive pattern of nominations? I don't like that idea very much. An AN/I thread can be fair and constructive, but it's often a highly subjective popularity contest. I'd rather have some sort of heuristic or objective way of assessing what's disruption and what isn't.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Again we are stuck.  I think that the reason this needs to go to Arbcom is because the administrators are disempowered.  Multiple opportunities have existed for individual admins to intervene.  DBigXray left no ambiguity regarding his/her WP:INCIVILITY, no diffs are needed.  Yet we are still one admin short of the number of administrators needed to respond to this issue.  Next, it only needed one administrator in early July to see that DBigXray was not analyzing the WP:ATD in nominations, and to issue procedural closure WP:NPASR for correction.  Next, it appears that we have 65 to 300 deletions that need to be restored so that they can be merged because we are here to build an encyclopedia and this is current consensus.  Yet no administrator has so far picked up the slack given one administrator's declination or inability to start the process.  There is something disempowering the administrators that is stopping the improvement of the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not just inability. I would not consider myself able to do it, because I've been involved in a good many of the discussions. What I do see is a great reluctance of most people to get involved with articles or debates on this general subject--it must overall be a matter of general embarrassment to anyone sympathetic with the need of the US to defend itself to see it defending itself in this manner. I speak on the basis of my own feelings--I consider it much too upsetting a topic for me to actively help geo with these articles, though I have consistently defended his right to work on them. For after all, that is the best solution: adding sources. I consider the claims of BLP 1E as misconceived, and an attempt to avoid serious work on them by rejecting even the possibility of sourcing--I cannot see how people do not realize that they are already regarded individually as martyrs--very wrongly in some cases, not unreasonably in others, and that this will be of continuing historical importance. Especially do I see the frequent argument of DO NO HARM as absurd beyond reason--as if anything WP could do could harm them more than they have already been harmed. If we truly care about lessening harm, we would cover them in detail. When BLP is used opposite to its purpose, then it warrants examination of why we let it happen. I apologize for going back to the actual issues underlying this, instead of an immediate solution, but I think only by doing so can we clarify the situation. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Could someone look at some of the articles mentioned in DBigXray's post of 16:52, 18 August 2012,[4] and check whether they appear neutral? Are we seeing some kind of POV dispute between DBigXray and Geo Swan, playing out at AfD? Maybe there should be an interaction ban, which would stop these AfD's. Here in this thread, per Unscintillating's comment, I'm finding DBigXray's approach to be unhelpfully aggressive, if that matters. I'm also not understanding what the problem is with userfying or incubating the deleted Geo Swan articles. Is there a list of them somewhere? 69.228.170.132 (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to allow Geo Swan To slow down the AfD process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • • The "working notes" that were mainly copies of deleted articles that stayed there for years? And the "denied refunds" for copyright violations and actual BLP violations (like linking completely unrelated names to a list of "suspected jihadists")? Hey, there's a thread where Fram is involved, let's jump in and give our own version of the truth? You did the same just days ago in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 113#Dennis Brown using abusive language as a moderator, where you were rather absolute in your claims but lacking in any actual evidence or convincing arguments. Please stop wasting everybody's time with such posts. Fram (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You have given a very good argument for not deleting those articles that geo moves to his userspace, but the same people who are supporting the deletions in mainspace are doing just that. I think I would accept a solution where all the afd'd articles in this batch get moved to userspace, and all the ones in userspace deleted by MfD are restored. It is possible to rescue a just passable article in about a half-day if one is doing nothing else, but I find it takes me considerably longer to make an article good enough to stand up against a multiple determined challenges on a controversial subject. I'd allow normally about a week each for these articles, but since on the one hand geo works on other things also and will have other challenges to deal with, and many of the sources are very difficult to find; while on the other hand geo is a faster writer than I am and many of these articles have very similar problems, he should be able to do about two a week. That allows him a year for this batch of a hundred, and proportionately for others--if he does not have to defend additional articles at AfD or MfD. We have in the recent past at MfD allowed somewhere between a month and 2 months for a single article (which would come to over a decade for the present articles)--but that's usually for a beginner who needs to learn how to do it, so it shouldn't need take anywhere near that long.

More generally, it is possible to fix a single article in time to rescue it at AfD. I have done it maybe 50 times here, and some true experts here have done many more than I have. So the proper and obvious general rule at AfD is not to nominate articles faster than they can be fixed. Not everything is of course fixable, but if there is any chance at all for a good faith editor, more than 7 a week is not realistic for anything that would pass speedy--it is biasing very strongly towards deletion, and the WP deletion policy is to save whatever is savable. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

If somebody has a list of the deleted articles, I can try to scrape them from a wikipedia mirror. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of DBigXray's AFD nominations

I am compiling a list of DBigXray's AFD nominations and the results so far are going to change the outcome of this discussion. Please hold all judgements until the table is posted.--v/r - TP 15:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD	Article Creator	Date Nominated	Date Created	Result
1. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Ameziane_v._Bush	Geo Swan	17-Aug-12	13-Nov-08	Still at MfD
3. Articles_for_deletion/Mohamed_Anwar_Kurd	Geo Swan	16-Aug-12	18-Jul-06	Redirect
4. Articles_for_deletion/Salim_Suliman_Al_Harbi_(2nd_nomination)	Geo Swan	16-Aug-12	25-Nov-07	Redirect
5. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Sohail_v._Bush	Geo Swan	16-Aug-12	12-Dec-08	Still at MfD
6. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Sliti_v._Bush	Geo Swan	16-Aug-12	21-Jan-09	Still at MfD
7. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammad_Gul_(Guantanamo_detainee)	Geo Swan	16-Aug-12	19-May-06	Redirect/Merge
8. Articles_for_deletion/Omar_Rajab_Amin	Geo Swan	16-Aug-12	11-Apr-06	Redirect/Merge
9. Articles_for_deletion/Hozaifa_Parhat	Geo Swan	15-Aug-12	26-Apr-06	Redirect/Merge
10. Articles_for_deletion/Bahtiyar_Mahnut	Geo Swan	15-Aug-12	7-May-06	Redirect
11. Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Mohamed_(Guantanamo_Bay_detainee)	Geo Swan	15-Aug-12	9-May-06	Redirect
12. Articles_for_deletion/Akhdar_Qasem_Basit	Geo Swan	15-Aug-12	7-May-06	Redirect/Merge
13. Articles_for_deletion/Salahidin_Abdulahat	Geo Swan	14-Aug-12	9-May-06	Redirect
14. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Civil_Action_No._08-cv-1230	Geo Swan	23-Aug-12	2-Dec-08	Still at MfD (Improperly Tagged)
15. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Civil_Action_No._08-5424	Geo Swan	14-Aug-12	9-Oct-08	Still at MfD
16. Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Geo_Swan/Guantanamo/habeas/Mohabat_Khan_v._Bush	Geo Swan	14-Aug-12	25-Nov-08	Still at MfD
17. Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Ghappar_Abdul_Rahman	Geo Swan	14-Aug-12	9-May-06	Redirect
18. Articles_for_deletion/Oybek_Jamoldinivich_Jabbarov	Geo Swan	14-Aug-12	25-May-06	Redirect
19. Articles_for_deletion/Muhamed_Hussein_Abdallah	Geo Swan	14-Aug-12	1-May-06	Redirect/Merge
20. Articles_for_deletion/Jamal_Abdullah_Kiyemba	Geo Swan	14-Aug-12	3-Oct-05	Redirect/Merge
21. Articles_for_deletion/Habib_Rahman_(detainee)	Geo Swan	11-Aug-12	25-May-06	Redirect/Merge
22. Articles_for_deletion/Nahir_Shah	Geo Swan	11-Aug-12	25-Apr-06	Redirect/Merge
23. Articles_for_deletion/Gul_Zaman	Geo Swan	11-Aug-12	25-May-06	Redirect/Merge
24. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Mussa_Yakubi	Geo Swan	11-Aug-12	25-Oct-06	Redirect/Merge
25. Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Zahir_(Guantanamo_Bay_detainee_753)	Geo Swan	10-Aug-12	20-Jan-06	No Consensus
26. Articles_for_deletion/Gholam_Ruhani	Geo Swan	10-Aug-12	20-Apr-06	Redirect/Merge
27. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Kamin	Geo Swan	10-Aug-12	6-Oct-06	Redirect/Merge
28. Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_Hussein_Ali_Hassan	Geo Swan	9-Aug-12	3-Dec-07	Redirect/Merge
29. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Ouali	Geo Swan	9-Aug-12	13-Nov-06	Redirect/Merge
30. Articles_for_deletion/Muhammed_Qasim	Geo Swan	9-Aug-12	26-Jan-07	Delete
32. Articles_for_deletion/Salim_Suliman_Al_Harbi	Geo Swan	16-Aug-12	25-Nov-07	No Consensus (Mass AFD)
33. Articles_for_deletion/Muhammed_al-Darbi	Geo Swan	5-Aug-12	7-Sep-06	Delete
34. Articles_for_deletion/Pakistan_Zindabad	TopGun
35. Articles_for_deletion/Hindustan_Zindabad	Vibhijain
37. Articles_for_deletion/Walid_Said_Bin_Said_Zaid_(2nd_nomination)	Geo Swan	8-Jul-12	29-May-06	Delete
38. Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Ould_Abdel_Aziz	Geo Swan	7-Jul-12	10-Oct-07	Delete
39. Articles_for_deletion/Sameur_Abdenour	Geo Swan	5-Jul-12	25-May-06	Delete
40. Articles_for_deletion/Farhi_Saeed_bin_Mohammed	Geo Swan	3-Jul-12	29-May-06	Delete
41. Articles_for_deletion/Abdel_Hadi_Mohammed_Badan_Al_Sebaii_Sebaii	Geo Swan	2-Jul-12	26-Apr-06	Delete
42. Articles_for_deletion/Mahrar_Rafat_Al_Quwari	Geo Swan	2-Jul-12	25-May-06	Delete
43. Articles_for_deletion/Assem_Matruq_Mohammad_al_Aasmi	Geo Swan	2-Jul-12	24-May-06	Delete
44. Articles_for_deletion/Habib_Noor	Geo Swan	2-Jul-12	21-Apr-06	Delete
45. Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_Ali_Hussein_Khenaina	Geo Swan	30-Jun-12	19-Dec-07	Delete
46. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Abdullah_Taha_Mattan	Geo Swan	30-Jun-12	16-Nov-08	Delete
47. Articles_for_deletion/Asim_Thahit_Abdullah_Al_Khalaqi	Geo Swan	30-Jun-12	28-Apr-06	Delete
48. Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Rahman_Mohamed_Saleh_Naser	Geo Swan	30-Jun-12	20-Jul-06	Delete
49. Articles_for_deletion/Salah_Bin_Al_Hadi_Asasi	Geo Swan	30-Jun-12	2-Oct-07	Delete
50. Articles_for_deletion/Abdulah_Alhamiri	Geo Swan	30-Jun-12	2-Jun-06	Delete
51. Articles_for_deletion/Kushky_Yar	Geo Swan	29-Jun-12	12-May-06	Delete
53. Articles_for_deletion/Jabir_Hasan_Mohamed_Al_Qahtani	Geo Swan	27-Jun-12	21-May-06	Delete
54. Articles_for_deletion/Khalid_Malu_Shia_al_Ghatani	Geo Swan	27-Jun-12	14-May-06	Delete
55. Articles_for_deletion/Said_Muhammad_Husayn_Qahtani	Geo Swan	27-Jun-12	21-May-06	Delete
56. Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Hamid_al_Qahtani	Geo Swan	27-Jun-12	21-May-06	Delete
57. Articles_for_deletion/Rami_Bin_Said_Al_Taibi	Geo Swan	27-Jun-12	22-Apr-06	Delete
58. Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Bechtold_(2nd_nomination)	Geo Swan	25-Jun-12	2-Nov-08	Delete
59. Articles_for_deletion/Ronald_A._Gregory	Geo Swan	25-Jun-12	29-May-08	Delete
60. Articles_for_deletion/Sultan_Sari_Sayel_Al_Anazi	Geo Swan	23-Jun-12	25-May-06	Delete
61. Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Muhammed_Abdel_Aziz	Geo Swan	23-Jun-12	13-Dec-07	Delete
62. Articles_for_deletion/Musa_Ali_Said_Al_Said_Al_Amari	Geo Swan	20-Jun-12	20-May-06	Delete
63. Articles_for_deletion/Sa_ad_Ibraham_Sa_ad_Al_Bidna	Geo Swan	19-Jun-12	25-May-06	Delete
64. Articles_for_deletion/Fahd_Salih_Sulayman_Al_Jutayli	Geo Swan	19-Jun-12	24-May-06	Delete (Close call)
65. Articles_for_deletion/Mohammed_Abdel-Rahman_al-Rashed	Geo Swan	19-Jun-12	18-Jan-10	Delete
66. Articles_for_deletion/Sultan_Radi_al-Utaibi	Geo Swan	19-Jun-12	18-Jan-10	Delete
67. Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Owaidan_Al-Harbi	Geo Swan	19-Jun-12	20-Feb-09	Delete (CSD G7)
68. Articles_for_deletion/Fahd_Raggad_Samir_Al-Ruwaili	Geo Swan	19-Jun-12	26-Mar-09	Delete
69. Articles_for_deletion/Ahmed_Abdullah_Al_Zahrani	Geo Swan	18-Jun-12	18-Jun-09	Delete (CSD G7)
70. Articles_for_deletion/Abu_Dujan_al-Afghani	63.203.204.67	18-Jun-12
71. Articles_for_deletion/Haji_Yacoub_(Al_Qaeda)	Geo Swan	18-Jun-12	10-Feb-09	Delete (Userfied)
72. Articles_for_deletion/Sheikh_Younas_Azam	Rajput m16	17-Jun-12
73. Articles_for_deletion/Keiler	Geo Swan	15-Jun-12	10-Jan-12	Keep
74. Articles_for_deletion/Frankfurt_(icebreaker)	Geo Swan	15-Jun-12	11-Jan-12	Keep
75. Articles_for_deletion/Rahmatullah_Mansoor	Geo Swan	15-Jun-12	11-May-07	Delete (Userfied)
76. Articles_for_deletion/Ongiara_(ship,_1885)	Geo Swan	15-Jun-12	25-Apr-12	Keep (near-unanimous)
77. Articles_for_deletion/Kwasind	Geo Swan	15-Jun-12	21-Dec-11	Keep (Unanimous)
78. Articles_for_deletion/Fadil_Husayn_Salih_Hintif	Geo Swan	15-Jun-12	5-Oct-06	Delete
79. Articles_for_deletion/THE_LEGEND_〜Final_Live〜_(Heartsdales_album)	Rawrimhungry	28-May-12
80. Articles_for_deletion/THE_LEGEND_(Heartsdales_album)	Rawrimhungry	28-May-12
81. Articles_for_deletion/Ultra_Foxy_(Heartsdales_album)	Rawrimhungry	28-May-12
82. Articles_for_deletion/Super_Star_(Heartsdales_album)	Rawrimhungry	28-May-12
83. Articles_for_deletion/Sugar_Shine	Whitetigerx8	28-May-12
84. Articles_for_deletion/Radioactive_(Heartsdales_album)	Kurisuta Roozu	28-May-12
85. Articles_for_deletion/N.S._Boys_Hostel	PhotonSpeed	4-May-12
86. Articles_for_deletion/St._Thomas's_Hall	Judepais	23-Apr-12
87. Articles_for_deletion/Bishop_Heber_Hall	Macabreday	23-Apr-12
88. Articles_for_deletion/Sapana_gardens	Prameetc	2-Apr-12

• NOTES: I did not save date created and result data when the article creator was not Geo Swan. Also, this is a list of AFDs started by DBigXray and not an all inclusive list of articles created by Geo Swan and sent to AFD. List generated from this tool. Also note, the numbers on the left are generated by that tool and some numbers are missing. There are 84 articles in that list, not 88. 4 pages DBigXray created in Wikipedia: space were not AFDs and were removed from the list.
• My analysis:

1. There is a strong argument that Geo Swan has not learned his lesson. However, it appears to me that all but 5 of the articles nominated predate 2010. Of those 4 that were after 2010, they were all kept. This shows me that it's not that Geo Swan hasn't learned a lesson, it's that policies have changed and he never went back to update these articles.
2. It appears that DBigXray has focused on Geo Swan. 83% of DBigXray's AFD nominations have been Geo Swan articles. In my opinion badgering behavior. I suggest DBigXray be banned from creating AFDs on Geo Swan articles for 6 months or limit the rate to 2/week. If DBigXray's nominations are purely coincidental, then why such the huge lean toward Geo Swan? Why are there not more articles mixed in there while he randomly searches Wikipedia for articles to delete? Not all of these articles are the same subject area. Some of them are boats or judges. So how did DBigXRay stumble on those if his focus was on Guantanamo detainees?
3. At one point between 15 Jun 12 and 22 Jun 12, Geo Swan had 16 articles up for AFD. It is impossible to address the concerns raised in an AFD for 16 articles in a span for 7 days. Most editors take several days to even write 1 article. There is a lot of research involved and not enough time given to properly weigh an article.

• This is why I feel the above is a huge misconception. User:Fram's proposal for a topic ban is just plain nonsense. Are we really going to topic ban a guy for articles created 6 years ago that don't adhere to today's standards?--v/r - TP 18:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I do think this analysis supports my position, folks.—S Marshall T/C 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• The analysis focuses on DBigXRays nominations, not on Geo Swan's articles. No conclusions about his articles since 2011 should be drawn from this analysis. An AfD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Conn (judge), for a page created in April 2012, did result in deletion (and redirection of two similar pages). Two pages in his userspace, created after the RfC, were only deleted after I pointed them out in a section above here. Then there are Olienny Valladares Capote and Adolfo Pablo Borraza Chaple. If one out of ten of your BLP pages created the last year have been deleted or redirected, plus some pages in your userspace, plus some pages that are of very dubious notability like Ehsanullah Ehsan (Taliban spokesman), then there still is a clear problem. Fram (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Plus of course, one fatal flaw in your analysis and conclusions: the DBigXRay AfDs for articles created after the RfC were not about BLPS or Guanatanmo related articles, so their keep results tell nothing about my proposed topic ban at all. My proposal may be "plain nonsense" or not, but drawing that conclusion from this analysis is plain nonsense, as it doesn't address the issue at all. Fram (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, hang on a moment, Fram. When you say "it doesn't address the issue", which issue? I accept that it doesn't address the issue that you've been exercised about, relating to the many BLPs created by Geo Swan. The issue that I've been exercised about is whether DBigXray is targeting (or indeed stalking or hounding) Geo Swan. This is why I find TParis' table very telling indeed. I'm not saying that Geo Swan's contributions shouldn't be brought into line with Wikipedian norms; I'm just saying that I don't think this is a fair way of achieving that end.—S Marshall T/C 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was basically replying to TParis, and his comments about my proposal ("the issue" in my post). The other issue, of DBigXRays AfDs, is obviously directly addressed by the above table, so while we may disagree on the conclusions one may draw from it for "your" issue, it is correct to use it in that discussion. Apologies for being unclear about what I was referring to. Fram (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• You're right. The scope of your proposed topic ban would be better argued had I focused on Geo Swan's AfD'd articles rather than the articles DBigXray nominated. I striked that part and I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! We all make mistakes, most of us don't admit it though, so this is much appreciated. Fram (talk) 13:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, well, here's my analysis: I see a string of AfDs that have resulted in the articles being removed or redirected ninety percent of the time. Those decisions weren't made by DBigXray; they were made by the community. The concerns raised was that the subjects were not notable, and the easiest way for those concerns to have been allayed was for GeoSwan to have written them to an acceptable standard in the first place. I argued this uptopic, and I'll restate it now, but there is no part of deletion policy which requires decisions to be put on hold until the article's creator chimes in with a personal defense of his or her work. If the community determines an article does not meet acceptable standards, that is the measure of their research.

