Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Proposed standstill agreement on Bilateral Relations articles

There has been a huge amount of heat lately, and very little light, about articles named in the form "Foo-Bar relations" (hereinafter "FBR articles"), Foo and Bar being countries or adjectives derived from country names. This has led to divisive disputes at AFDs, DRVs, and across an assortment of talk pages. A discussion was formed at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force, but this has had limited success to date.

In summary, the same sets of people tend to show up at all the discussions, and some of them tend to !vote the same way on all discussions. This has the effect that the decision on any given FBR article, once nominated for AFD, depends on how many of each side show up to the discussion. If additional references are found in time, the discussion focuses on whether they are substantial, but because of the many ongoing discussions, views have hardened to the point that very little either side does convinces the other.

DGG and I want to jointly suggest that it would be a good idea to freeze all AfDs and related actions on these articles, and defer creating new ones. This is not meant to inhibit adding information to articles, working on deleted articles in userspace, discussing existing articles on their talk page, and discussing policy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. This would be enforceable as a community sanction.

This standstill, if agreed by consensus here, will apply up to and including the end of the month (UTC). During the standstill:

1. New AFDs and DRVs created on FBR articles are eligible for speedy closure with no action
2. New FBR articles created after the standstill is commenced are eligible for speedy deletion
3. Persons disruptively violating #1 or #2 are liable to be blocked for a short period
4. Existing AFDs and DRVs will be allowed to run off
5. Nothing in this inhibits improving existing articles or working on deleted articles or new articles in userspace

The principal objection to #1 above in the past has been that it would give free reign for non-notable content to remain in the encyclopedia. This may very well be true. However, the damage that the AFDs, DRVs, and other discussions are doing outweighs any potential damage caused by leaving potentially non-notable articles to exist for a month or two. Having seen the result of several such polarized topics in the past (Macedonia, Sathya Sai Baba, Ireland, route names, etc.), I am very keen to avoid this matter going down the same path.

Should it appear necessary to extend the standstill, this can be considered here shortly before the expiry.

Please consider not immediately going into support and oppose mode, in favour of a discussion as to the merits of this standstill. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