  Moreover, TParis' assertion that you can't possibly defend sixteen articles in seven days is nonsense, and suggests ignorance in how things go at AfD. I've seen some of our more prominent inclusionists defend that many articles in a single DAY, and oftentimes with a good bit of legwork. Unlike TParis - I daresay - I've spent considerable time at AfD, and have voted on several hundred AfDs, and *I've* chimed in on as many as twenty AfDs in a day. Do I spend a ton of time on researching them? Probably no more than five minutes apiece for the most part, but five minutes is all most AfDs take. Defending sixteen AfDs at that rate takes an hour, including time spent typing. Some people might consider that a monstrous imposition. I do not.

  Finally, I've been in the same position as DBigXray -- finding a couple suspect articles written by the same editor, going over the editor's contribution history, finding several more, and then grimly determining to go through the entire contribution history, and finding out that almost everything the guy wrote was illegitimate. The end result was the AfDing or PRODing of over forty articles and an indef block on the creator. This isn't "stalking." This is the due diligence we all should be doing as Wikipedia editors, if we find an editor who consistently writes articles which do not meet Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or about subjects which fail of notability. Ravenswing 02:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • You might want to do more research before saying I have no AFD experience.--v/r - TP 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing, if anything, you show that you do not currently grasp the effort that can be required to defend articles when in AfD (and possibly do not realize that life outside of Wikipedia can also consume time). This list supports slowing down the AfDs, and likely supports banning DBig from going anywhere near nominating an article for deletion. That would be due diligence. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • • Let me get this straight. I've got a bit over 5,000 edits at AfD, spanning seven years. You have about 120 edits at XfD, spanning three months. You may want to reconsider critiquing me or any other editor as to what effort is or is not required for defense at AfD. With what experience do you make any such crack, never mind as uncivilly as that? Ravenswing 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • In fairness, Ravenswing's rather endearing faith in our XfD process appears to be shared by DBigXray. These are users who honestly believe that XfDs will lead to reliable outcomes, apparently in the belief that there's an inexhaustible supply of people who didn't write the articles but are prepared to do the work involved in coming to their defence.—S Marshall T/C 07:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (Slightly later) That's open to misunderstanding and I should have spelled out the conclusion I was drawing:- these are good faith editors. There is no justification whatsoever for banning DBigXray from XfD as suggested above. All that's necessary is a request to slow down and stop targeting this one particular editor.—S Marshall T/C 07:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
      • In response to the editors above, ahem. For one thing, we are all volunteers here. We devote the time we wish to devote - sometimes quite a lot of it - and I'm the least person to cast stones at anyone who wishes to spend time outside of Wikipedia. Feel free. There are tens of thousands of editors quite ready to carry on without your personal presence. For a second, sorry; I stand by my statements. Defending an article at AfD doesn't require filibusters, rebuttals of every Delete voter or endless plunges into the Internet. With very little effort, one can readily establish reliable sources and news reports on 99% of subjects. If I can't find ANY reliable sources talking about a subject in the significant detail the GNG requires in five minutes' time, odds are that no such sources exist. If I CAN find two such sources - and far more often than otherwise, finding such sources takes about thirty seconds, not five minutes - no other defense is generally necessary. Ravenswing 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• As Geo Swan's most recent work has been accepted by the community, I believe we cannot simply write Geo Swan off as an incompetent editor. Wikipedia's standards have changed over time, and those articles that were deleted under today's standards may have been (and probably were, although I do not have the experience to make that call) acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines when they were written. Additionally, it seems likely that Geo Swan could invest 4-6 hours in any given article to improve to the point where it could survive an AfD (Please correct me if I am wrong, Geo Swan). However, asking him to do this to 16 articles in a week is unrealistic, absurd, and impossible. (Note: I am not talking about a simple defence of the article, I am talking about a substantial overhaul of the article). Geo Swan needs the opportunity to do this work. Therefore, one of two courses of action seem plausible to me:

1) Allow Geo Swan to "delay" the AfD process as per my above proposal

2) Move the controversial articles to the incubator so that Geo Swan has a fair crack at bringing them up to standard while keeping substandard articles off of Wikipedia. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Like I said above, you start from an incorrect statement and draw conclusions from there: "As Geo Swan's most recent work has been accepted by the community" is not true: the AfDs cited above are for ships, not for BLPs or other Guantanamo related articles. The one AfD for a BLP created since the RfC did result in a delete (plus the redirection of two similar articles), two other BLP articles have been moved from the mainspace to his userspace, and two userspace BLPs have been deleted after I drew attention to them here. Fram (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, as Fram notes, there continue to be serious problems with Geo Swan's editing. To add to the various post-RfC articles noted above, I'd also note his Night raids in Afghanistan article which, when created, was hopelessly biased - the entire article consisted of criticism of these raids (including the inevitable Guantanamo link) and presented them as US-only operations and there was nothing about the justification for these operations put forward by the US military (the US military has stated that they are a "critical" component of its tactics in Afghanistan; whether one agrees with this or not, it needs to be in the article) or the substantial Afghan military involvement. After I added some material on these topics to the article Geo Swan added yet more Guantanamo-stuff. This isn't incompetent editing; it's intellectually dishonest editing which is aiming to push his stated POV. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bluerim, that's fine, but that article is not the articles addressed in this report. You claimed that I was "drifting off track" but you have yet to discuss the articles addressed int this report. These discussions here wouldn't have happened if you discussed at the appropriate Talk pages in the first place. I've noticed a trend in regards to these reports; I made the first report for your lack of discussion, then you started to discuss, but then you began to not discuss, so another report had to be made and the same thing happened which is why we're here again. To add to you discussing at the List page, you asked me to not edit the page until there was a resolution. I did not, but you decided to edit the page after posting "fixes" without resolution. That's not discussing. That's leaving a post and making your own resolution. --JDC808 ♫ 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

One: I actually added some of your suggestions rather than reverting. That's different.

You added one thing, a little bit of another and fixed the two typos I pointed out. Every other edit you made in regards to the points I brought up were not agreed on. --JDC808 ♫ 03:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Two: as I've seen nothing thus far in the way of proof that I've done something illegal or outrageous, I would like to see the unnecessary preaching stop and we move on. As indicated, a detached third-party may like to help at the relevant Talk Pages, although we are now making progress. And finally, my responding is not an open invitation to jump in again - if anyone has anything more to say, it should come from someone removed from the whole conversation. Thank you. 01:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluerim (talk • contribs)

You didn't do anything illegal but proof is in the links I provided in my first post. We can't move on until the matter is resolved. Though you're discussing at the List page (which brings up the point in my last post at 22:41), you have yet to address the issues of why this report was made. As for the "not an open invitation to jump in again," are you saying me and bridies can't comment? This is an open discussion. --JDC808 ♫ 03:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean you ignored proof of passive aggression and personal attacks. bridies (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A) No proof. B) Your choice of link is interesting. The first sentence talks of "editors...sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus...decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". That's what I have endorsed. Neither one of you, however, could resist coming back for more after I stated it would be best left to a third-party. This is now childish and unnecessary. Once again, I suggest moving to the relevant pages and all parties involved refraining from continuing this pointless conversation (I use that term deliberately given it is the third attempt by an editor to have someone come down on their side over non-issues). Bluerim (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The diff I linked of you telling JC808 to "stop playing edit officer" is a personal attack; calling his contributions "suitable for a fan site" with no reference to content is a personal attack. Your continual "stop reverting!" while reverting, "use the talk page" while avoiding the talk page, condescending (and spurious) I-don't-need-to-discuss-this-'cause-it's-so-obvious claims, "nothing to see here" comments peppered with tacit personal attacks, bizarre requests for other editors to "go cool off" and now "stop replying to me!" comments are all passive aggression. As for my "choice of link", you don't understand consensus. Consensus is not what you alone happened to have "endorsed" or "stated". I'm delighted for you to go take things forward on the talk page rather than here, but if you haven't grasped such concepts as "comment on content, not on the contributor", "no personal attacks" and "consensus", that remains concerning. bridies (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What is concerning is how limited your perspective of the situation is. The other editor means well - I truly believe that - but he has become TOO involved in the editing of these articles. The need to revert against even minor changes is a fetish at best, an obsession at worst. Perhaps I am assuming too much of some editors, hoping that they will be able to see the logic in the comparisons. I will endeavour to spell things out a tad more. As for consensus, I understand the concept, and again you seem to have overlooked the fact that I supported/slightly modified several of the other user's edits. Your response above also implies I edit with emotion (the use of the word "bizarre": word to avoid when dealing with anyone) - far from it. I simply want what is best for the articles, and believe a third-party perspective would help. As someone is already helping in this regard, I'm satisfied. Bluerim (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't revert minor changes as a fetish or obsession or whatever, I revert (as linked above) if they were issues that have been discussed. I also revert if what you claim as "better, fixed, tweaked" or any other term that you have used to mean improved, was not actually that. There's been many times where you changed something and claimed it as an improvement, but it turned out to be worse than what was originally there (e.g. weird phrasing, grammar issues, overuse and unnecessary use of parenthesis). Your statement of "assuming too much of some editors" is condescending towards myself and any other editor, and it's not the first time that you've said something of a condescending tone towards myself (which bridies has noted). As for understanding consensus, if you understand the concept, then why don't you abide by it? A third-opinion editor at the List page stated specifically to you "a compromise does require concessions" because you were changing things in the midst of the discussion without consensus. Though true that you have supported/slightly modified some of my edits, there's been times where I had to explain in depth what it's supposed to be saying because you didn't understand (or check the source). --JDC808 ♫ 04:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's "bizarre" not because it's emotional (accusing others of emotional editing is what you have done, on the contrary: "step back and get some perspective", "TOO involved" etc.) because telling editors that before discussing a content dispute they have to wait some arbitrary length of time on your whim has no basis in editing guidelines and is indeed bizarre. And you're still, still, directing personal attacks at JD808: "The need to revert against even minor changes is a fetish at best, an obsession at worst" is completely needless. Maybe he reverted your change because (such as in the example I provided, and you ignored), your change was inferior. In any case, "this is a minor change" is not a defence against someone reverting that change, much less a justification for incivility. bridies (talk) 07:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are generous in your defence of him. But...my point was a gentle one, and it seems to be an issue Wikipedia in general seems poorly equipped to deal with (people becoming too involved in the process). The fact that said user is almost always at the keyboard ready to revert is...concerning. No real nice way to say this, but there it is. Most of what seems to be on this page is about editors who have gotten a tad too involved. Anyway, I digress. This has strayed quite a ways off topic and can discussed somewhere else. As indicated, a third party is helping out and seems to be doing a competent job so I'm good with that. Bluerim (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Bridies is not necessarily being generous, he/she's telling the truth. You can think that I'm too involved, but at least I try to seek consensus and don't (or at least try not to) ignore discussions and past discussions on issues. I'm also not "almost always at the keyboard ready to revert." You ignored my question about consensus (which you ignore things quite a lot), so I'll ask again, if you understand the concept, then why don't you abide by it? As for the third party, who are you referring to? The copy-editor who recently copy-edited the List page, God of War I, and currently working II? Those aren't the pages in the original post (by the way, I requested to have those pages copy-edited). --JDC808 ♫ 22:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Genre dispute on a specific articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with User talk:OohBunnies!'s rationale. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:V applies to all information on Wikipedia. The likely to be challenged part pertains to in-line citations, rather than general references. Although, one might want to consider whether WP:DUE or WP:FRINGE is pertinent to the notion of Slayer as a pop band. TBH, I think this is just caused by Allmusic lumping pop and rock together. I don't see what's so outrageous in calling Slayer a hard rock band, say. bridies (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with your sentiments towards Allmusic's genre classifications. I don't actually listen to My Chemical Romance myself, but I would like them to be accurately classified, that is, not as "pop/rock," but more along the likes of "alternative rock" or "post-hardcore." Consulting sources other than Allmusic would be best, but like User:Backtable, MCR doesn't interest me enough to pursue some more in depth research. Furthermore, rather than the sorched earth approach as a final resort, we could consider putting the genre as simply "Rock." Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

These album articles don't show much secondary sourcing and should probably be redirected to the main article about the band. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

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

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

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

And I note that it was only after opening this thread and notifying the user of it [5] that you went back and tried just asking them, posting it above the ANI notice as though it had come first [6] despite the obvious discrepancy on the timestamps. I assume that means you realize maybe you should jave tried that first and we don't really need an ANI thread about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

For what it's worth. Just returned after a lengthy WikiBreak. The first thing I did was check on "old business" to see if their were any dangling conversations. Then I eased back into it. I think it would take time to compare writing styles and edit histories and that unless anything untoward happens welcome the prodigal home. Dlohcierekim 02:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea it was a dangling convo which confused me a bit. Annatto replied - his account isn't compromised. This can be archived now, thanks. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Eastern European matters

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

---

I'd like for another admin to look at Momčilo Đujić. I warned the IP for edit-warring before it occurred to me to check for one of the general sanctions--it might fall under Eastern Europe or Macedonia. BTW, I am a [fill in nationality/ethnicity/religious preference] and you can't wrong me on this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the editing dispute, but this article definitely falls within the subject-matters covered by ArbCom-directed discretionary sanctions from the various Balkans and Eastern Europe cases, if appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• This would definitely fall under the category of Macedonia's discretionary sanctions; given how the motion amending that case passed in conjunction with those of Eastern Europe, it can be deduced that the former's amendment was introduced so as not to confuse people over whether the Balkan region would fall within EE's article range. A cursory review of the IP's contributions leaves little doubt that this user is a POV pusher (to call a spade a spade). I would recommend a block of no less than 48 hours for continued disruption, and possibly a ban from Serbia-related articles if tendentious editing persists beyond that. Kurtis (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has reverted four times on 27 August at Momčilo Đujić, so he may be eligible for a 3RR block. 48 hours would be reasonable. A warning under WP:ARBMAC appears logical also. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• • As an aside, how much longer before we expand those discretionary sanctions to include "The Earth, broadly construed"...--Jayron32 01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • • Not all the Earth, just those parts of it where people are more interested in propagandizing their own views than they are in the neutral propagation of knowledge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, so that leaves Antarctica. Such an optimist you are, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Antarctica is very civil. They always be chillin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Ooof! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I counted 1 edit then 3 reverts (the last was a two parter, but still one revert). I left them a personalized final warning on their talk page. As for 24 hours or not, if they revert again without using the talk page any time soon I would be inclined to block simply for warring. Hopefully my final warning was clear enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, this is why people think Wikipedia is nothing but a totalitarian regime. I am Serb and I know well that Momčilo Đujić NEVER collaborated with the Nazi's. Would you really block me from this? Go ahead. It just proves that you are all crazy over what's true. I'm sick and tired of all this consensus/blocking/admins/etc. who are actually giving Wikipedia a very bad name. Chetniks never sided with Nazi's. Big lie from Tito. It was a lie demonstrated to put Draža under the value of Treason. Once you block me, it will be the last time I will ever edit Wikipedia. Goodbye (If you blocked me, no matter how long!). 142.197.8.220 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you, personally know to be The Truth, Wikipedia can only include what is verifiable through reliable sources. If all reliable sources state that X did Y, Wikipeida's article on X must say they did Y, even if it's "known well" that they actually did Z - Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. | Alright, if that is how you roll, bid yourself good day. Wikipedia will forever, in my book, be a large lie and hypocrisy. You don't have any sources for the Serbian legend bowing down to stupid fascists. 142.197.8.220 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry to delete your artwork. I'm not sorry I blocked you, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Where's the edit filter when you need it? WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edit by Kurdo777 and Lysozym

Just a few days ago (23-24 Aug. 2012) I introduced some material to Tarkhan from this source. But there was a problem: copy rights violation. In short: I did some copypast edits from the source given above. After the edit-war with Lysozym I admited that it was not right. I tried to improve it, but it was still not good enough. Now I have shorten the text by ca. 50% and changed the structure of the sentences completely, but now a User called Kurdo777 (not even knowing what he is reverting about) thought up a really absurd revert-reason by accusing me of using unreliable sources and making fringe theories. I want to let you know that this source is in fact a completely reliable source, since nobody had a problem with its reliability until now. After the last edit of Lysosym I clearly can declare him being a falsifier, beause his last edit was deforming the content in a very destructive degree. May somebody can check up my edit and verify it? --Greczia (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, User:Greczia has been misusing and misquoting sources on various pages to push nationalist fringe theories. In one obvious case, he actually falsified a source, as documented here: Talk:Azerbaijani_people#Misqouting_sources_to_inflate_population_numbers. Similarly, he's being trying to use questionable fringe sources in other places, like citing Amanjolov who is a Pan-Turkist fringe theorist [7] who claims, and I quote, that the Sumerians were Turks[8]: "The above "Sumer"-Türkic matches, as we tried to demonstrate, form a certain system, explainable from the positions of historical phonetics of the Türkic languages. The cardinal phonetical laws of the Türkic languages, because of these matches, display an extremely complex development panorama from proto-Türkic language or a language condition (Sumerian written monuments from the boundary of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, excluding the monuments of the dead Sumerian language, a sacred language of Babilonian and Assyrian Semites down to present), via the ancient Türkic dialects, to the modern Türkic languages. The systematic character of the most ancient Sumerian coincidences allows to posit that a part of proto-Türks of the Central Asia migrated to Mesopotamia 31, settled there, and materially affected the language and accordingly the graphic logograms of proto-Sumerian written monuments." As you can see, the writer is basically claiming that Turks resided in the Middle East as Sumerians...which is anything but mainstream academic position on the Sumerians. Unfortunately, the user has been using lots of fringe sources like that in various places. He has also been engaged in other questionable practices, like dumping/copy/pasting of sourced texts, and also changing/tempering with sources by adding or omitting a word, that completely changes their meanings, as documented here: Talk:Tarkhan#Deletion_of_big_parts It is the same on Azerbaijani people, he quotes an ethnic Azeri-Turkish nationalist making the claim that more than half of Iran are Azeri-Turkish. Whereas the CIA factbook has 18%, ethnologue has 11.2 million for Azeris and Encyclopaedia Iranica has 16%. I have requested from him to stop using fringe sources and follow WP:RS, but he just refuses to follow policy. He finds random non-expert sources on the web (Here is another example of WP:fringe by this user, caught by a knowledgeable administrator: Talk:Tat_language_(Caucasus)#Farrokh) to push an ethnic-nationalist agenda on various pages. Unfortunately, the user simply refuses to follow WP:RS, WP:fringe and WP:Undue and is WP:NOTHERE to build an Encyclopedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Beside the fact that I am a German and you are telling fairy tales about me to cast a damning light on me, the incident is about TARKHAN. And please don't talk about irrelevant topics in a childish way. It would just negate you. Good Morning. --Greczia (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Once you raise a complaint about other editors, expect your own behavior to be discussed also, and not just the incident you bring up. You are also meant to inform the editors you are complaining about, which you didn't do. I've just notified Lysozym about this discussion. "Telling fairytales" is a euphemism for 'lying' and it's a bad idea to accuse people of lying. I agree that you seem to have problems with sources and with WP:UNDE and WP:FRINGE. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My boomerang sense is tingling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Greczia is not only using unreliable sources (as per WP:RS), but he is also actively changing - i. e. falsifying - the content in order to make it more suitable for his own POV. For example, as I have mentioned on the respective talkpage, he copied larger parts from this source without explicitely mentioning that it was copied and then he added certain words, such as "Sogdian", to it, even though that word does not appear in the original text. That way, he makes the reader believe that this particular source is somehow comparing this or that language with Sogdian, eventhough that's not true. That is a violation of copy rights, of WP:RS and of WP:OR and that's why I have removed all of it from the article. As for the number of Azeris: the claims put forward by Greczia are bogus and contradict most reliable sources. As for his claim that he is German: no, he is not. He is a Turk living in Germany. His Pan-Turkist and partially pseudo-scientific nonsense claims are notorious in the German Wikipedia. That's why he was banned: for posting poorly sourced pseudo-scientific fringe theories as well as sockpuppetry after his ban. See http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch/block&page=Benutzer:Greczia. --Lysozym (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I am using reliable sources. Of course, sources which do not work for your Pan-Persian ideal/agenda are labeled by you as "unreliable" and "fringe".

2. You are falsifying and misinterpreting sources. (see: Sogdian, Hunnic and Xiongnu examples on Tarkhan article) You are simply underplaying in the most highest degree an Altaic/Turkic etymology for Tarkhan.

3. I was banned from the German Wikipedia, because I was new and unexperienced against your Iranization agenda on Turkic articles in German and English Wikipedia. One of the involved admins (Otberg) admit it.

4. About the number of Azeris... I cite from the talk page: "The book is obviously a reliable source. It is a fact that Azeri nationalists estimate the number at up to 35 million, and that official estimates are more inline with 14 million. That is exactly what the source says. This is just an attempt to censor the article by excluding perfectly good sources. It is not our job to select between bias nationalist sources and official ones when they contradict each other. We should be presenting both viewpoints. DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)"

So far about your keen and unsubstantial accusations.

5. I AM still a German. So hard to accept it? Doesn't it fit in to your chauvinistic mind? --Greczia (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

6. A recent example for your chauvinistic behaviour: Deletion of reliable sourced material: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greczia (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So it's "deletion of sourced material", huh?! Why don't you show us the exact quote and prove to us that the book is reliable. Since now you also seem to have become an expert on the Tarim mummies. --Lysozym (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material. DOT. Why are trying to find such childish excuses for such a clear POV-deletion? With such edits you are just confirming what I've said. --Greczia (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"István Vásáry (2005) Cumans and Tatars, Cambridge University Press" - so that's a properly cited and reliable source in your opinion, huh?! --Lysozym (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way: the book is actually called Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365. So how is such a book supposed to be a good source for the Tarim mummies?! --Lysozym (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Page 6 says "The Cumans must have lived to the east of the large bend of the Huanghe, in the vicinity of other Nestorian peoples such as, for example, the originally Turkic Öngüts." Linking this to the Tarim mummies is pure synthesis; removal was warranted. Kanguole 19:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kanguole. Remembering Lysozym to do the research before deletion would be nice. --Greczia (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have been even better if you had done the prior reading and then not added that synthesis at all. You inserted a wild claim with a vaguely specified source, so that anyone checking it would have to hunt for the book and then for the page. You do that a lot. I can understand why people remove such material on sight. Kanguole 22:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That section was obvious WP:OR and the citation was poorly, simply the same of a book and not the way it is supposed to be. The removal was fully justified. You, on your part, should not revert blindly and accuse others of doing wrong. Read WP:POINT. It is you who needs to do research. It is not the duty of readers to prove that a certain source is not correct. It is the duty of the author to prove that his sources are reliable and appropriate! --Lysozym (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So far agreed. --Greczia (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Protections by EncycloPetey

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

---

section heading redacted. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This guy, who calls himself an admin, has obvious problems to convert letters and symbols into any meaning in his head, nevermind check them where he should. He was reverting my IPA fix on this page (check the revision history since 15 August 2012) about 2 weeks ago, and now he uses my argument - IPA must match WP:IPA for Dutch, when I have fixed it to be so! Because now it does not match. There's /ən/ while it should be /ə(n)/ (pronouncing both [ə] and [ən] for /ən/ is perfectly acceptable in standard Dutch, it's just that most dialects don't pronounce the /n/ and some do), */h/ while it should be /ɦ/ (it does exist in Dutch, but in the standard variant just as allophone of /ɦ/ after voiceless consonants, and both /ə/ and /n/ are voiced), and */uː/ which doesn't exist anywhere in Dutch, but before /r/, as an allophone of /u/ (in which case it can be a centering diphthong [uə̯] instead). Not to mention him removing my transcription of "Antonie van". I've never seen such an abuse of admin power. This guy should be deprived from his rights, he's ruining this site. This is plain insane. He was also telling me before to "source the IPA", but the current IPA is not sourced either. It's plain wrong and DOESN'T match the bloody WP:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, as he started to claim yesterday. Very clever mate! Obviously you're not claiming it because it's right, you're claiming it because YOU want to be right, even when the fact that you're wrong (and you are big time) is blatant. I'm very curious what you're going to tell us. --89.79.88.109 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the sysop above undid an edit that the IP made, and then immediately semi-prot the article so they couldn't reinstate changes. I'm no IPA expert, but using protection to block out an editor, especially when you're involved, doesn't seem right to me, and should probably at least be looked into. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly, just calm down a bit. Secondly, I can't see any evidence that the content dispute has been discussed on the article's talk page or on WP:DRN, so I agree that protecting the article is a bit premature, to say the least. Particularly when it's been done by an involved admin, which is a big no no. Assuming you informed EncycloPetey (and if not, you should have), I'd be interested to hear his point of view on this. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) The article was protected twice (the first on August 17) in this dispute and without any sort of discussion from the first time, that I can observe. LlamaDude78 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• @89.79.88.109: Thanks for helping the encyclopedia, but this is a collaborative community, and the attitude displayed in this report, and at User talk:EncycloPetey#I've "reported" you, and in at least one edit summary at Antonie van Leeuwenhoek is not helpful. We all know about AGF, but the reality is that the few editors who patrol esoteric topics such as IPA are used to seeing unwise, if not arbitrary, changes to pronunciations. Yes, your first edit summary was good and had a link, but when reverted with plausible edit summary claiming the link was not applicable, any hope of a good outcome was lost when you quickly reverted with edit summary starting "Learn to read" (diff). This page will not deliver an opponents head on a platter, and Talk:Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was last modified on 16 May 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, well, now that we've appropriately chastised the IP editor, can we deal with EncycloPetey? What I'm seeing is two crystal-clear cases of abuse of admin tools: using semiprotection to unilaterally disadvantage a good-faith anon editor in a dispute with a logged-in editor, and using admin tools in a dispute he was himself involved in. Twice. No attempt at discussion on his part either. Admins are to held to high standards of behaviour, weren't they? The very least we need from EncycloPetey is an unambiguous statement from him that he understands why this was wrong and a commitment not to do it again. If not, heads on platters might in fact be unavoidable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

    By the way, as for the content dispute, once the procedural dispute has been cleared away, I volunteer to check those transcriptions against the chapter on "Dutch" in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, if anybody wants a third opinion. From what I can see at first sight, 89.79.88.109 is probably correct about most things here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

    • This is not the first instance of such behavior from EncycloPetey either. - SudoGhost 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am rather concerned that EncycloPetey did not respond in that previous incident on ANI. In my view, any admin should be able to easily justify their actions on request without too much thought. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The associated policy section is WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the discussion was closed before I was given an opportunity to respond. It was then apparently reopened during a period of my absence from Wikipedia, and a great deal of discussion conducted without my imput. It saddens me to see the bureaucracy that Wikipedia has become. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It was not "reopened during a period of your absence", it was reopened a few hours after you commented on it. Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools; that you chose not to edit Wikipedia until after the discussion was archived does not mean your misuse of the administrative tools could not be discussed. It was reopened in part because you gave no indication that you wouldn't continue that behavior, quite the opposite, you indicated that you didn't believe that this was even a case of being an involved administrator. - SudoGhost 08:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, textbook INVOLVED from an admin with previous I'm afraid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly a pattern here. This is another crystal clear case of protection abuse in a case of a legitimate difference of opinions over some trivial copyediting). This is another content dispute. From his protection log, one gets the impression that EncycloPetey rather systematically uses admin tools only on his own articles. While some are undoubtedly legitimate anti-vandalism protections, all the ones I found that were marked as "content disputes" were indeed content disputes he was himself involved in. This is not looking good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the type of abuse that makes life harder for other admins, as it causes a (well earned) loss of respect by the community, costs us editors and forces us into action. It undermines the work of everyone here. User:EncycloPetey, like every single admin at Wikipedia, must respond to any good faith question about their actions, and if they are not willing to, they need to surrender the admin bit or expect it to be taken away. That they didn't respond at ANI last time is disturbing and I'm confident it will not happen a third time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The best thing you as admins can do is exactly what you and Fut Perf. are doing: chastise other admins when they screw up and hold them accountable for their actions. I think a lot of what garners a negative attitude towards the adminship is admins protecting admins - e.g. closing threads early, asserting that ANI is the wrong venue and that RFC/U should be used instead (sometimes it is, but I've seen this abused), etc. If EP doesn't respond to this thread but continues editing doesn't acknowledge he needs to change his behavior may I suggest that an admin file a request at Arbcom rather than waiting for a regular user to do it? Sædon^talk 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

he sort of responded last time; he commented after the thread was closed [9], then reverted himself because it was a closed thread [10]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• If EncycloPetey does not respond to this ANI thread does not acknowledge that he needs to change his behavior, I will test out the theory that it is "easy" to desysop someone at ArbCom, so we don't need a community desysop procedure. The first person to suggest that an RFC/U is required first will be responsible for the bruise on my forehead from beating it against my desk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC) edited my comment, due to my faulty memory. He did not ignore the previous ANI thread, he just refused to accept the unanimous opinion that he was in the wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP altered an IPA pronunciation, pointing out that Dutch IPA pronunciations must follow Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, which does appear to be true as far as I can determine. However, the changes made to the IPA do not match either the descriptions nor the examples at the cited page (e.g., see footnote 1). If the IP believes the policy is in error, then the policy should be corrected. Any changes made in accordance with policy are fine. Changes made claiming support from policy that does not appear to be there are, and made counter to policy should be reverted. In this case, the IP persisted in changes, so the page was protected. When page protection expired, the IP made the problematic changes again. As others have pointed out, the IP responds with brusque, unconstructive replies. If the IP is willing to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, so that a community of users can clarify the issue, and a consensus is reached, then that would be terrific. Ideally, the consensus would result in a clarification on the Dutch IPA page as to whether the IP's assertions about medial-positioned nasals in Dutch. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's missing the point. Per WP:INVOLVED we need a statement from EncycloPetey that they will never, ever again use admin tools on an article they've been editing. Nobody Ent 02:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, I'm missing something in that policy but (1) I see nothing asserting that such a statement is needed, and (2) I do see clearly that "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". My actions were governed solely by the guidelines of the MOS as expressed in the IPA for Dutch page. If it can be determined that the page is in need of correction, or that my interpretation of the page was incorrect, I will be happy to accept that mistake. I have no bias towards one pronunciation transcription or the other, merely a desire to adhere to the MOS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"My actions were governed solely by the guidelines of the MOS"...and that is not an administrative role, that is an editorial role. Therefore: "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role?" Nope, because your editing was editorial, not administrative. That you used a guideline for the edit does not make it administrative in any way. "...or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias" Again, because you are the other editor in the content dispute, you have a clear bias in regards to the dispute even if you think you are right in the dispute, and what editor doesn't? Being "right" doesn't mean it isn't a dispute, and it doesn't mean you are uninvolved. Even if the MoS was clear, it is a guideline and not some rule set in stone. Seeing as how you are sad to see the bureaucracy that Wikipedia has become, it is odd that you are intent on edit warring to adhere to a guideline just for the sake of adhering to the guideline, without any sort of discussion with the other editor. - SudoGhost 09:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans doesn't mention anything about being a policy page, nor a guideline. Not sure how to interpret that. Sædon^talk 02:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's interpretation as a guidleine stems from the MOS section on pronunciation, which refers to the various language-specific IPA pages as reference. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point, so let me be direct: If you have been editing an article, more than trivially, you don't use the tools except in the case of blatent BLP violations or clear and obvious vandalism. When you revert back to your preferred version, as an editor, then use the tools to effectively prevent the IP from changing the page, and it isn't vandalism or BLP violations, then that is abuse of tools. That is using the tools to give yourself as an editor an advantage in a content dispute. It doesn't matter if you are "right" or "wrong" in your interpretation of the MOS on content. That isn't the issue. Using the tools to disadvantage another editor in an edit dispute is the issue. This isn't a request or just a good idea, it is policy and the community expects no less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, this is a content dispute, right? (You called it that yourself). There was edit warring, right? (You called it that yourself). You and the IP were the ones with the content dispute and doing the edit warring, right? You cannot protect a page in your preferred version to win a content dispute or edit war. WP:ADMIN#Misuse of administrative tools says "Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party)". Your protection does not fall under any of the listed exceptions. This was most certainly not in the realm of "administrative role only". The unanimous opinion in this ANI thread, and in the previous ANI thread, was that these protections are inappropriate. I know admins do this all the time on Wiktionary, but we don't do that here. So simple question: will you agree not to protect any articles in your preferred version when you are involved in a content dispute or edit war? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the statements above by EncycloPetey already show that he is totally unsuitable for the mop on Wikipedia. Basically he says that any administrative means are justified in upholding his interpretation of some page that may or may not be officially part of the WP:MOS. I think he's made it pretty clear that he considers his administrative duty or right to enforce his interpretation of the MOS, in blatant disregard for any other policies such as WP:INVOLVED. I think the case should be sent to ArbCom at this point. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have made a more searching investigation of the edit history of Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. This article, for whatever reason, has historically been a relatively frequent target of vandalism, some obvious, some subtle. EncycloPetey's first edit to the article was in January of this year, to revert an editor who had been trying to impose personal grammatical preferences across a range of articles, and had already been cautioned by multiple other editors about this. In total, EncycloPetey has made a dozen edits to the article, several involving the reversion of straight-up vandalism, and the rest dealing with this dispute. Many of us have dealt with very sneaky vandals who intentionally introduce seemingly innocuous errors into articles to see how much they can get away with, sometimes under the rubric of "fixing" a nonexistent error. I am certainly sympathetic to an admin reverting an editor who makes a suspicious edit that appears to run counter to policies (even if it's just a guideline, there's no reason to make an already-conforming page deviate from the guideline), warning that editor when they persist in an apparent error, and protecting the page when apparent vandalism is afoot. It does not help the IP editor's case that their first response to the reversion is a rather uncivil, "Learn to read". Furthermore, the first edit following the end of the page protection period was vandalism by a different IP. I grant that in this situation it would have been better for EncycloPetey to bring in a second admin, to avoid the kind of accusations that have been generated here, but he is not an "involved" admin with respect to this article beyond being an administrator routinely dealing with questionable edits to a common target of vandalism. bd2412 T 03:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He was "involved" in this specific content dispute, and this specific edit war. The fact that the article is a vandalism magnet might explain why he would mistake an edit for vandalism when it wasn't, but (a) this is not an isolated incident, it is a pattern of behavior (see FP@S diffs above, and previous ANI thread), and (b) he clearly acknowledges this is a content dispute in the protection log entry. A content dispute he won using admin tools. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others here that this is a case that may require desysoping. EncycloPetey, two direct questions: have you now understood that what you did was wrong, yes or no? If not: what else beside this ANI thread might be able to make you change your mind? If you haven't conceded to the unanimous opinion of your colleagues here in this thread, would you be willing to concede to the opinion of a User RFC? (and no, I don't want to be responsible for any bruise on Floq's forehead: I'm not suggesting an RFC/U is required at this point; I'm just saying we might keep that alternative open if there is a reasonable chance that it will be able to solve the issue. But if EncycloPetey is generally not willing to listen, there's obviously no point in that.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought: screw that. If EncycloPetey has not been willing to listen up to now, why should we jump through the hoops of a user RFC for his sake at this point. The matter is really clear enough and further community debate is not needed. EncycloPetey has had his chance of correcting his ways and didn't take it. I'm filing that Arbcom case now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I don't particularly disagree with anything that BD2412 said with regards to the IP being the other side of the edit war - it's perfectly possible, as the WP:BOOMERANG proves time and time again, for both parties in a dispute to be in the wrong somewhere. However, when faced with a content dispute, you take it to the article's talk page, the user's talk page (possibly impractical with an IP, but still), you may even take it to WP:AN3 - but you do not edit war yourself. The minute you edit war and then protect the page to silence an opponent, they have absolutely every right to think you are biased and bullying them, even if they are wrong and you are right. Wikipedia's big enough to make its own gravity, but on smaller sites I have had experience with there is nothing more poisonous than a biased administrator to make people vote with their feet and leave the place. I'm loathe to suggest setting up a RFC/U for EncycloPetey, but I can't see any evidence that this abuse of tools won't happen again at present.