what exactly is the point of this standstill, what happens at the end of the month? Loosmark (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully people will discuss the issues and come to some sort of consensus on the notability of FBR articles and/or an alternative structure for them. I am going to be away for the next two or three hours but in the meantime I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially a dispute over notability and sourcing guidelines, writ large. The best place to determine which of these should be retained is AFD. It is a mistake that wikipedia allow the creation of unsourced stubs of, in most cases, not even claimed notability, but that is the system at the moment. To both allow for the creation of unsourced stubs that quite frequently are not suitable for inclusion and not allow for an afd process on them (a process, i might add that skews in favor of retention since there are 3 possible outcomes, 2 of which yield the articles continued inclusion) is a rather radical departure from proven systems here, and for no clear need. To call something "disruptive" does not make it so. That people have strong feelings, one way or another, on this issue is not a good reason to shut down a process (and in service of nothing since all efforts to get consensus on this matter have failed). That there is a group of people who are more interested in this topic than average also does not seem a problem -- that's always the way wikipedia works. People work in the areas that interest them. There really is no problem here, and i don't see what the "damage" is. The various systems here should be robust enough to deal with issues of both individual editor conduct as well as determining what is, or is not, considered notable by the community. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposed standstill. To get a sense of how intense these disputes are getting, please note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists and to see the problems with how some are "voting" in these discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting. And we also had this recent incident. AfDs are being flooded by these nominations, renominations, and subsequent DRVs that are needlessly overwhelming our ability to focus on improving those that can be improved by forcing us to have to go back and forth in one AfD only to have them faced almost immediate renomination or DRVs. Why we would rather be a collection of AfDs and DRVs rather than articles that are relevant to someone always baffles me. Moreover, in these discussions, in loosely related MfDs and on user and article talk pages, the animosity among those saying to keep versus those saying to delete is escalating with little sign of decreasing. If Wikipedia does not have a deadline then there is no urgent need to rid us of all of these now, just as there is no urgent need to have to hurry up and create as many new articles as possible. Thus, I for one will not create any new bilateral relations articles during this proposed standstill, nor will I nominate any for deletion. If we do not take a time out from these disputes across multiple threads, I do not see how the participants will come to any understanding and how we will avoid an RfC and eventual ArbCom on bilateral relations. We should be here to build an encyclopedia. Let us stop the arguing and get back to improving our existing content in a mature and collegial manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - allowing the situation to cool down is certainly a worthwhile idea. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose immediate deletion of all unsourced stubs on this topic (no information is "lost" when it amounts to "x y relations are relations between x and y. Y has an embassy in z.") with no prejudice to recreation by any editor in good standing who sources and writes a proper start class article. In exchange, a one moratorium on the sourced x-y stubs can be declared, so that those who think these articles have merit can seek to improve them. I have no idea why any of this would ever end up at Arbcom or anywhere else. Again, when we have a system that allow sockpuppetss to serially and abusively create stubs, derailing the process by which the mess the sockpuppet created can be evaluated and dealt with (and an open, transparent process at that) is very much against the encyclopedia's best interests.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why we would want to force editors to start over when they already have a framework or foundation from which to expand. We should try to expand first per WP:BEFORE and then remove what we cannot. And yes, even if that takes years, that is no big deal as we hope to be around for years anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily oppose it but I think that this standstill would only "move" the problem 1 month forward and then we would have exactly the same situation with the same "players" with the same attitude. Actually Bali ultimate hit the nail with his comment that the system should be robust enough to deal with these situations. At the moment it doesn't seems so maybe some modifications would be in order. Loosmark (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would support this 100% if all the articles created by the banned user who cranked these out are removed from the main space first. Most of the discussions are between those of us who believe the subject of an article has to meet notability requirements and editors who think a collection of verifiable factoids constitutes an acceptable article. There are other complications but that's the primary issue. I don't think a moratorium on creating articles on a certain topic is appropriate nor do I believe it is appropriate to stop deletion of inappropriate articles, especially since no one has worked towards a solution on the real issue. I have a lot of respect for you, Stifle, but I can predict who will line up to support this or not. Drawn Some (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think some of the above commenters are missing the point of this standstill. This standstill has nothing to do with the suitablity of these articles for Wikipedia. The point is the escalating acrimony among the editors who are involved in this issue. The standstill would allow everyone to take a month and discuss the larger issue, gathering as much of a consensus as possible. Once a rough guideline has been formed on how to determine notability on these, then things can go back into motion, with individual AFDs determining how these articles meet the new guideline. While I hate instruction creep as much as anyone, new guidelines are written for exactly this reason: to provide a consensus document that people can refer back to in future discussions, whether they be WP:XFDs, move requests, or anything else. I think a standstill would be a good idea, so that the same identical issues aren't argued over and over in little discussions, but instead are addressed in a larger discussion where all interested parties can have input. That's my two cents, anyway. I like the idea of a standstill. I just hope a month is enough time to calm the raging waters. :)--Aervanath (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am generally no fan of the "sit still and wait" method of dealing with problems, but this is a special case. Given the vast number of articles, discussions, disputes and arguments covering the issue it is nearly impossible to centralize our efforts; there is little use in trying to tackle this issue piecemeal. Therefore I support the proposal of a cooldown period, so long as efforts to tackle this issue in a more centralized fashion are not stifled by the lockdown. Shereth 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's wider than just one user creating these. Too much effort has been expended on AfDs and all (as noted, often along party lines, and whichever side shows up in more numbers wins). It would be useful to let these all rest for a month or two. If they develop to include what editors (not all) consider notable content, then they live on. If they remain a stub, then they get AfD'ed for quick delete. All too often something is created and editors rush in to nominate for deletion, sometimes because they believe it deserves to be deleted, sometimes because they want to harass the editors they know don't think it deserves to be deleted. Support see comments further below PetersV       TALK 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the problem in a nutshell, it's not enough for an article to have verifiable content, even notable content, the subject of the article itself has to be notable. That's the problem and a moratorium won't solve it. Drawn Some (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're hearing everything I said. The month is useful for an opportunity for notable content to be created—if there are notable items in a relationship then those should bubble up to the article/topic being notable. If content of a notable nature is not created, then after a month the AfDs come out again. The problem right now is that articles are being nominated because editors maintain the topic of a particular A-B relationship in and of itself is not notable. That is a personal, not editorial opinion. Only after content is created can a judgement of notability be made. There the moratorium will be a tremendous help. see comments below PetersV       TALK 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I understand exactly what your saying and it reinforces my point. Every day at AfD something like 100 articles are evaluated not on the basis of the content but on the basis of whether or not the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines in some way, most often through significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Frequently they are stubs and rarely are they big articles. The content is almost irrelevant. You can add 500 verifiable facts to an article and the subject still isn't notable. All of the bilateral relations articles are either notable or not, right now, today, regardless of content. AfD discussion determines which is the case. Waiting a month won't make any of them notable that aren't already. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the standstill is a good idea, but suggest that instead of speedy deleting any new entries, they be speedily userfied / projectified instead, so as to preserve the work of any editors who are unaware of the standstill. Part of the problem here is that there has not been enough consideration by the community before now about whether we should restrict ourselves to particularly noteworthy bilateral relations topics, or whether all such subjects are potentially worthy. The standstill would give a time for that discussion to take place, centralized, and publicized so that it draws in more than just the two active factions. Mangojuice^talk 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Vecrumba, I'm not sure you've really looked into this matter. Take a look at the article creation log for the indef-blocked sockpuppet Groubani (talk · contribs) here [1]. Also look at the total failure of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations which started sometime in the middle of April. Most of the articles have been around for a long time and there has been no "bubbling." In many cases where there has been bubbling, some of us feel that they are "puff-bubbles." (i.e. i once saw a reference that noted a passing similarity between costa rica and swiss banking laws that made "costa rica look like the switzerland of latin america" used in an effort to establish they had a notable bilateral relationship). There is no need for separate notability criteria for this class of article. The only reason this class has become "special" is because we tolerated serial, unsourced stub creation (it's amazing to me that we allow the creation of unsourced articles -- even BLPS -- every day by irresponsible editors) by a user making some kind of weird point. At any rate, an effort to create a special set of guidelines for these articles failed rather spectacularly, as any effort at the moment (not much time has passed since that resounding failure) will likewise fail. The answer is for users interested in the topic, to evaulate these articles on a case by case basis, with the outcome in some cases being deletin and others retention, just like every other article on wikipedia. I'm sorry people are upset that, well, that editors here might hold strong and opposing viewpoints. But wishing that away, or dismissing the real questions at play here about content guidelines as "disruptive" is not healthy for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My response was based on my personal experiences in my neck of the "A-B relations". I did look through Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations since and I have to agree that as a whole it has been a spectacular failure. In all honesty, I did the math myself some time ago on the minimum number of articles (all combinations of U.N. members taken 2 at a time). I do have to observe that a more manageable solution might be—as has been suggested—"Foreign relations of A". Any significant relationship can be denoted with a "A-xyz relations" category being defined and noted for the article. That way one can answer "does Chile have any interesting relationship with Estonia?" without a Chile-Estonia relations article. "A-B relations" would revert to being reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree that "a-b relations" articles should be "reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study." But you will never get consensus for this proposal at the moment. A number of people will even call you mean names for requiring that the topic of an article in and of itself be the subject of in depth coverage.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I also think a standstill is a great idea, since I believe (as do, I think, DGG, A Nobody, and others) that it is easier, more inviting, for editors to fill in the blanks, so to speak, than to start from scratch. That's how it works for me. The flood of AfDs prompted a bunch of people to get to work on the stubs with some decent results, but that initial enthusiasm to save them seems to have waned a little--certainly in my case. That these things were created en masse is unfortunate, of course, but these many, many nominations only antagonize editors. Let's leave them be. They're here, many of them are not great articles, many might be deleted later on. But let's leave it for now. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Some editors feel atagonized by the existence of non-notable "topics" unsupported by any reliable sources. Some other editors feel that any combination of x-y is, ipso facto, notable. Why should the AFD process be suspended to spare the annoyance of some, while adding to the annoyance of others? Is there some better community way for sorting out what should be included than afd? No one has proposed anything remotely workable in the months that this has been going on.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • • Cutting in here--Bali, you and I have butted heads on a couple of those, and have agreed on a few others. I personally take offense at unsupported articles, and I don't believe that every combination is notable. But it's a given that we have these stubs, and that apparently AfD is the only way to get rid of them (by deletion or by improvement--and I know that AfD is not for article improvement, but we all know that's how it often goes anyway). An AfD discussion should take some time, and I have not voted on a lot of them simply because I didn't have time to look into them. You may have noted that I did not copy and paste my answers, and have voted delete on quite a few of them. Oddly enough, I do agree with you that there probably is no better way than AfD--but if our interest is improving the encyclopedia, and if we agree that (at least some of) articles that were kept are now indeed worth keeping, and that improvement has come about precisely because stubborn editors (I won't name names, but I have been stubborn on occasion) have fought tooth and nail and have found and added sources and significantly rewritten articles *deep breath* well, if all that is true, then a slow trickle of those articles at AfD rather than a flood can only improve the project as a whole. Some will get deleted, some will be (improved and) kept. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think if anyone had stopped to do the math before thinking "A-B relations" were a good article to have, we wouldn't be in this mess. When articles are generated based on mathematical combinations and not topics explored in secondary source materials, nothing good is bound to come of it.
        In all of this I "voted" for Chile-Estonia as significant for my editorial reasons; that, based on "as long as we're going to have A-B relations articles, then there are items here of significance that merit being in such an article." If, on the other hand, that were a category (at best) and the normal thing to do was to document Chile-related items in a "Foreign relations of Estonia" article, that would have been just as fine.
         The mere existence of this type of article is what has led to the intractability of the morass.
         This issue can only be solved by appropriately combining the articles into the appropriate "Foreign relations of..." articles and then delete all A-B relations articles except, as mentioned, those involving areas of significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Drmies, you illuminate another problem: Wikipedia is created by volunteers and articles are created and improved because people want to do it, not because one user matches every object in a set to every other object in the set. 95% of the non-notable ones wouldn't have been created in the first place because they aren't notable and no one would have wanted to create them. The normal flow of article creation was interrupted by this one user in a cataclysmic event. Now we have all the articles to deal with. Why not move them out of the main space into user space and then let people work on them when and if they choose to do so? I don't have a problem with that at all. But some people don't want to let even one of these articles be deleted. Let's remember that they shouldn't exist in the first place and restore the status quo ante bellum by moving them out of the user space. Also, let's not forget that articles can be undeleted. Drawn Some (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, Drawn Some. But I'll say what I said before: a bad article is for many editors a reason to work on it. I would NEVER consider making something up out of whole cloth on, say, relations between Mexico and Belgium. (Never mind that I'm Dutch and am not supposed to care for the Belgians.) Yet AfD alerted me to the article, and it's really kind of interesting (the Belgians bringing beer to Mexico?), and I found a book (De Belgen en Mexico), and then Richard Arthur Norton, like a terrier, bit into the article and is not letting go... As I mentioned above, AfD is fine with me--I think it's fair, usually anyway, and for better or worse it's a forum of sorts. Yes, again, they probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, and maybe the majority of them might end up getting deleted, but they do exist, and my interest here is to make something good come out of it. Thanks, and I'll see you at the next one, I guess! ;)Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Full steam ahead on all fronts!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Time stands still for no one, not even a nobody. I don't think a work stoppage is enforceable. We're not a union. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened that made ChildofMidnight come out and speak up on a real topic? Ran out of bacon topics, did you? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I do not see why we should allow a handful of accounts to act as self-appointed policemen with regards to a certain type of article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My opposition to a break in the dispute is not adamant, only ardent. Consensus seems to be generally in favor of an informal peace. This will provide time to get started on the much needed multilateral relations articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