PS: Regarding "If the IP is willing to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, so that a community of users can clarify the issue, and a consensus is reached, then that would be terrific" - it appears that's exactly what he has done. I note with interest you have not joined in the discussions, and indeed made your comments here after the IP started trying to resolve the content dispute in a more placid manner. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a personal issue, and I get the feeling that EP has had the bit since the cowboy days, but we don't play cowboy here at enwp anymore, it has caused too many probs and cost too many good editors. I say that in good faith, as some of the older admins have had some issues adjusting to the "kinder, gentler" Wikipedia, but at the end of the day, we can't use the tools to help ourselves. At the very least, when we feel we must act immediately at an article that we are involved in, we come to WP:AN and dump it in the laps of our fellow admins, who will either sign off on the WP:IAR exception, or correct the problem and offer guidance for the future. What is so damaging is when this type of brute force admin'ing is done quietly and privately, out of the public eye. Petey, it isn't about bureaucracy, it is about transparency, particularly since Wikipedia is now a top 5 website globally. How they do things on other WMF Wikis, I have no idea but we simply can't do that here anymore. Part of the reason I founded WP:WER was because of the loss of good editors due to hamfisted admin'ing, so I've seen the damage it causes the project, even when it isn't intentional. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

user:Daviddaved

Daviddaved (talk · contribs) embarked on a strange project which looks like a wikibook within wikipedia without any references and any other respect to wikipedia style. Please someone of admins talk sense to the editor. - Altenmann >t 04:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? It looks like he's working on an article in his sandbox. Perhaps he wants to get the text together first before he references it. Let him be... --Jayron32 05:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He is not working in his sandbox. He is polluting wikipedia main article space with new weird mathematish pages. You have to tell him to confine himself to his space and move/noredirect all his creations into his space. - Altenmann >t 14:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And check his history and block log; this is not the first time he's done this sort of disruptive editing (and been blocked for it). —Psychonaut (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to move __all__ of his work to his user space. Wait until it's cleaned up and then judge according to content in each case. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they should be described as "weird mathematish pages". I think they're legitimate mathematics, but in some cases possibly original research. I suspect this use is <outing redacted>. He clearly has no understanding of what Wikipedia's norms and conventions are. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you believe you know an editor's real life identity or any other personal information, please do not disclose it, as that is a breach of WP:OUTING -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think communicating with him should be left to those who can read his articles. See the one I just edited. I don't know if authoritative secondary sources can be cited or not, but I think to a non-mathematician it may have looked like gibberish, and it showed no awareness at all of how Wikipedia articles should be written, but now it's in a comprehensible form where no one would mistake it for gibberish. If you try to tell him he should do things differently, do not create a reasonable appearance in his mind that you are an illiterate idiot. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose this discussion be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody had any interaction with this editor? So far I haven't seen anything to indicate he ever reads his talk page. Eeekster (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is the only time he's ever replied to a comment left on a talk page. Mind you, that comment was posted today, so perhaps he's finally learning. Since that comment he appears to have shifted editing to his sandbox. But editors should continue to monitor contributions, and to press for further dialogue, to make sure that no further nonsensical or essay-like articles are created in the mainspace, and that he understands that even his personal sandbox isn't for non-encyclopedic content. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of them appear to be gibberish to mathematicians (well, at least one mathematician). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be rash!

Look at my recent edits to Compound matrix. Look at where this user left it (showing no awareness of norms and conventions of Wikipedia) and where I left it. If you had started with his initial draft and then written to him that he was "polluting" Wikipedia with "weird" nonsense, I predict that he would CORRECTLY conclude that you are dishonest and imbecilic. The article may still be objectionable as it stands, but let the objections be valid ones, no stupid nonsense. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The user needs to send an OTRS if he has permission to copy from http://www.ee.ic.ac.uk/hp/staff/dmb/matrix/property.html . Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC).

With all due deference to Michael Hardy and his immense contribution to Wikipedia, Eeekster observation above that Daviddaved appears totally uncommunicative on wiki doesn't bode well. As far as I can tell by looking at his Talk and User_talk namespace contributions Daviddaved never dialogued with anyone ever on Wikipedia. By all means, if you can engage him in dialogue or some kind of tutoring, on WPM or elsewhere, please do so, otherwise this isn't going to end well. He was already blocked once. Some of the pages he created, like Variation diminishing property, appear to be hopeless lecture fragments. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for creating inappropriate pages and extremely poor communication. He is at least responding in the form of unblock requests but I can't say I find his explanation very compelling. If Michael or anyone else would llike to have a go at making sense of the deleted articles they can be userfied or whatever until such time as they meet our minimum standards and can be at least vaguely comprehended by a general audience. . Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the unblock requests he's made, he still doesn't seem clear on the difference between an encyclopedic topic and an encyclopedia article. Certainly the topics he's writing about are worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. But I don't think he is engaged in writing encyclopedia articles on them; he seems to be looking for a convenient place to record original research or teaching material. (Many of his now-deleted articles talk about a "book" he is writing here.) He needs to come out and say exactly what sort of work he intends to write (in terms of content, genre, and target audience) so that the best venue for it can be identified. Possibly that venue will be Wikipedia, but more likely it will be Wikiversity or some non-Wikimedia project like arXiv, a scholarly journal, or his own personal web page. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Continued removal of AfD template

The creator of Ken Sibanda is continuosly removing the AfD template on the page. There is an AfD currently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda (2nd nomination). In the interest of full disclosure, I am using an alternative account as there was harassment from the article creator during the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda). --Altfish80 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I protected the article. Not an ideal situation given an active AfD, but it seemed like the best short term solution to prevent disruption and allow a new user to have processes explained to them. We'll see if more action is necessary. WilyD 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored the AFD template and warned Mziboy about removing the AFD template. GB fan 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He isn't exactly a new user. He was warned specifically about removing AfD templates during the previous AfD nearly a year ago, but thanks for the quick action in any event. It should be sufficient for the moment. --Altfish80 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh - point taken. I naively assumed that anyone using articles for creation must be a new user. WilyD 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• There were actually two previous AfDs for this article; the other one is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissinger N. Sibanda. Also of interest is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mziboy/Archive and the plethora of prior warnings for disruption on his talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of process Altfish80

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

---

The above user, ALtfish80 is a holding name for someone vandalizing the "Ken Siabnda" page. All issues have been addressed since the Ken Sibanda page was deleted years ago.

Violation of wikipedia policy ( multiple accounts) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy, you need to either stop leveling socking and harassment allegations against people, or start an SPI with whatever evidence you think you have. Your habit of accusing those who don't do what you wish of malfeasance (see my "meta-comment" here) is harmful and against our civility policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mziboy if all issues have been addressed then you shouldn't have anything to worry about on this AFD and will confirm that statement. GB fan 16:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The only thing he should be worried about is his own outrageous behavior. This user has made these same accusations in about half a dozen places, all without one shred of supporting evidence. I have already deleted several pages they created and responded to a thread they initiated at WP:WQA, and warned them to cut this nonsense out on their talk page. of you want to accuse someone of something, you best have some evidence to back it up. It's " put up or shut up" time for this user. Proffer that evidence, or keep this to yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See note from Courcelles regarding use of alternate account upto this point. GB fan 17:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Tendentious behavior and personal attacks by Mziboy

• This is getting ridiculous very rapidly. It's obvious that Mziboy is emotionally involved in this issue, to the point where he feels justified in attacking others and misusing process to attempt to get his way and make his point. Mziboy has been here long enough to have read our rules and to have had them explained to him multiple times, and he seems unwilling or unable to grasp them. There is little benefit to the community in letting this continue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've already left a final warning to desist or at least foloow proper channels on his talk page. I assume we will know fairly soon whether he is able to control himself or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Any more of this kind of silliness from Mziboy should probably earn them a WP:COMPETENCE block. One's "sixth sense" is not enough to start throwing around barmy accusations of socking against users who happen to contribute to AfD discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• They've just gotten a 24 hours block from Boing! said Zebedee. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yep, a short block to bring this ridiculous spree to an end. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for site ban on Mziboy (talk · contribs)

I think this has gone on long enough. Mziboy has been here nearly a year, his talk page is a long string of warnings and advice, people have tried hard to explain things, but he has shown no sign that he will listen or learn by experience.

• His sole purpose here is to promote a self-published author, Ken Sibanda,[11], [12] his book and his company. See AfDs 1, 2, 3, and now 4

• He has denied any COI, but if his obsessive pushing of this article was not enough, two participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Sibanda received emails from Mziboy's WP account sent from proteusfilm.com, Sibanda's company. (His response was to claim that these were a forgery.)

• He has constantly thrown around accusations of racism, Nazism, sockpuppetry and has filed frivolous complaints against people who disagree with him

• He has himself engaged in sockpuppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mziboy/Archive

• He tries to game the system, e.g. blanking his article during an AfD so that it is deleted and the AfD closed, and immediately recreating under another title

• He makes retaliatory speedy nominations

• He is still edit-warring to remove AfD templates.

Enough is enough. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Mziboy is not here to improve the encyclopedia, only to promote Sibanda, and he does not have the temperament to edit collaboratively. JohnCD (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• (Obviously involved) Support. After having watched Mziboy's behavior for this past year, I am convinced that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to promote Ken Sibanda and his products, and that Mziboy is not willing to even pay lip service to whether our policies allow this. Rather than abiding by them, he's actually quite carefully made end-runs around all the policies he's able (G7ing an article at AfD, AfCing an article that's been deleted but not telling anyone that it's a G4 candidate, putting an AfC'd article in mainspace when no one is prepared to approve it for him...). He's not here to work with us - he's here to sledgehammer his baby into Wikipedia, whether we like it or not, and he's perfectly willing to attack, intimidate, harass, and accuse if it will get him his way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I see no downside to a siteban, and a definite upside in stopping the cycle of behavior from continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Oh dear, I hadn't realised this editor had been causing so much trouble for so long - trying to evade policies in many ways to get non-notable article included, evading deletion discussions, accusing people of Nazism, racism, sockpuppetry, and attacking people in any way possible to try to discredit them. We don't need any more of this. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This user is clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia and is only here to promote Ken Sibanda, and Mziboy has breached numerous policies in order to get a non-notable article included, evading deletion discussions and throwing around attacks in any way possible to discredit them. This has caused more than enough trouble. With that said, enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know about the rest of the community, but my patience is exhausted just by looking at the user's talk page and edits. Sjones23 is right - enough is enough. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 02:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support — I'm not one to enjoy telling someone that they can no longer edit Wikipedia, but Mziboy is one of those people that just doesn't seem to get it. Having a conflict of interest is one thing, but comparing people to Nazis, making accusations of racism, branching into off-Wiki harassment, and attempting to subvert our policies using dishonest means are quite another. This user has had numerous chances; they are simply not compatible with this site. I'm sorry. Kurtis (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I could be wrong, but my impression is that this is not some paid PR person but rather a fan, possibly an acquaintance, who is having a lot of trouble understanding the most basic rules of both content and behavior. At the end of the day however it does not matter what their underlying motivations are, what matters is that they have persisted in acting in this manner regardless of how many times they are asked to desist and advised of the appropriate course of action. I would suggest a WP:OFFER based block or ban, whichever. If they could fulfill the terms of the offer it would go a long way towards demonstrating a proper understanding of what is expected in those areas where he has shown problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Despite over a year of effort on the part of honest and well-intentioned editors, this user appears to be incorrigible in his abuse of process, personal attacks, and non-adherence to content policies. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. On another note, it might be worth considering salting these article names. Given how singleminded Mziboy is about creating these articles, we can expect socks to appear to try to recreate them. At least until such time as reliable sources begin to report on the subject. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Editing for the sole purpose of self-promotion is itself grounds for an indef block. Demonstrated usage of socks to support his own battleground causes casts doubt on his ability to live by Wikipedia's basic rules, as does his inability to act civil. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Despite numerous warnings and attempts to help him correct himself over the past year, Mziboy's conduct remains completely unacceptable. Others have summed it up well, and I need not say more on it here. It will do us all a great deal of good to be rid of him. CtP (t • c) 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The ongoing AfD regarding Ken Sibanda is being commented on by IPs which are quite clearly either the user editing logged out (which would be at the least, double-voting, and possibly block evasion, depending on when his block expired), or meatpuppets of the user. For example. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The style of writing used by the two IPs is different enough from Mziboy's that I believe them to be meatpuppets, not sockpuppets. However, they are similiar enough to each other that it's likely that the same meatpuppet is behind both IPs, probably (like Mziboy) someone connected to Proteus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not apparently Mziboy and not apparently the same person, although both IPs are from New Jersey. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Not the same? It seemed otherwise to me, but I've been wrong before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I was fairly sure that the first of the IPs to comment was a sockpuppet. The second IP to comment seemed to have more substantial contributions outside the topic of Sibanda, despite being from New Jersey, so it's probably a meatpuppet instead. CtP (t • c) 00:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

*headdesk* A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This is gonna end up getting outta control in the near future if he stays. ZappaOMati 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep until debate is over

This is my position on this page. The same editors who are arguing that the "Ken Sibanda" page be deleted are requesting a site ban. This is intended to stop me from answering and defending their accusations on the Ken Sibanda deletion blog. Please allow for that deletion debate before issuing a site ban. I am willing to take the punishment for the crimes that have been listed. but other editors should also be brought to the bench.

1. My sole purpose is not to promote Ken Sibanda, but this is my starting point; to write about him and black Africa.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Abuse and threat on my talk page by an ip

Resolved

 – IP warned and revisions deleted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This ip has abused/threatened me here.
I request this ip to be blocked. HARSH (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned IP and deleted their revisions. Disparaging insults for no apparent reason. De728631 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion on Shrike's indef block

OhanaUnited just indefed user:Shrike based on this discussion. Could some other admins look into this? There doesn't seem to be anything near a consensus he should be blocked at all, not to mention indef. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just spent some time reviewing this. After looking over the discussion, the prior discussion [13] and the closing admins lengthy rationale, I don't see the consensus for a block in the discussion. It doesn't look like the closing administrator's assessment amounts to a good summation of the viewpoints of the discussion, instead it looks like the admin in question is merely giving his own singular viewpoint. In light of that, it looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than a proper summation of the existing consensus. It would have been better, instead of closing the discussion and acting on it, if the OhanaUnited had just presented their perspective and let another admin, who didn't have an opinion one way or the other, close the discussion. The rationale expressed in the closing does not seem to match what the preponderance of editors expressed, and for that reason, and without finding fault or wishing any retribution or sanctions, I would urge OhanaUnited to consider undoing their action and letting a different admin act on the discussion instead. --Jayron32 19:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont see anybody even suggesting an indef block. The only request that seemed reasonable to me was for Shrike to not directly edit articles and instead ask users with a stronger grasp of the language to improve on suggested edits on a talk page. nableezy - 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NMNG's request for additional opinions. OhanaUnited's rationale for an indef block rests largely on Shrike's language competency. Shrike's grammar is somewhat lacking, but I feel able to communicate with him on technical subjects without issue. As an example, here's a brief correspondence where Shrike made a request of me, I asked a clarifying question and he responded in a way that helped me understand what he was looking for. The grammar wasn't perfect but I could understand him perfectly. There are plenty of non-native speakers who struggle with grammatical nuances but are still able to work as professionals. I think that holding editors to a standard where they have to have perfect grammar would make it tremendously difficult for us to achieve our goals of expanding our editor base. GabrielF (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I also dont think we should be demanding flawless grammar from contributors, but some the things that Shrike puts in articles (mostly in highly controversial ones) are incomprehensible. The same goes for some of his talk page arguments. That said, the concern in that thread was the damage that Shrike has done and could potentially continue to do to article space, which by itself is not grounds for a total block. nableezy - 19:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a little thing to clarify, my opinion on OhanaUnited's action is not based on whether or not I think (peronally) Shrike should have been blocked or not; since for this discussion, that is irrelevent. In assessing whether OhanaUnited acted correctly, I only tried to figure out if his rationale for closing the discussion was a reasonabl assessment of that discussion. It wasn't, so it was incorrectly closed. It really has nothing to do with the merits of the argument or what Shrike did. He may or may not have committed actions which merit a block, or maybe not, but the only issue here is whether or not there was a consensus to block. There wasn't, ergo he shouldn't have been. --Jayron32 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the above comments, an indef really seems to be going overboard here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In the above thread, Shrike agreed to consult with other editors before adding material to articles despite his edits being of an understandable nature. He acknowledged his shortcomings and sought to remedy it and it is inaccurate to state that he failed to drop the stick when he voluntarily accepted this imposition. And more importantly, there does not appear to have been a consensus to enforce any ban, let alone one of the scope enforced.Ankh.Morpork 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, uz Englesh speekers natev skwew up enuff that we can excuz Shrike if he admits that maybe his command of the language could use improvement. I also think that the discussion didn't seem to indicate a consensus for such an action. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is what what was proposed, and the degree of consensus:

• it may be in the best interests of Wikipedia to prevent Shrike from editing articles.

• Through a block? - (Bali ultimate, possibly AndyTheGrump)
• Through specific topic ban - (Saddhiyama)
• Through recommendation not to edit articles directly? (nableez)
• Through recommendation to edit less controversial articles / be more selective with edits? (Mark Arsten, Jprg1966)
• Denied 1RR right (Nishidani)
• No admin action needed (Georgewilliamherbert, GabrielF, Activism1234, SlimVirgin)
• There were several other editors who expressed that editing in understandable English is an important part of WP:CIR, but did not have a specific recommendation in this case: Peacemaker67, Beyond My Ken, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Black Kite

To me, this doesn't at all represent anything remotely close to a consensus for indefinite block, and will need to be reexamined. The closing admin may believe indef block was the best solution to a problem some editors expressed, but it was not one agreed upon by the majority of participants. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NMMNG that there was no consensus in the discussion for any block. Whatever Shrike's shortcomings regarding article space, he or she is very helpful on talk pages, even on contentious ones (The one I have the most experience with regarding Shrike is Talk:The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam). I don't see grounds for an indefinite block and think that this needs to be reconsidered.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)As an aside, no one had notified OhanaUnited about this discussion, usually something that is the OPs responsibility. I have since done so. --Jayron32 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)
• Yep, there was nothing remotely close to a consensus for that block - I would urge the blocking admin to revert it, undo the close of that section, and let someone else judge the consensus and do the close. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've fixed worse. I don't even agree to a ban on editing in article space, as long as Shrike knows his limitations when inserting new content. His English might be off, but it's perfectly understandable and can be reworded with little effort by copyeditors. He freely acknowledges that he speaks English as a second language, and he contributes positively overall given his work at WP:RX. This problem seems to stem from his edits to controversial articles, which is only tangentially related to his fluency in English. That was not the complaint filed against him and not the issue discussed by the editors who responded. The indef is unwarranted. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree that there was no consensus for the block, and urge that Shrike be unblocked, per above comments (which seem to all agree). --Activism1234 20:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• As noted above, I participated in the previous discussion, and, despite opining that writing in understandable English was important for the project, I saw nothing in the overall conversation which could even remotely be seen as consensus for a block. Shrike should be unblocked, and OhanaUnited trouted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I also opined that there was an issue with CIR with Shrike's editing, but given Shrike's responses and the general consensus, I also agree that there was no consensus for a block. Shrike should be unblocked. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I was somewhat involved in the previous discussion and do not recall talk of indeffing at all. Shrike was not warm and fuzzy in the discussion, but he was on-topic and tried to be responsive. This should be undone. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've unblocked him. No disrespect to Onaha, but there was not a consensus that blocking was the appropriate response and there is clearly substantial, actually so far unanimous, objection to indef blocking as the response to this. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the close didn't fit the consensus of the discussion. I do wonder whether AN/I was the best place to go in the first place. Would not RFC/U be a better place to discuss each of the issues under separate headings and consider a range of options for any of those issues which lots of people consider a problem?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Beeblebrox have reverted my actions, I'm going to keep this brief. Competence is one but not the only part of the puzzle. For starters, a year ago, Shrike was topic banned 3 months and blocked for a week as part of Arbitration Enforcement.[14] Others, such as User:Volunteer Marek mentioned last time [15], felt that editing in controversial areas compounded the competence problem. Then there was the proposed topic ban that Shrike initiated against an editor which boomeranged[16] (yet no admin was brave enough in those 3 days to enact a boomerang topic ban on Shrike when there was a community consensus to do so). The next part in my consideration is how long have the community given him second/third/fourth/... chances. Concerns about his POV-pushing were raised as early as July 2007 and further confirmed in February 2011's Arbitration Enforcement block. Clearly Shrike didn't get that warning message and continued by shifting to other similar topics, landing himself in hot water as the subject of ANI at least 4 times this year (April, May, July, and this month). Next, how long would you give an editor while he works on his competence? A topic ban is not sufficient enough given Shrike's history, which would simply mean Shrike moved on to other areas and damage those parts of the community. A short term block (a week to a month) hardly produces any measurable result because an individual simply can't grasp competence in that short period of time. While bits and pieces alone are not grounds for long term blocks, when you put everything together then it becomes a problem. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then you need to start a ban discussion and lay out your case that a long-term ban is appropriate. It may very well be (or maybe not, I make no judgement one way or the other), but by enacting a long term block as part of closing a discussion where almost no-one wanted it, it looked a bit odd and confused people. If you think the bredth of Shrike's history merits a block, then start such a discussion. You may be able to make such a case (or could have had you not jumped the gun), but the manner in which it was enacted didn't appear to have the consensus of the community. It would have gone better had you sought and received that consensus first. --Jayron32 03:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And another POV warrior (with poor English skill on top) will march on unabated for years to come... Tijfo098 (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me well knows I am usually the first one in line to advocate removing users with serious competence problems. However, whether Shrike is such a user or not has nothing at all to do with my reversal of Onaha's block. There was a discussion, the community did not agree that blocking was the appropriate response, and a follow-up discussion clearly demonstrated that the block was not supported by consensus. If Onaha had done this on their own independent of a community discussion I doubt I would have reversed it, but this block did not happen in a vacuum. It happened as a response to discussion right here on this page, and there was a clear rapid consensus that indefinite blocking did not accurately reflect the result of that discussion. In no way does that mean that Shrike is a perfect user who is beyond reproach, in fact when informing them they were unblocked I also suggested that they agree to an editing restriction of some sort. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm hardly a procedure or policy wonk, but this episode shows why it is sometimes very important to do things by the book, especially if you want them to stick. My objection (indeed, the objections of many) is not that Shrike did not commit actions that merit a block. I did not consider that one way or another; rather it was merely to assess if the block reflected community consensus or did not. In this case, it did not. If a block of any long-time user is necessary, it is likely to be contentious and for that reason consensus before blocking always works better than after blocking. It is often said that asking forgiveness is easier than asking permission, but in cases like this, the converse is true: it only goes well when the consensus for the block is obtained before enacting it. When the community has not acented to blocking a long-term user (or, as in this case, where the community has openly been opposed to the idea, because of the specific set of events surrounding the block request), it isn't going to end well. --Jayron32 05:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, coz Wikipedia desperately needs another editor to make hundreds of edits on the topics of dhimmitude and Eurabia, including their chief proponents, especially edits which often enough don't reflect the sources adequately (AGF'd to be caused by the lack of language skills of the editor). Also I fear the WP:AE 1RR game is running short of ARBPIA battlestars. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can drop the stick anytime, Tijfo. I think the matter is settled here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

78.148.101.209

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

---

78.148.101.209 (talk · contribs) What's up with this IP farm's activity? Looks like he's trying to hide connections to a sockmaster Grace Saunders (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We've been on this a long time. Grace Saunders is a well known situation that flares up once in a while. This IP edited back in May, so there's nothing to do right now. The Grace Saunders case is a very minor annoyance, pay it no mind. --Jayron32 20:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oops, wrong IP. It's 78.148.96.190 (talk · contribs). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That's today. I'll get on that presently. --Jayron32 20:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the latest IP, it looks like several other admins have been rolling back the edits (I rolled back some too), so I think this is taken care of. I have also left a friendly note advising them to contact BASC regarding the initial block. As an aside, they may have a point on their real name being used. However, the proper channel is to contact WP:BASC and request that the account be renamed per WP:RTV, not to go on these sprees every few months. This person has, in the past, been advised of this exact thing many times, so I am not sure one more reminder of the proper way to handle this is going to work, but I told them to contact WP:BASC yet again, in the hopes that this time, maybe, just maybe, they will listen. I'm going AFK for a while, so someone may want to keep an eye on this besides me, but as of right now, it looks like this is resolved. --Jayron32 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Rasmussen Reports

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

---

Hello, I apologize in advance if I'm posting in the wrong place or using the wrong procedure. I would like to challenge a (non-deletion, non-moving) closure of this Talk page discussion, which I believe was premature and capricious. The Help Desk recommended that I post here.

Following the closure, I asked the closing administrator why he/she closed and my understanding is he/she believed that consensus was reached. In response I explained that I thought there was no consensus because one of the editors who disagreed with me was uncivil from the start, another one never raised any arguments at all, and a third made valid arguments and I thought we were making progress. I also pointed out that the article is relatively quiet and the discussion had only been open for 8 days. The administrator's reaction was disappointing; rather than explaining why consensus was in fact reached he/she questioned my motives. This discussion can be found here.

I very much appreciate the administrator's contributions to Wikipedia, but in this particular case I feel that my perspective to improve the article was silenced by a very uncivil editor and a capricious administrative decision. I don't understand why an administrator would question my motives (in apparent violation of WP:AGF). I always thought that we all come to Wikipedia with our own motives and as long as we abided by the policies and guidelines our views were all welcome. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You seem to have neglected to inform me you were posting this. On the other hand I have nothing to add beyond what I already said on my talk page. Was there some problem with my advice to seek WP:DR? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an AN/I matter, this is a matter for WP:DRN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible sockpuppet abuse

Nasir Ghobar (talk · contribs) seems to be a new sockpuppet of banned User:Lagoo sab. He is currently involved in various edit wars, all concentrating on the works of Abdul Hai Habibi, an Afghan academic notorious for various forgeries and fringe theories. Like Lagoo sab 2 years ago, Nasir Ghobar is trying to establish these fringe theories in Wikipedia as a mainstream source, while in the academic world Habibi is notorious for various ethnocentric fabrications, including (and most notably) the Pata Khazana. Already in 2010, this user was trying to establish this falsifying version of the article (for example [17] and [18]), but his edits were promtly reverted by User:Sommerkom, a German specialist on Pashto language and literature and the main author of the article. Now, after some 2 years of abscence, he seems to be back with a new account propagating the same POV-version. In fact, he is reverting to the same POV-version: [19][20]. Admins should have a closer look at this or maybe at Nasir Ghobar's edits. --Lysozym (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is he who is involved in edit-wars/disruptive editing.[21] I told him several times already that he's mistaking me for someone else who edited an article 2 years ago and some how by coincident I reverted the page to, according to him, the same version. This was my first edit [22] and that was in response to his this wild removal of valid RS sources. [23] That article doesn't appear to have been edited much in the last 2 or so years. I'm a new editor, I was not even familiar with Pata Khazana until he some how got me involved. He began claiming that a prominent Afghan scholar is rejected by all the Western historians and that was surprising to me so I asked who, where, how, he is rejected and to please show me something to read so I can learn about this but he FAILED to even show me one report.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Failing?! You should have read the articles first. It is not my job to prove to you that Habibi is being rejected - usually, he is not even taken into consideration. But since you asked (and as already mentioned in the article Pata Khazana which you blindly reverted without even reading it), he is being fully rejected by Manfred Lorenz and David Neil MacKenzie. The later exposed Habibi's forgery and was able to prove that the Pata Khazana was written by Habibi.

Strange that on the one hand you claim not to have known that page while on the other hand, you reverted to a POV-version of 2 years ago while contuing to claim that the above mentioned forgery is a "reliable source". --Lysozym (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have examined everything in that article word by word before I reverted it. The source added for David Neil MacKenzie failed verification, and I tagged it but you removed the tag. Show me where Habibi is rejected? Post a link here so I can read and verify it, and who is Manfred Lorenz?--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WOW! According to Lysozym's user page at the bottom [24] he has used another suckpoppet Tajik (talk · contribs), and according to his contribs on that [25] he's been blocked so many times [26] for violating various policies, including Violation of ArbCom editing restriction and Arbitration enforcement: edit warring in the face of ArbCom editing restriction. This guy has the nerves to report others, lol.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

a) The ArbCom was lifted (it was actually based on a false accusation!) b) There are no sockpuppets. The account User:Tajik was closed so that I can use a universial account. Now, I have the same nickname in all Wikipedias I am working on as well as in Wikimedia (see for example de:Benutzer:Lysozym). It was known from the beginning on and was monitored by admin User:Kingturtle; you can ask him. So what exactly is your great discovery?! And as you have already "discovered", I am even mentioning it on my userpage. *sigh* Your case is totally different. Lagoo sab was banned because of sockpuppetry. And now you - a guy with the same interests, the same edits, the same reverts, the same POV and even the same writing style - show up 2 years later and revert to his POV. That is strange. --Lysozym (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCom was NOT lifted but enforced [27] and it was actually NOT based on a false accusation. Your entire actions are disruptive, you engage in edit-wars with everyone who don't agree with you opinions, you call everything nonsense, you keep lying about prominent historians just to discredit them even if they were correct. I have no idea what Lagoo Saab did but that name sounds like a Nigerian or probably an Indian person, I'm nothing close to that. There are dozens of Iranians editing Iranian related articles, Indians editing Indian related articles, Pakistanis editing Pakistani related pages, etc. so according to you they are all sockpuppets of one Iranian, one Indian, and one Pakistani? I came across Sikh related articles and over 3 or 4 Sikh editors were coming with the same opinions, POVs, similar names, and even the same writing style.[28] Are these all one person? [29]--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab but it is very long. Possibly the editors who have read the present ANI complaint can simply check out Abdul Hai Habibi and see what Lagoo sab did there. (You only need to check the first page of the history). Then they should compare with what User:Nasir Ghobar did at Pata Khazana. (Once again, just look at the first page of the history). If this is strong enough to be a smoking gun, then a block of Nasir Ghobar might be justified. I had previously received a complaint about Nasir Ghobar being a sock of Lagoo sab (back in July) but the information was not strong enough at that time to justify action. Some of his edits at Talk:Ghaznavids suggested he had a strong motivation to defend the glorious history of Afghanistan, so he was getting close to needing a warning for nationalist POV-pushing. He complained about language in Ghaznavids which suggested that this dynasty (founded in Afghanistan) had become Persianized. A strain of pro-Afghan and anti-Persian feeling is evident also in what is known about Lagoo sab from his SPI case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1. You should familiar yourself with the people who edit these articles, people of Asia in particular. All Afghans think the same. The same way how all Iranians think the same. The same way how all Pakistanis think the same. The same way how all Indians think the same. The accusations against me are wrong.

2. Lysozym was put on 1RR per week [30] at ArbCom when he was using the Tajik (talk · contribs) account, then he decided to create a fresh account so that he can get away from that restriction. He just violated 2RR or possibly 3RR on Hazara people but admins closed their eyes. EdJohnston did not even bother to mention anything about Lysozym, that's a clear indication that some admins are here supporting the trouble makers and even helping the trouble makers find a reason to have constructive editors like me blocked. I'm providing readers with accurate information and reverting vandals, if you don't like it then that's too bad. Look at how EdJohnston wrote this: "If this is strong enough to be a smoking gun, then a block of Nasir Ghobar might be justified" That's like trying to say that anyone may just block him because he is an Afghan editor, even if he is a good editor. So much racism going on here.

3. Regarding the Ghaznavids, it starts like this: "The Ghaznavid dynasty (Persian: غزنویان‎) was a Muslim Persianate[3][4][5] dynasty of Turkic slave origin[6][7][8]". I called this an awkward leading sentence for an encyclopedia. Somebody else agreed with me. [31] I have said that them becoming Persianized or being Persianate should be in the second paragraph. You think I'm showing anti-Persian feeling because of this? What nonsense, we all know very well that Persian was the dominant language of this region for centuries. That's yet another reason why we don't need to mention this in the leading sentence.

4. Last but not least, I decided to discuss with Lysozym on the talk pages in which he failed. When he mentioned Habibi and Pata Khazana I noticed him vandalizing Pata Khazana and all I did was revert his vandalism. That article was missing alot of information and I decided to add the info on where the manuscript was found. Lysozym obviously doesn't want readers to know where it was found and who had it before 1943. Even if the work is not real it should address this.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

1) Which part of "the ArbCom was lifted" don't you understand?! And my new account does not have anything to do with it. In fact, I created the account in the German Wikipedia. Unlike the old one, it is a global account. Posting all these wrong accusations in order to divert attention from the real problem - i. e. that there is a strong possibility that you are just another sockpuppet of banned User:Lagoo sab - won't help your cause.

2) Your claim that "all people from the same nation think the same way" is so stupid that it does not deserve any comment.

3) Stop calling my edits vandalism. I was reverting a POV version by a banned user. And it seems that I am not the only one who has the impression that you are just another sockpuppet of that banned user. --Lysozym (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't play games, nobody lifted the ArbCom sanction. According to this [32] you are limited to one revert per page per week. I'm going to say one more time that I'm not Lagoo and I don't have any reason to use multiple accounts. I have a feeling that you are abusing multiple accounts because all of a sudden these other names came around and began reverting me to your version.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the important part: excepting obvious vandalism. And since you are an obvious sockpuppet, all of your edits are to be reverted. See WP:BAN: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. --Lysozym (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop making up stupid excuses.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Another banned user with very similar edits is User:NisarKand. The same POV, the same writing style, also banned for sockpuppet abuse. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. --Lysozym (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's also wrong. My name is Nasir which is different from Nisar. Maybe you can explain who is this Greczia? His user page is decorated almost exactly like yours, including the mention of the previous account at the bottom. He gave you a barnstar [33] and claims to be from Germany where you are editing from.[34]--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. That was by far the most ridiculous claim so far. See here. Interestingly, he is a sockpuppet-abuser like you. That's why he was banned in the German Wikipedia. As for his barnstar: I have no idea what he was trying to achieve with that, giving me a barnstar while at the same time reporting me and accusing me of this and that. Is there any doubt anymore that you are a disruptive sockpuppet-abuser and a man-on-a-mission posting ridiculous claims about other Wikipedians?! --Lysozym (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop your rants, go and get your self some sleep.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

IP editing against consensus on baseball articles

207.165.87.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been updating the statistics of baseball closers on their respective pages. The only problem is, s/he is not conforming to a rule that player's stats are only considered valid to the day on which he last played. In each of 207's edits, s/he is not abiding by this rule, instead substituting the day on which s/he edited. For instance, in this edit, the date of edit was August 18 but it should have said that Chapman's stats were accurate as of August 17. This makes the user's edits — every single one of them — technically incorrect.

User:AutomaticStrikeout and myself have warned 207 four times (see talk), but the IP has not left a single reply or even an edit summary. The only choices this leaves other editors are Wikihounding or taking the issue here. It's unfortunate to bring up something so apparently minor, but I think there needs to be a way to maintain consensus when an editor willfully ignores it. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was the first to raise this concern on the IP talk page, with no response. It's a shame it went this far, but this could easily have been avoided if the IP had heeded what s/he was told. Stats updates should be dated to the previous day, as the information will not correctly reflect any games played on the current day. AutomaticStrikeout 21:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What's your end state? Supposing that the user doesn't conform to standards? Go Phightins! (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what your question is, but if you are asking what the desirable outcome is, it is that the IP start changing the date properly. AutomaticStrikeout 22:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked until they respond to comments. Any admin can unblock as soon as they begin to discuss. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block. If it were one article, semi-protection would have been sufficient. With many articles affected, the user has to be dealt with more directly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

70.171.186.83 (talk · contribs) might be related. They're both in the Omaha / Council Bluffs area. I don't know if 70 is living within the date guidelines or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

They weren't doing the date correctly. However, I left them a note so let's hope they see it. AutomaticStrikeout 00:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This satisfies me for now. Obviously, like AutomaticStrikeout said, we want the IP to edit constructively rather than not edit at all. Hopefully this gets his/her attention that communication is needed. I think it's safe to close this discussion. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone restore an article please?

Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 August 19 could someone please undelete every revision except for the copy-vio of Samantha Brick please? You can leave it at the redirect if you like for now, but I wanna start writing using whatever is there, and also thik having the history there would be nice. Egg Centric 23:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I haven't done one before, but either I did it more or less correct, or I screwed it all up, but I think it is close enough, without the copyvio. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

sockpuppet User:AndresHerutJaim again

Resolved

-DePiep (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

... but how to register. Looks like sockpuppet user:AndresHerutJaim is back again. [35] from Buenos Aires. And oh, I read WP:SPI and only got ugly previews. I think I can read, but the SPI makes me doubt. Of course, I won't warn AHJ. -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since you have to not have a subject when you file, you have to save, then save again. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is. If else fails, file the report and one of us SPI clerks will fix the formatting and clean it up. We don't mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

[36] The URL for Investigation (case) to create or re-open: does not ask (nor allow) for a "subject/headline", but blames me with big red font for not doing so. Now after that, I dropped my aim. Let AHJ spoil it, and some other editor will solve it for us. -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you have to leave the subject blank, and hit save twice, annoying, I admit. I've looked at this IP, but honestly, I dont know enough about the topic to come to a conclusion based on the one edit the IP made. It is always hard to tell with only one edit unless you really know the subject matter or the original puppetmaster, and I just don't. Someone else will need to pop in and look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

and hit save twice, annoying -- We both are talking the SPI procedure & documentation then. That is not 'annoying'. That is 'frustrating', softly spoken. Clearly so, since I left the page. Sure someone else will solve it (an attitude that is). But will anything change in the WP:SPI page. -DePiep (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Easiest way to file an SPI report, I find, is to use Twinkle - you just give it the names/IPs and it does the rest -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DePiep, the situation is worse than that one IP. Each of the IPs in this report editing Israel related topics will be AHJ and Special:Contributions/WikiPoun is probably another sock (see comparison). I don't know what it is going to take to stop this editor's socking. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Like we discussed before some general measures are needed in the area.Probably through ARBCOM or AE.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should probably start working on those soon although I'm beginning to think collective punishment may work well e.g. every editor has to pick a side in the conflict and every time a sock is found, someone innocent from the same side of the conflict is blocked. This has the advantage of probably eventually removing all editors from the topic area or ensuring everyone is eventually a sock. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An easy & working SPI requesting (I recognised the sock master) would help. More of a routine. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I filed it -> Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AndresHerutJaim#29_August_2012 Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll follow that. We might close this thread. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

nuisance fake quote with personal attack

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

---

An IP editor 24.170.192.254 has been adding a fake quote to the Continental Congress article. The post is full of grammar mistakes. It's an important topic about the Founding Fathers but the quote is wholly fake, It appears nowhere in any RS and is not in the fake cites that he provides. What is annoying is he is now making nasty personal attacks on me on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rjensen&diff=cur#Why_are_you_not_getting_this_impossibly_simple_task.3F He also says " I've enlisted a few of my friends in continually repairing the information on this page that you've omitted. Feel free to condescend them and mock history. It's nothing personal on my end, therefore I feel it a duty to continue this concerted effort to salvage the dignity that you've cost this historical record." Rjensen (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Troll blocked for 31 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You forgot to put a block notice on the IP's talk page. Here's your {{trout}}. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

User:Nasir_Ghobar, is removing information without any reason on Ranjit Singh. No other user has agreed with this user in discussion on Talk:Ranjit Singh. I added information as per the discussion. Still, This user removing work of other users without any valid reasons. difference http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ranjit_Singh&diff=509681175&oldid=509657554 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theman244 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Theman244 (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is really not an ANI issue. This need to be taken to WP:DRN for a discussion. We try to not debate content disputes at ANI, which is for "incidents" that require immediate admin intervention, not content discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:JimWHall

Troll-B-Gon. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. This new user is probably an SPA. His edits speak for themselves. I've no idea how he found my talk page, so I suspect he isn't a new editor. Can an admin please tell him to knock it off.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  03:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC) He also left a troll-like at post User:Geraldshields11 talk page  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  03:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Harrassing me now at IRC: 23:11 <JimHall> dude do not fuck with me 23:12 <JimHall> you may not be in the channel but I'll let lionel know. 23:16 <JimHall> seriously dude I got orders from lionel you do too do NOT fuck with me   little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  03:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Well, I'm scared. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC) OK, he's been blocked (again). Back to work everybody. Belchfire-TALK 03:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:JamesTheHallster aka User:JimWHall The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Again, another SPA account by SkepticAnonymous which his recent JimWHall account was blocked. See [37] ViriiK (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC) Nevermind, I see that he was blocked prior to my report. Close please. ViriiK (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threat

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

---

Here, from an account that only exists to promote his book. If no one else thinks his statement could be read as a legal threat, the other stuff isn't exactly great. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. Dougweller (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:121.222.50.86 - edit warring and blatant violation of NPOV

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

---

Previous version of the page before the edits - [38]

• 1 - launches a biased tirade against a religion's holy text on the article Talmud. clearly violates NPOV.
• 2 - after it's reverted by an editor, he puts it back in.
• 3 - After I revert it, he puts it back in, claiming we're whitewashing it, and he/she is being neutral!!

Please also note his blatant violation of WP:NPOV by writing in an edit summary that the country called Israel does not actually exist. See this diff.

Please further note his harassment of the talk page of people who revert him and maintain neutrality on the article about a religion's holy text ([39] and [40]

Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy for racism, edit warring, and explicit bias on articles. I don't even know if a 24 hour ban is good enough.

Please also note that the editor was warned here about this, yet persisted in putting the tirade against a holy text in the article.

--Activism1234 06:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply supplying facts is not biased, quoting from the holy text itself is not biased, on the contrary, hiding such facts is not neutral or unbiased; further ...hiding such facts, given the facts, amounts to a complicty in the advocation of pedophilia, murder and deception. Shame on wikipedia for also becoming complicit in such a 'tirade' to advocate child-rape. This is not a light-hearted matter, the people orchestrating this tirade are sick in their need to hide and there-by support such a view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.50.86 (talk) 07:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you simply copied text from probably an online website that fabricated or misquoted it, as is very common, called the holy text itself "racist," edit warred over this despite reverts and warnings by multiple editors, and then subsequently denied the existence of a legitimate country, while pretending that you're not biased... I imagine similar things go over on articles like Qu'ran by similar editors who will try to pull the same garbage. --Activism1234 07:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

121.222., go to the talkpage and discuss the matter, if you keep reverting you'll be blocked for edit-warring. Nothing more to see here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, there's nothing more to see here? This is edit warring to insert racist, unreferenced, fabricated material to attack a religion's holy text by an editor who has denied the existence of a country after being warned and reverted by multiple editors against this behavior... I'm beyond shocked if such behavior wouldn't get sanctioned. --Activism1234 07:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's here to sanction behavior, blocks are not to be punitive, and we're not raising other people's kids. The IP has now been warned and will be blocked if s/he continues. That's it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, the only defense for the indefensible writings of the talmud is to claim that true quotes are in-fact "fabrications", however the translator and esteemed theologian Martin Luther found the talmud to be as I quoted and described it as essentially racist and violent. "Blocks/Sanctioning "behaviour" (trying to frame objective analysis as a "behaviour" while somehow justifying child-rape (these people are disgusting, aren't they...) Well that's how censorship works, intellectual insignificants find that the only way they can make their implausible notions heard is to censor plausible and legitimate criticism. It also helps that the status quo, which wikipedia is maintained by, is generally dumb, racist and violent ...as with the "editors" who censored my truthful quotes and descriptions. They are so pathetic that they count it as a win that I have been blocked and censored, rather than being able to win ad rem; that is with plausibe debate and reason. Congratulations are in-order for their miserable stupidity. Congratulations half-wits, you deserve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.50.86 (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk yourself into your hole, why don't you... Resolved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat in edit summary

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

---

Please can someone take a look at the edit summary here. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blatant legal threat - indef. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat in BLP by an editor claiming to be the subject

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

---

See this diff were I rolled back the threatening edit. The editor concerned has been notified. Roger (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The editor has extended their threatening posts to my Editor Review - see the diff. Roger (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Blatant legal threat - indef. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Youreallycan and Cirt

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

---

Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (formerly User:Off2riorob) who's currently supposed to be on a sabbatical following an RFC/U earlier this month, is currently soliciting others to "out" Cirt for the heinous crime of editing donkey puncher and choker setter. He's posted on an off-wiki forum:

The issues are ongoing, User Cirt- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cirt&offset=&limit=500&target=Cirt - a massive violator of the project. No one should be able to hide behind a pseudonym and violate the projects goals and neutrality - Its not outing in any way to expose a project violator, its good for the project to expose such violators. Who is he? If anyone knows, please expose him. [41]

This shows two things: 1) he clearly thinks the articles are about sex, which is really stupid (the articles are actually about logging and Cirt's editing of them has been completely innocuous) and 2) he clearly has no intention of abiding by the terms of the RFC. While it's true that he hasn't posted this on Wikipedia, it's clear that he's still making personal attacks against other editors. It's also completely unacceptable for him to be seeking to "out" other editors or to solicit others to do the outing, especially on a forum whose users have a history of targeting and outing Wikipedians. It's blatant off-wiki harassment of an editor whom he's targeted before. This comes only two weeks after the closure of the RFC, during which he narrowly avoided being blocked for the 20th time for edit-warring and incivility. I am utterly unsurprised at his inability to keep his nose clean; rather than taking a break from Wikipedia as promised in the RFC, he's simply moved over to a gripe site to continue attacking other editors. The question is what to do about it now. Thoughts? Prioryman (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this. Posting as Off2delhiDan but making it clear who he is, he wrote " No one should be able to hide behind a pseudonym and violate the projects goals and neutrality - Its not outing in any way to expose a project violator, its good for the project to expose such violators. Who is he? If anyone knows, please expose him." That's completely unacceptable. If no one else does it soon, I think I will indefinitely block him. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Um -- without sound reason to assert a positive connection between the two personas (and I, for one, doubt that this is a "real connection" (Joe job is possible here)), the complaint would make this a horrid example for blocking anyone. (BTW, I think the confusion lies in the Wiktionary def of "donkey punch" and Cirt's editing thereon -- and I would suggest, in fact, that the term is, indeed, "sexual" vide Cirt's edit at [42]. I have nothing to object to in those articles and definitions, but it is clearly disingenuous to aver that whoever thus person is, he was in the loony bin.) IIRC, however, without a solid basis for connecting an off-wiki account to an on-Wiki account, there is always a possibility that this is done by someone opposed to YRC entirely, and was done with the aim of having this sort of action. Which would be utterly reprehensible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this definitely YRC? If so, I will also look to indef him. GiantSnowman 11:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He is member 104 on Wikipediocracy. This was his first post, well before the RFC/U (March 18 this year). He has posted several times since, referring to the RFC/U [43] [44]. There's no indication from him or from anyone else that this is anything other than him posting. As Collect is a Wikipediocracy member, perhaps he can confirm YRC's membership on that site. Prioryman (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow -- talk about "guilt by association" -- I rather think Prioryman reads those pages? In fact I invite anyone to look at my posts there and find anything remotely improper about them -- the snide comment "Collect is a Wikipediocracy member" is an affront to reasoned discussion. I have absolutely zero authority there, and would not have the foggiest idea whether anyone there is who they purport to be at all. Cheers -- but this implicit attack on me is simply unwarranted and a violation of AGF from the get-go. Collect (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hang on, are you saying that unless someone explicit says they're not someone else, they must be that someone? By that logic, I put it to you that you are Dame Judi Dench. (By the way, this link you gave requires you to log in to see it, so I presume that means you're a Wikipediocracy member too?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

can some one indef Prioryman for outing YRC on another site. John lilburne (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

John, from the editor's posts it is clear that they are posting as though they are YRC, there's no other possible interpretation. And outing is revealing someone's real identity. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? Some people maintain separate usernames across different sites in an attempt to separate different aspects of their lives. Pulling all their online personae into one place is a form of outing, and I do believe that PM was indeed arguing for that being policy not so long ago. In any case should Cirt be identified it won't be due to a post by YRC that the dox appears across various websites. John lilburne (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not a member, and I'm not Dame Judi Dench either. Look, this isn't hard; as I've said below, it is completely obvious (writing style, general incoherence, typos, interests, username) that it is him. He said explicitly that it was him in his comments on the RFC/U. Until two hours ago nobody, including YRC himself, had raised any questions about whether the five-month-old account on Wikipediocracy was his. Why don't you ask him? Prioryman (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, you're not Dame Judi. But without being a member, how did you see his profile? (I ask out of curiosity). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I meant to reply to "Why don't you ask him?" - he's on an enforced break, so he can't communicate here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#The last stage: WP:ARB/R

Does this mean I get my dime back? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So, he hasn't actually outed anyone, and you guys are pushing to ban him for outing? What's going on here? Cla68 (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What's probably going on is that they hate YRC and they want to be sure he stays away from here permanently. And as Collect points out, this could be a total fraud, i.e. someone pretending to be YRC. Before any action is taken, perhaps Cirt should comment here, as he's the one affected by this alleged solicitation for outing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort, Bugs. He's seeking to out someone over a mistaken interpretation of completely innocuous edits to two articles about logging. Outing or soliciting outing is never an acceptable response to an editing dispute. There's no "alleged" about it - "If anyone knows, please expose him" is not capable of being misinterpreted. In this case it's all the more egregious because of the facts that (1) YRC is not even supposed to be having anything to do with Wikipedia for a month and (2) he doesn't seem to have even bothered to see what the articles or the edits were about. Trying to out someone or have them outed is not just incivility, it's blatant off-wiki harassment. When it comes from someone with 19 previous blocks for edit-warring and incivility, it really is the last straw. Prioryman (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Outing is bad. No two ways about it. The question is whether it's really the same guy or an impostor. If Collect is on that same website, he might be able to find out. If it's 100 percent certain it's the same guy, then YRC is likely done here. But it's important to be certain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any indication that it is not him? He writes in the first person about the RFC. His writing style is identical to that on Wikipedia, complete with the ridiculous misspellings (apparently I'm an "anti-entomologist"). His username is an obvious reference to his old one. Other Wikipediocracy members address him as "Rob". He's been posting there for five months without anyone expressing any doubts. There's been no indication from anyone, on Wikipedia or Wikipediocracy, that the user representing himself as YRC on the latter site is a fake. It simply isn't credible to believe that now, after all this time, there's a question about his identity. Prioryman (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Any indication it's not him?" Hard to tell, since I never heard of that site until today. Why do you care what someone says on a page like that, or its virtual cousin Wide Receiver? Why go looking for trouble? Unless you yourself have an ulterior motive? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: "If Collect is on that same website"" - Prioryman earlier gave us a members-only link, so would that not suggest he's a member of the site himself? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(Note: Prioryman has since said he is not a member - see above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC))

Bugs is just trying to get to his next celebration ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

He's pointing out that you're about to hit 10k edits to ANI. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Whoop-tee-do. I don't keep track of stuff like that. But if my virtual cousin enjoys doing that, that's his privilege. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think we have to ask why is Prioryman stalking YRC, even so far as to monitor his possible off-wiki editing? Cirt is presumably an adult, and if he wants to take issue with anything that YRC has posted about him, then he is free to take the matter into his own hands. You're not a public defender, Priory, so quite honestly you should probably butt out of matters that do not involve you. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 ***@Cla68 - he is asking for other people to out Cirt. Are you really suggesting that this is acceptable, and that we can only take action if he does the outing himself?

• • • @Baseball Bugs - drop the personal attack, this is unacceptable behavior no matter what anyone's opinion is about the editor. And I don't hate him, I simply think that we can't tolerate this sort of attempt to out someone. I'll ask Cirt to comment.
    • @Collect - it seems pretty clear that this is Youreallycan, although it is possible, just (IMHO) not very likely, that it's a clever joejob. But since a block can easily be undone, I don't see this as justification for an argument that we can't possibly block him for this. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Some editors here apparently hate YRC. Not you. And the point justifiably raised is, why is someone going out of their way to find possible occurrences of a wikipedia user somewhere else? Is that not stalking and harassment also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the funniest things I have seen for a while. And most pathetic. The guy is a joke. If these are the sorts of antics that "Off2rionobhed" gets up to when he doesn't have Mummy Jimbo's apron-strings to cling onto, the he deserves the Order of The Boot to be conferred upon him. A painful and embarrassing joke. (Oh, and block Proiryman for needless troll stalkimg too) 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • • • It isn't "hatred" to point out that the subject of a recent RFC, supposedly on sabbatical, is soliciting outing. As Doug says, it's unacceptable behavior no matter what the circumstances. Prioryman (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
          • If it's for real, sure. But why did you go looking for him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I didn't. I've been keeping an eye on that thread because it's been used to attack me. When I saw that YRC was using it to try to harass others, I raised the issue here. Prioryman (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Prioryman, did the person you say is YouReallyCan actually out Cirt, or say that he was going to do so? If so, can you point to it, because I'm not seeing it. Also, is Wikipediocracy the only place that you're attempting to observe what you think may be YouReallyCan's actions off-wiki? Cla68 (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
              • You're not stupid, so please stop pretending that you are. The meaning of what he posted is crystal clear. Prioryman (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
                • It wasn't the user YRC that posted it, it was a user calling himself "Off2delhidan",[45] which might or might not be an impostor account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

as is Bugs parroting YRC's "hater" rhetoric. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally "parrot" anyone. Maybe "vendetta" would be the right term. I'd just like to know why someone would seek someone else out on another website. That's bad behavior also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so where has Cirt been outed and where has the person you say is YourReallyCan said that he is going to out him? Cla68 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, he hasn't been, and he didn't. It was an editor calling himself "Off2delhidan", which could be an alternate account parodying "Off2riorob", or it could be a faker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying someone has to SUCCESSFULLY troll? Don't be stupid. Block his ass, and let the troll-enablers take up a different cause so they can Fight the Power. --Calton | Talk 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• The account has only 9 posts since March. There is a real chance this is a Joe job. I don't think I'd put money either way. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm personally on the fence here. Soliciting outing is clearly wrong, but it didn't happen on this site and I'd prefer to see something more egregious to block for off-wiki actions, especially with the doubt over it being him (I personally believe it is, but cannot be certain) Youreallycan's complying with the agreed output of the RfC, meaning he's unable to respond to this accusation, and I'm generally unhappy with blocking an editor who cannot respond. Prioryman, in posting this request for blocking at this time, after filing the RfC and the Arbcom case, I'm really starting to see a pattern of harassment and suggest you voluntarily start to ignore Youreallycan before you end up with some sort of sanction yourself. Worm^TT(talk) 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Read what I wrote above: "The question is what to do about it now. Thoughts?" I haven't asked anyone to block him - I'm asking the community what should be done about this matter. Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  Despite the semantics, taking this to ANI, talking about off-wiki harassment and "outing" is the same as asking for a block. Worm^TT(talk) 13:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• 1) I gather Prioryman has history with Youreallycan so it would have been better if he had left it to someone else to raise this. 2) It's not obvious to me that this is in fact Youreallycan? Has Youreallycan stated on wiki that Off2delhiDan on that site is him? 3) Off2delhiDan hasn't made any direct link with 'donkey puncher' or 'Choker Setter', some other person (Randy from Boise) alleged that. Off2delhiDan could be referring to any of 500 edits in Cirt's contribution list. 4) While the comment is clearly unhelpful, he has not actually outed anybody. 62.25.109.204 (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See this:

"Aug 17, 2012 2:30 am Off2delhiDan

Post Re: YouReallyCan HI Guys and Gals - Just dropping by to says thanks to all that defended my contribution history / commented in support. It was a good deal for me. I need a break from that place and was getting more and more distressed about it - a one month break from even reading, this will be a big help - I need to come to the place where I am less bothered about content issues. Its true I will likely not edit much during the BLP restriction (I might never edit there again, lets see) it must be hard to edit the wiki without mistakenly making an edit about some living person or other and I wouldn't want to violate my (as Errant calls them) self imposed community accepted restrictions. I have been involved in a fair few hight profile issues and was instrumenta/a main playerl in the bans of Cirt, WillbeBack and Fae and had content disputes with many more. I imagine Arbcom would have wacked me with the ban hammer (as seems to be their preferred method of disruption solution) and someone would have come and added that banned template to my userpages as they tend ot do ... so this is a good outcome for me, and I see that part of the fallout was that ChrisO was unvarnished, so it could have been worse and as I said, I really need a break from the environment. So, thanks again to y'all - love and light ." Ok, someone could be clever enough to forge this, but that seems extremely unlikely. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It does not take skill to make a Joe job -- and I assure you in my many years online I have seen very skilled fake posts from people seeking to roil the waters -- it is not "rocket science" to fake such a post, and it is clearly very likely to be a fake. I had to separate (as a contractual obligation for fifteen years) "fake socks" from "real socks" a few times in the past -- and the copying of "broad style" is exceedingly simple. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's "likely to be a fake", why has nobody, including YRC himself, expressed any doubts about it over the past five months until I raised the issue here three hours ago? Come on, Collect, this is just disingenuous. Prioryman (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha -- the "let's punish a person just because we think he might possibly be making posts on a non-WP site under a different name which do not actually 'out' anyone at all, but since blocks are 'cheap' we should do it"? Oh -- and we "know" an editor has been blocked before, so adding blocks is even better as a solution! Um -- George Orwell. @PM -- I think your animus has been evinced enough already. Including the snide comment that I am somehow part of a cabal opposed to Wikipedia in a "guilt by association" claim etc. I suggest you drop that stick -- I think you will find it has thorns. Collect (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but this is essentially asking for an indef or ban based on the guess that Off2delhiDan is YRC. Unless there is something considerably stronger than I have seen that can link the two, it is a non-starter. We will not be imposing any indef blocks based on "gut feelings" today. I would agree that it is "likely" to be YRC, but "likely" is not an acceptable standard to measure by, and I would hope that we all expect more from ourselves than that. If it can be demonstrated that this is YRC by more than "a preponderance of evidence", even if somewhat less than "beyond a reasonable doubt", then there is an issue. Until then, this is conjecture and not particularly helpful. This is the same standard that we would want applied to ourselves if we were in this situation, and the same we should apply now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I respect you, but this is more than just a 'guess'. There's evidence. Not 100%, but even if he'd posted under one of his Wikipedia names it still wouldn't be 100%. Blocks are cheap, and we are talking about an editor with a loooong block history. And if he posts to his talk page saying that was an imposter, I'd willingly remove the block. It's not as though he doesn't have about 20 blocks already, so another one won't hurt his reputation. The point is we should not tolerate editors trying to out people, even off-Wiki. Do you agree? Maybe we can't stop it happening, but we can make it clear that if someone does try to out someone off-Wiki they will be blocked here. And if we refrain, when can we ever do it? Dougweller (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, sucks when two people you greatly respect fall on different sides of an issue. But I need to second Dennis here. Collect presents some arguments which give reasonable doubt and we can't make decisions like this. Sorry to say.--v/r - TP 14:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, in that case, we should just take it to Arbcom and ask them to get to the bottom of it. Prioryman (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to find out who DelhiDan is, either way. If it's YRC, then that's a serious issue. But if it's somebody impersonating YRC to get him in trouble, then that's another serious issue. GiantSnowman 14:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps YRC could be invited to indicate, on his user-talk page, whether that Wikipediocracy account is in fact his. If he denies it, perhaps Wikipediocracy would want to close it down. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has presented a sliver of evidence that it's not him - it's pure speculation, mostly from past supporters of YRC, and there's never been any previous question about about the account's identity. On the other hand, there are plenty of indications that have been discussed above that it is him. If Cla68 thinks it's not him then I invite Cla68, who's a moderator on that site, to block Off2DelhiDan as an imposter. Prioryman (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC is currently taking one month off, enforced by WP:Wikibreak Enforcer per the outcome of the RfC. This means that he cannot even log into his account unless an administrator removes the enforcer (or he sneaks past the enforcer) Worm^TT(talk) 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

By disabling Javascript in his browser...not hard to do.--v/r - TP 14:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that more due diligence is needed before we even consider a solution. This is a matter of threshold, and I'm glad to hear more evidence, but I don't think we have yet to pass the threshold here, even if I personally think your assessment is likely correct. The default action here is to NOT take action until that threshold has been passed, as determined by a consensus of editors, after enough time has passed to allow a full discussion. Acting today or tomorrow (or next week) changes nothing here and there is no great sense of urgency that demands we act now. As for ArbCom, I'm not sure how interested they would be in the matter, nor what they can bring to the table that would add clarity here, and might be seen as creating more drama when it isn't necessary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)ArbCom doesn't have a magic wand; they have no control or any more information about postings to external websites that the rest of us nobodies. Nobody Ent 14:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::And could people who are dubious please read his comments here [46](and he's still on the gay thing)? His first post to the thread says "Off2delhiDanost Re: YouReallyCan HI - guys and gals - I got a message - I am under discussion here - so came for a look - I am enjoying my break from Wikipedia - My input to the project had become imo a net loss - I wasn't enjoying it anymore and the content wasn't benefiting much either .....I needed it and am continuing to enjoy it - I am very busy in real life - working two businesses and as a single guy - busy dating also - Alll the Wiki business got the better of me and I just couldn't cope with it anymore - love to you guys." As for not being able to use his talk page, he still has email enabled I presume. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Crikey! (He says, well aware that his language is being watched) Can I point out the substance of the case here? As a Wikimediocracy forum member (which as far as I'm aware isn't a blockable offence - and as for why I'm a member, that is my own business), under the same name as I use here, I saw OffToDelhiDan's post (and yes, I've assumed, though I don't know that it is Rob) and looked at Cirt's recent work on Donkey puncher: and then, shock horror, edited it! It is a legitimate article, if on an obscure subject. Evidently, OffToWhereverWho made a fool of himself, which rather made any request for someone else to out Cirt less effective. That certain Wikimediocracy forum users have an infantile obsession with outing people isn't news, and that SomeoneWhoMightBeSomeoneElseButWeCan'tProveIt apparently shares this obsession is likewise not news (not least because we don't know who he is). Nobody was outed. OffToDelhiWithEggOnHisFace made himself look stupid. Nobody (except presumably Cirt) knows who Cirt is. Several of us know more about donkey punchers and why they punch donkeys than we did before, and (hopefully) the article has been improved a little. Otherwise this is a non-event. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when does reasonable doubt fit into all of this? This is Wikipedia administration, not a criminal trial! No one is going to jail, no one is losing their constitutional rights, etc. If a mistake is made, it can very, very easily be reversed. I'm not going to give my opinion on this matter - I'm just making the observation that this administrative decision should be made without all of the rhetoric. If administrators decide that there is nothing to base a block on, so be it. If administrators block YRC, and discover later that there was mistake, then again, so be it. Nothing permanent is being decided here. Singularity42 (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No one said it were a court. "Reasonable doubt" isn't limited to the legal system. I'm saying that as an administrator with tools, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable blocking this guy when there is still a reasonable chance that it's not him. I don't see the same 'evidence' that Dougweller sees.--v/r - TP 14:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I get that. But in the legal system, we sucessfully hold people civillily liable for far, far less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Are we really saying that Wikipedia requires more evidence than the legal courts? Here's the only thing that needs to be considered:

1. If an uninvolved administrator thinks it is not YRC, or that it is YRC but it's not block-able anyway, don't block.
2. If an uninvolved administrator thinks it is YRC, and that it is block-able, than block.
3. If YRC ends up blocked, and makes an unblock request, than consider it and decide whether to unblock.

Seems pretty simple to me. Not sure why we need this huge discussion. Singularity42 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that we aren't a court and didn't require "beyond a reasonable doubt" but needed more than "a preponderance of evidence" as well. The fact that I use legal terms is due to the fact that most people here will understand these types of threshold, making them a suitable analogy. I am not going to block someone because of a 51% chance it is him (preponderance), that is certain. If I ever do block based on a 51% chance, please strip my name off the rolls of WP:WER, and my admin bit as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Because length of block logs are routinely used when slinging mud at other editors, regardless of the appropriateness of the blocks. Nobody Ent 14:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec a few times)Then we should not act like we should try a case. BTW, more than half of "delhi"'s edits on the outside site are in the 4 to 6 a.m. (EDT) period. Wikichecker shows that this is not a normal time to expect any edits from YRC. Thus direct and specific evidence which is empirical in nature would make it highly unlikely that the second name is related to the first. Unless, of course, one wishes to argue "when using a different name on a diferent site, one totally changes their usual daily sleep routine" of course. See Roy Bean. Collect (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's even a preponderance of evidence. What could be relevant, though, is the reason why we block: it is to prevent disruption. If there is a good likelihood that this is YRC (I'm not totally convinced), an admin could block on the grounds of preventing disruption. Blocking indefinitely can be undone, although community banishment requires very solid evidence. Food for thought. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that the ability of some folks to detect the same individual simply based on writing style exceeds the ability of other folks to fake an identify by copying a writing style isn't justified. Nobody Ent 15:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am disappointed but completely unsurprised that it took YRC/Rob less than two weeks to violate the terms of the agreement that allowed him not to be permanently banned. Soliciting on-wiki activity/WPing by proxy is an obvious breach of the wikibreak, and outing would not be acceptable under any circumstances and continues in Rob's trend of harassing users he disagrees with. I think entertaining the possibility that this is a very clever impersonator is a waste of time largely supported by people who don't think Rob's misbehavior deserves punishment at all, but it's easily dealt with. Ask him (by e-mail) if it's him. If it is, block the WP account. If it's not, block the off-wiki account. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Two questions: firstly, what 'on-wiki activity' was solicited by 'DelhiDan', and secondly, how could anyone here 'block the off-wiki account'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"the imitation attack succeeds with 68-91% probability"Nobody Ent 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cirt posted this to my talk page and says I can quote him but he doesn't want to get directly involved on this board. "I feel threatened. I feel persecuted for no reason. I feel a user who has been under multiple different sanctions and blocks is soliciting harassment offsite because he is sanctioned against doing so on site." As I've said, I will unblock YRC if he emails me that this isn't him. But if it is him, and we ignore it, we are telling Cirt and others that we won't defend them against this sort of thing. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As for Collect's suggestion that YRC is not likely to be posting at a particular time, a look at YRC's contribution history shows that although he doesn't post at those times frequently, he does post at those times. That's not a convincing argument. He seems to post at all hours. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider that under 1% of YRCs edits occur during that time frame at all. Conseider that 5 out of 9 of the edits on "brand-x" are during that time frame. Using simple probability and statistics, I suggest that the odds are more than 1000 to 1 against such occurring unless one says that "of course he would change his sleep habits and editing habits just to throw us off the scent" and then use an obvious name which "everyone known must be YRC"? Probability is a very strong argument here -- and it argues against the position that this is anything but a Joe job. Collect (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we infer from this that you'll be blocking? Just a question, I'm not comfortable making a judgment either way at this time. — ChedZILLA 15:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I tend to agree with Doug here, if we can establish that DelhiDan and YRC are the same individual an indef is more than warranted. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I suggest that Prioryman disengage from YRC-related issues at this point, since the community is aware of the issue at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"...we are telling Cirt and others that we won't defend them against this sort of thing" This just simply isn't the case and it is unfair and an emotional knee-jerk response to even claim such a thing. What I am trying to tell the community is that I don't want to overreact when I don't have all the information, and I don't want to instantly block someone when I don't have complete and convincing evidence. Whether we block or don't block will have no effect on this person's efforts to out someone, and making it sound like blocking is the only way to prevent this outing is misleading. Everyone needs to just step back from the edge of this cliff, and discuss the situation rather than rashly jumping to conclusions. Again, taking the time to properly discuss this isn't going to make the threat of outing any more or less likely, and I'm asking for a bit more calm and a little less drama here. If it is YRC, I would tend to agree with you, but we haven't established that to a fair standard yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The YRC account isn't currently active per the outcome of the RFC/U. Blocking or not blocking won't change that. We don't block accounts to show support for editors, we block to prevent disruption. All this entire debacle is demonstrating is how easy it is to troll Wikipedia without even having to edit anyway on Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 16:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've been asked to look into this since I closed the RFC. However this has nothing at all to do with the agreement established there, YRC has not broken any of those voluntary restrictions, as has been noted already he is still on the initial wikibreak he agreed to and can't log in. As for the actual issue at hand, it certianly is asking for someone to out Cirt, that much is crystal clear. Is it the same person? We don't know. The fact that he claims he is is not evidence at all, that os exactly what a liar would do. I can't say I support a block based on speculation that he might be some guy on some ther website. (I've always found that the best way to handle such sites is to ignore them entirely, they are mostly full of bitter, angry people and I hardly feel it a good use of my time to hang out at some website where all they do is talk about Wikipedia without ever actually accomplishing anything, but that's just me...) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WHY WIKIPEDIOCRACY IS IMPORTANT (for Chris). Wikipedia is a powerful American institution, one of the most dominant presences on the internet. It is a multi-million dollar organization with a professional staff over which there is little or no mechanism for bottom-up control. The pseudo-consensus-decision-making political model employed by Wikipedia itself is an arcane labyrinth, necessarily dominated by long-established insiders. Just as a free opposition press is a fetter to governmental abuse, there needs to be some similar external mechanism of criticism to help ameliorate abuses, challenge hubris, correct problems, and improve the institution. While Wikipediocracy is indeed dominated by "bitter, angry people," this is not to say that it is not to say that even they are incapable of improving the project, albeit indirectly. Even yesterday, a 4-year standing redirect link of the words "Inflated Tits" to a BLP was exposed (and subsequently fixed). If there are abuses, if there are problems, if there are underlying issues at WP, they will surface at Wikipediocracy, often there first. There is also a certain level of annoying whining there, but one can filter that... Carrite (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Here are the things that would persuade me that Off2DelhiDan (Wikipediocracy) and YRC (Wikipedia) are definitely the same person: 1) YRC states, via email to an admin or via his talk page (if it were available to him) that the O2DD account is his. 2) Someone with administrative rights to Wikipediocracy contacts arbcom or an enwiki checkuser and provides technical data on the O2DD account that matches up with the YRC account. 3) Someone can locate a point in the past where YRC has stated, on Wikipedia, that O2DD is his account. 4) Someone can locate a point in the past where O2DD said on Wikipediocracy he was going to make edit X on Wikipedia, and the YRC account did so.

  Absent any of these pieces of evidence, I'm going to have to agree with the majority here saying that yes, soliciting outing is definitely a blockable offense, especially if done by someone with a history of battleground behavior, but no, we can't block YRC solely on the assumption/gut feeling that the Wikipediocracy account is him. His distinctive writing style and the topics he likes to discuss are too easy to imitate by a joejobber for us to be able to safely assume that someone who talks like him is him. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - EC Holy TL;DR, Batman! Prioryman needs to give the drama a break. First off, he misunderstands my witticism about ThePersonICallRob (presumably User:YouReallyCan) having (another) shit-fit about User:Cirt having been triggered by a couple saucily-titled articles on logging. It was a pretty funny in-joke and if you don't get it, don't worry about it. ThePersonICallRob clearly shoots first and asks questions later and is prone to going straight over the top... Maybe my joke helped slow the idea of outing Cirt down... I like Cirt, I think he's swell and an asset to the project, although we don't see eye-to-eye on everything, obviously. SECOND: Since when is it a crime against the Wiki to OPINE anything outside of WP. I also don't like the cult of anonymity here and think it leads to (a) excessive vandalism; (b) over aggressive editing behavior; (c) COI abuse; (d) sockpuppetry and an inability to truly BAN anyone (See: the case of Kohs, Gregory). That's my opinion. ThePersonICallRob has the opinion that outing is acceptable and someone in his sights. I think that's a bad idea... But ASKING for commission of an offense and COMMITTING an offense are two different things, are they not? They should be. If ThePersonICallRob's rather hysterical demand for outing is actually met by outing, THEN there is a possibility of a case against him. But for now: too much drama for all the wrong reasons, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a setup to me. It may be real. But it smells wrong. Absent actual evidence I'm assuming a setup. Some of the commentary in that WO YRC thread, by the way, is exceedingly ignorant and offensive to identified living persons and reflects poorly on the posters and moderators. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This project has enough trouble trying to monitor things here, now we are going to deal with off wiki actions? What is the policy if any regarding this? I am in the camp that if it happens at another site, if should not be brought here. If any editor does something HERE, ie outing ect., then it should be addressed. --Mollskman (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with moliksman and anthonyjcole. We can't really go around monitoring what happens on other sites and trying to figure out who's who is a losing proposition (unless an editor explicitly links to his or her moniker on the other site). Just drop this, imo. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I've nothing to say about the substantive issue that's been raised, but what's absolutely breathtaking is the way that people repeatedly line up to defend this editor on the most ridiculous grounds imaginable. In this case, its the general epistemic question of whether we can ever be entirely sure of something even if it appears absolutely fucking obvious. For goodness sake, if you like the editor then you are free to defend him, but surely he's not worth you degrading yourselves like that? Formerip (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Reopening, 6 hours cuts off a lot of editors from commenting, alternative proposal

• Discussion reopened. Closing this after less than 6 hours is treating it like some minor blip. It clearly isn't resolved and editors in other parts of the world will have slept through all of this, been at work, etc. Let's see what others have to say. I don't have any examples to hand, but we have blocked people before for offsite activities.
• No one has said what we do if YRC comes back. Do we then just ignore this episode, or say 'well, it didn't happen here so no matter the effect on other editors we ignore it?' Hopefully not. Can we agree that this is unacceptable and if YRC doesn't convincingly deny that he is the person who posted it, that we indefinitely block him? He's had enough rope. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to expand on what a 'convincing denial' would entail? If Rob were to say 'No, that wasn't me' (whether it was true or not) it would constitute a denial. And what else could he say that would constitute a denial? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble, Doug, is that we as the community have very clearly asked YRC to disengage from Wikipedia for the month. He's not supposed to even log in, let alone post here or on his talk page to deny or confirm things. It would be unfair to interpret his abiding by his wikibreak (which he is taking under penalty of community ban should he violate it) as evidence that he can't or won't deny being associated with the WO account. Now, when he returns to Wikipedia at the end of his month's break, I think it would be reasonable to ask him then whether the WO account is him. Alternatively, if Rob is in email contact with any admins or other trustworthy parties, he could email them a confirmation or denial prior to the end of his break. If he verifies that Off2DelhiDan is him, and if this thread reaches the consensus that solicitation to out is as much a violation of our policies as actual outing, then a block would make sense. Right now, with the current evidence presented in this thread, with no way to judge who's who, it doesn't (at least, imho). Iff someone has more evidence than we've already seen, such that it proves that YRC is O2DD, then we can move forward now discussing a block/ban. If not, we're pretty well stuck until YRC's break ends. PS. The notion that outing or harassment somehow "don't count" if they're done offsite is inaccurate - note the outcome of the Fae case in regard to actions taken on ED and Wikipediocracy by wikipedians. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly would he say it's him if it's going to get him blocked? He's clearly going to deny it regardless. Silverseren^C 18:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have absolutely zero doubt that the account on Wikipediocracy is YRC. There is also no reason to doubt it. The majority of people defending him in this discussion are Wikipediocracy members themselves, so they are just trying to purposefully obfuscate the issue when there should be no confusion at all. It is quite clear that this is calling for an outing. Per Wikipedia:Outing#Off-wiki_harassment, "Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." While this is not yet a privacy violation, it is an attempt to be one, which is nearly as egregious, in my opinion. This should definitely be dealt with by some kind of sanction. Silverseren^C 18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Question: if you gave us a list of names, from the editors above, of all those who were Wikipediocracy members - would that be counted as "outing"? 109.149.205.23 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• So either you're one of the defenders up above editing logged out for some reason or, more likely, you're a banned Wikipedia user from Wikipediocracy. Silverseren^C 18:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that this person was in fact YRC, then I think it's time for us to say goodbye to him. He has outlived his welcome here. Kurtis (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

If it were possible to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt', it might be worth discussing what we should do about it. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It very easily falls under the Duck Test, which we use extensively as it is. Silverseren^C 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are seriously arguing that the 'duck test' determines anything 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Remind me never to hire you as a lawyer... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is dishonest (and bordering on malicious) to say that anyone who thinks this might not be YRC is protecting him. The issue is verification that the editor IS YRC. No one has argued against an indef block if it is YRC. Putting words into the mouths that are arguing for better verification goes against everything we claim to believe in at Wikipedia. Let us not be intellectually dishonest and resort to ad hominem to imply that those that are cautious are simply apologists. My concern is for the fairness of the process here at Wikipedia, whether it was YRC, Jimbo or any of you. If we do not give the same fair process for unpopular editors that we do for the most popular, then collectively, we are nothing more than hypocrites and vigilantes. I would love to hear or see more evidence, but I'm not that interested in drive-by opinions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that it is quite clear that most of them are trying to protect him. Now i'm not talking about you, but when most of the people questioning whether it is him are Wikipediocracy members, who have never questioned if it was him before on their site, it seems a bit fishy. Silverseren^C 18:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

There is clearly discussion ongoing here, this should not be closed. Silverseren^C 18:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the thread is over. If you feel there is more that needs to be done at the moment, you're free to propose a community ban, or a suspended ban, on WP:AN or contact the arbitration committee. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. I guess if he tries to continue with this outing of Cirt, that'll be the next step to take. Silverseren^C 18:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in principal something like this shouldn't be shut down in so short a time. That's just wrong. What damage would have been done in letting other editors see this and comment? Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't foresee any admin. action being taken here on this particular incident, but there appears to be a desire to continue the discussion. Feel free to use: User talk:Ched/YRC. That may free up some admin. resources and time perhaps. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, Prioryman posted a link that requires having an account at Wikipediocracy to view. During a recent ArbCom case, Prioryman stated that he didn't have a Wikipediocracy account. Since he now appears to have one, it appears that he may have obtained one to try to stalk YouReallyCan. YouReallyCan is, so far, abiding by his voluntary sanction, but he has some Wikipedia editor named Prioryman attempting to follow him around off-wiki trying to catch him in any slip-ups that he can use to get him in trouble on-wiki. Is this ok? Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This is the problem with using off-wiki "evidence", as it is notoriously unreliable for our purposes, regardless of which editor you are speaking about. In both cases, there isn't enough evidence to take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I told ArbCom, You can police your border at your border, or you can police it 25 miles into Lebanon. Well... welcome to Lebanon. Wnt (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Damage at CBS Records

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

---

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Damage_at_CBS_Records. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)}}

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

Legal threat at Talk:Cold fusion?

I'm not sure how to read it this way but the quote is:

Wiki cold fusion is lost to paid obfuscators.

Lack of oversite is negligence. Time to sue WIKI? Cold fusion LENR is engineered science yet not recognized as good science by WIKI... go figure. Critisism of WIKI allowed or not? Not.

--Gregory Goble (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You can see the comment here [47] I'm aware that he posed it in a form of a question but it's inappropriate or at least to me. ViriiK (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This editor just came off a 90 day topic ban from cold fusion. I think it's time for an indef. Skinwalker (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat blocks are only technically indef -- they should be lifted upon retraction of the threat. Something to keep in mind. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but he also was not notified about this ANI discussion nor directly asked about the comment to see if he would retract it. It's borderline to me, so I would think giving him a chance could be the easy way out. I've done both of these. Ravensfire (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I was dealing with RL stuff so I forgot to send him the notice. ViriiK (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Understand far too well about that. Given the past, I'm not expecting much to happen from the editor but there's hope ... Ravensfire (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

See AE thread where he was banned. He first made an accusation of "possible slander" in Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_44#POSSIBLE_SLANDER but then he promised not sue wikipedia or his editors. After being banned he made a vague threat of changing his opinion[48], but minutes later he changed the meaning of the sentence... in a manner that doesn't make semantical sense, and looks like a attempt to avoid further sanctions for legal threats [49]. Now he makes another legal threat, while accusing people of negligence and of paid editing. He doesn't provide any proof of the accusations, of course. And all of this in an article under discretionary sanctions...... --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside...can anyone make sense of his userpage? My eyes crossed about halfway down... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not supposed to make sense of it. It's a stream of consciousness (unconsciousness?) log of his thoughts. It's intended to be understood only by the writer, and even then ...--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• The editor is only interested in the Cold Fusion article. He contributes nothing of value. He's inarticulate/incoherent (some sort of pseudo-Socratic style of question-and-answer). He's disruptive. Why is he here?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible abusing multiple accounts

1. Sikh-history (talk · contribs) created "Could you try and Reason with a User?" as a new section at User talk:Diannaa [50] and reported someone by writing: "Hi Fellow editor .. keeps adding stuff and deleting refrences to various articles..... "
2. Theman244 (talk · contribs) created "Could you try and Reason with a User?" as a new section at User talk:Diannaa [51] and reported me by writing "Hi Fellow editor, User:Nasir Ghobar this user keeps adding stuff and deleting refrences to various articles......... "

In addition to these two, Desijatt1 (talk · contribs) may also be connected. All of these users have been opposing me at Talk:Ranjit Singh without clarity, plus they edit Sikh stuff, show the same agression towards Afghan editors, and share very similar behaviour, English style, and opinions.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You should bring this to WP:SPI MisterUnit (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

However, the obvious duck appears to be obvious ... dangerouspanda 17:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One should compare the edits of User:Nasir Ghobar with those of banned User:Lagoo sab. The obvious duck appears to be obvious ... --Lysozym (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lysozym has been blocked for many violations including "disruptive use of sockpuppets" [52] and is probably doing it again. He or she is going around reporting me everywhere, which is annoying and disruptive, just because she FAILED in the discussion pages. She claimes that Abdul Hai Habibi, a professor from Afghanistan, is rejected by many scholars. I asked her to show just one report about this but she failed miserably and now turns to this nonsense by wrongly connecting me to another person. I just have one name and I'm using that right now, I have no reason to use multiple accounts.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

More nonsense by this sockpuppet-abuser. It is already written in the article Pata Khazana that Abdul Hai Habibi is rejected by various experts, including David Neil MacKenzie who exposed Habibi's amateurish mistakes and his forgery in The Development of the Pashto Script (in Shirin Akiner (Editor): Languages and Scripts of Central Asia. School of Oriental and African Studies, Univ. of London, London 1997, ISBN 978-0-7286-0272-4. p. 142). This notorious sockpuppet-abuser (a.k.a. User:Lagoo sab a. k. a. User:NisarKand) should spend more time educating himself instead of POV-pushing, vandalizing, sockpuppet-abuse and editwarring. --Lysozym (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Cut it out! You have a long list of blocks and you just violated 1RR. Plus, this is the wrong section for your baseless accusation and rantings. Who wrote the Pata Khazana article? Let me guess, YOU. This book, which is cited in the Pata Khazana article, cannot be verified (it's fake source) because I already tried searching but no luck finding anything. If you were telling the truth you would have shown convincing proof long time ago.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's all mind WP:CIVIL here please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Mosque moves

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

---

Can someone take a look at User:Modeltookmodeltook who has taken it upon himself to move all pages called "X mosque" to "X masjid". I asked him to stop pending consensus for this, but he just blanked his talk page [53]. See-also Talk:Mosque#Title_change_to_Masjid William M. Connolley (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave a reason as to why all these changes. Google indicates that masjid is used more than mosque. A google search on English sources shows more instances of masjid than mosque (79 million to 75.4 million). Modeltookmodeltook (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll undo the moves. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31 hours to stop the disruption. Acroterion (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also blocked Phasewhichphasewhich (talk · contribs) who created an account while this was going on and who refactored Modeltookmodeltook's comments. Acroterion (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the sock/meat issue above, I wouldn't doubt that User:113.203.182.214, who has no other edits and just happened to stumble upon the discussion at Talk:Mosque, is somewhat involved in these shenanigans as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's connected but their names remind me of himCategory:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MohammedBinAbdullah--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention Islamuslim (talk · contribs), who used the same mosque/mosquito excuse a couple of years ago in the previous move discussion. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's his IP, it's coming from the same range User:113.203.142.92--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Modeltookmodeltook indeffed based on the above. I'll take care of the IP too. Acroterion (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has fallen into an autoblock in any case. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Plastic surgeon using Wikipedia as an advertisement for his services

Please note today's press release, [54]:

Mommy Makeover Presented by San Francisco Plastic Surgeon Miguel Delgado, is a New and Exciting Addition to Wikipedia,

Mommy Makeover, is a new term added to Wikipedia. Known as the “free encyclopedia” Wikipedia quickly became a favorite source of information on the internet, consistently rating high in Google searches. Content contributions come from experts all over the world. Dr. Delgado saw the need for an extensive description for the Mommy Makeover procedure after receiving many inquiries from his patients. [...]

Miguel A. Delgado, Jr., MD holds the two credentials most coveted by plastic surgeons practicing in the United States, namely certification by the American Board of Plastic Surgery and membership in the American Society of Plastic Surgery. He has his own fully accredited surgery center and two offices located in the Bay Area, San Francisco and Marin. For more information go to [...]. To see a full gallery of before and after pictures click here or call for a consultation at [...]

The article this links to is Mommy makeover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I do not feel comfortable with Wikipedia being leveraged in this way, and I would suggest the article could do with a good lookover from a subject matter expert that does not have a commercial conflict of interest. JN466 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Dr. Delgado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of this thread. --JN466 16:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't really suitable for ANI. You probably want to take it to WP:EAR instead. From a quick look, marking references explicitly as "Original Research" and stacking 7 or 8 references to cite a single sentence probably isn't the best way to get a "Keep" consensus out of WP:AfD if it goes there. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

7 to 8 references a sentence? Bombs away! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is serious enough to warrant the extra eyes that ANI brings. I've tagged this article with COI, expert and NPOV which is the best I can do for the moment, but the idea of using Wikipedia to promote one's own medical procedures is very disconcerting. An expert review would be an excellent idea. Have you thought of bringing this up at WP:MEDICINE? --Daniel 16:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, I would be tempted to redirect the article to Plastic surgery, pending an investigation by WikiProject Medicine (who I'll notify presently). --JN466 16:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I say go for the redirect. It is simply a package of already existing plastic surgery techniques with a cute name. None of the sources refer to a "mommy makeover." After looking it over, I highly doubt it would survive an AfD. --Daniel 16:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the expression "Mommy makeover" appears to be completely absent from PubMed [55] it seems unlikely that the page title, as it stands, could be the subject of any reliable medical source. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, for now. --JN466 16:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support redirect - the PR Web article makes it clear that Wikipedia is being abused for marketing. Rklawton (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• No problem with the bold redirect - saves an AfD. The question now is what to do with all the orphaned photographs. Yeah, I know this place isn't censored, and you could even make a case for including one as a good example of plastic / cosmetic surgery results that a description couldn't give, but a line drawing or diagram would probably be more educational. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the individuals in the photographs gave their permission for them to be released under a Creative Commons licence? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Without any clear evidence of permission and given the misuse of WP for the main article, they should probably be deleted to be on the safe side. Arzel (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Mommy makeover Patient 1 post op .jpg (warning - not suitable for work or small children) is tagged as "own work" with CC-BY-SA 3.0 own work. However, would you not also require proof of the woman in the photograph, as this isn't a photograph taken in a public place? File:Mommy Makeover perioperative picture.jpg (likewise), however, has an OTRS ticket. Take them to WP:FfD and see what happens, I guess. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Medical journals take anonymization really seriously (eg [56]). WM seems to be more concerned with copyright considerations. My !2c would be to delete. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the references do not support notability. With respect to patient confidentiality as long as the person is not identifiable only verbal consent is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Self-promotion by plastic surgeons has been a problem and I'm really glad to see it get some attention. I support the redirect.--Taylornate (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've sent to RfD as an implausible redirect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• While it's true he hasn't edited since November, is there any reason this account hasn't been indef'd as clearly WP:NOTHERE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit discussion on Emily Giffin

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

---

I'm writing because I need some differing opinions on whether or not something should be added to an article for Emily Giffin and if so, how it should be phrased. Here's the whole scenario in a nutshell: Emily Giffin's husband posted a nasty comment about a review. Giffin herself then reposted about it on various social media sites and eventually got spanked for it by the general public, prompting one reviewer to chang her review rating to reflect all of this and got harassed. Giffin eventually issued a generic blanket apology over all of this. The issue is that although some blogs reported on this, only one reliable source has actually posted an article about the whole scenario. I personally don't feel that this is worth mentioning on the author's article, not because I agree or disagree with anything that she's done, but because almost nobody has covered this. It's not like Foyt and Save the Pearls or Candace Sams and Interstellar Feller, which got a score of articles posted about all of the controversy. There's also issues of tone and since there have been complaints over previous edits to the page, I thought I'd post about this on here to get a good consensus on the article's talk page and here. (Talk:Emily Giffin)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This type of issue appears beyond the remit of ANI ... you're doing the right thing by discussing on the talkpage. You could ask there for third opinion or even open an WP:RFC - again, both of those occur on the talkpage. Reliable source issues belong on the reliable source noticeboard dangerouspanda 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Santoor

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

---

May an administrator tell to user 24.146.246.15 to register? He had also edited under IP 65.88.88.203 .

From 13-April: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santoor&offset=20120504025244&action=history

To day: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santoor&dir=prev&offset=20120807163631&action=history

--Opus88888 (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Users are not required to register to edit, they are only encouraged to do so. If there's a specific, urgent problem you're having with this editor, please provide details here or at a more relevant noticeboard (see the header at the top of the page); if not, I'm afraid there isn't anything we can do. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Physical threats

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

---

Hello. I encourtered HariBhol (talk · contribs) on Vaishnava-Sahajiya. The user seems to have a strong religious point of view against this...organization. I believe this user's latest message on my talk page includes a physical threat of violence against me. "then as I mentioned, dangerous situation is bound to act as fire is bound to act... Dangerous is a caution before anything happens. Like I just cautioned you...." I blocked the user initially because I felt I was acting in an administrative capacity the entire time which is allowed per WP:INVOLVED, but then I unblocked because I felt a personal threat against me is a separate issue of which I am involved. I request an indefinite ban.--v/r - TP 17:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I read at least two separate portions of his post to imply threats of violence -- the one quoted above, and the thing about thorns and pricking "Its a way I believed to remove a thorn with a prick before its too late and acts in most dangerous manner...." from the same diff. I have indef blocked him for the time being. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As I read that, in the context of the post he's telling you that if you don't do things his way God will smite you, not that if you don't do things his way he will smite you. Obnoxiousness either way, but not a threat-of-violence as such. Mogism (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• You forgot to notify HariBhol about this report. I have now done that. Apart from that I agree that an indef block is in order, this user completely fails to grasp the purpose and concept of Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oops. I dont create ANI threads often so I guess it slipped my mind. My bad.--v/r - TP 17:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban User acts as if god drives his actions and believes he can do what they want, whenever they want. User consistently spams or creates promotional content despite warnings from various users. User retaliates by writing nonsense responses in the length of 3 page essays. User shows no intention of improving and I think the best thing to do is to declare this user banned from Wikipedia.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban - Spamming or creating promotional content is not really acceptable on Wikipedia. Also, I am concerned that HariBhol has shown no intention of improving and I believe it would be best if we should ban him from Wikipedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban User is evidently not here to build an encyclopedia. Making personal attacks against TP just 'ices the cake', so to speak. Electric Catfish 18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Someone who so strongly believes the divine dictates his action is going to have major trouble collaborating on a site like Wikipedia. Not much hope of his edits being anywhere near WP:NPOV either. It's better to just boot him now. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, his divine entity did lead a few people to try and help him, but they just ignore it. dangerouspanda 18:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this user can edit on Vaishnava-Sahajiya as they have such a strong negative POV. User:Swatjester appears to have indef'ed them a few hours ago, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Gray-area editing from an IP...

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

---

I've got a question/concern, as I'm not sure quite where the following item falls. I came across this reversion in my watchlist today. Normally silliness like this would not concern me, but I also make a habit of checking contribs for a pattern, just in case. So I checked the other contrib from 90.191.21.161, and found this, which is a) wholly false on both counts, and b) could be construed as hate speech. The reason I'm not sure what to do with this is because AFAICT, this is a dynamic IP. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

the only two posts from that IP coming within 10 min of each other and neither being at all constructive, would lead to a DUCK or MEAT. the question would be how much good faith should be assumed that if they were told of their inappropriate actions would they continue in the same manner or begin to act in a more constructive manner. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

run of the mill vandalism, stale. Ignore. If it continues WP:AIV is the place to be. Nobody Ent 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Another sock of long-term problematic user Josh24B

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

---

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

I'd file an SPI, but it's pretty obvious to anyone who glances at his prior history, especially since he recreated his playground article Bus Routes in York, and resumed the same old addition of (incorrect) directory and (incorrect) advertising stuff, claiming that the York doesn't have any other means of publicizing that info (no matter how much others explain that doesn't matter).

For those unfamiliar with this guy, Josh24B is a bus-obsessive who has claimed to work for Transdev York under different account, posting made-up schedules and advertisements. Last time he was active, I emailed Transdev York, and they said that Josh does not work there and never has, but he did used to harass the office for not having the "right" schedules posted.

At the very least, a block of YoGoplus for sockpuppetry is necessary. I'm curious if anyone has any other suggestions or solutions for how to deal with this long-term problematic user. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Potential legal threats at Sharyl Attkisson

Admins may wish to review the statements of 170.20.247.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in claiming that sourced content is "libelous". I have just given the NLT notice. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply calling content "libellous" does not constitute a legal threat, he's not actually threatening to take any action. Content is either libellous or not; it doesn't matter whether someone decides to act on it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if the comment has a "chilling" effect and is legalistic in tone, it would qualify. This is on the borderline so I'm not inclined to block, but it is already better to bring it here to get a second opinion, via WP:DOLT. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User :Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

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

---

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user had been causing problems for two days straight on the "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" page and has been abusing the page's associated talk page. He was told twice by both me and Toa Nidhiki05 to bring things up on the talk page and the incident with Toa he went outside the talk page to get his way and then brought it to the corresponding talk page to the article. Two days ago he brought a situation to my my talk page over something he did not like and I told him twice that same day to take it to the talk page and he decided to bring it up again today two days later after he dropped it. He has resorted to name-calling on both the "We Are Never Getting Back Together" talk page and the page where he went and complained before bringing up the situation with the sourcing of charts on the talk page and I think both me and Toa have been more then patient with Star and I have asked him nicely to back away slowly and work on another article but he seems to refuse to and I was told if he kept going to bring it here so that is what I am doing. I will leave it to you guys to decide to do what is best. I would also like to add that he was warned by a third user to stop being disruptive on the talk page or he'd be blocked. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 22:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) That is star and he also now using sock-puppetry. ^_^ Swifty*^talk 23:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is not an ANI issue, it is not an "incident", it is a content dispute. Please take the concern to WP:DRN and work to solve the issue there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Swifty is a bit patronizing, but even that is not an ANI matter. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Someone close this. Swifty just moved on to another forum, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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