If anyone has read this far, then it will be obvious just what kind of deadlock this dispute is in: both sides are talking at or past each other, & not at all listening to one another. This is why, after a month, I walked away from this mess. I tried to propose that some articles in this genre were notable, yet had my efforts rebuffed. I would rather spend my time working on content than arguing endlessly in AfD. Maybe if we subject all of this to a 12-month moratorium, the less reasonable people in this dispute will get themselves banned from Wikipedia for their habitual misbehavior & the rest of us then can come to a consensus on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I cuncur with Llywrch that a 12 month stop would be better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "A-B relations" is unworkable because it is simply an unusable framework. To read about the "Foreign relations of X" one has to sift through a 100+ collection of stubs and articles? Think about it. I struck my earlier comments supporting the moratorium (which were based on my earlier more parochial experiences). We need an elimination, not a moratorium. PetersV       TALK 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• No one has suggested that they all need to be deleted or that none of them are notable. There are hundreds or maybe even thousands of them that are notable but that leaves thousands of A-B intersections that aren't. No one has said Colombia-Venezuela or Israel-Egypt or US-Mexico relations should be deleted. In investigating certain stubs I have been surprised at what I have learned. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually a few accounts have said to delete Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations when the countries in question actually border each other, have been the subject or reliable, independent sources due to their border conflict issues. It is from such discussions as this example that some indeed are indiscriminately saying to delete pretty much all of them rather than working to improve them. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations is not a good example, it was originally created in good faith as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and referring to the combined land mass [2]. Many in the AfD said this was a misdirected create and that they would not support Indonesia and PNG but rather Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations including me and I have since changed my vote to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How much better would it have been instead of saying to delete initially to have just proactively moved it as I did and started the article that everyone seems to think is now an acceptable start instead? I never get why anyone would say someone should do something instead of just doing it his or herself when he or she is indeed capable and able to do so. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

of course that is possible, but if the AfD was originally listed as Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations it would have got a lot more keep even if it was a stub. In fact, that's the first X and Y article I've seen nominated, and it's not in the same class as X-Y relations. so let's forget this example. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we are urged to be WP:BOLD and what I did to improve this content I am confident my colleagues in the discussion are also capable of doing as well. Please remember that deletion is supposed to be a last resort per WP:BEFORE and as such, editors should try renames, merges, etc. first and then when all else fails take it to AfD. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • That's why we have a discussion at AfD, to share ideas and come to the right decision. Also, just because two countries share a border does not mean that their bilateral relations are notable. The relations probably are notable but we use Wikipedia guidelines on notability to make a determination. Once again your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Fortunately, my way of thinking about these things is consistent with the majority of our editors and readers, which is why we have no need to kowtow to a minority viewpoint that is inconsistent with established consensus, which overwhelmingly suggests these notable articles are worth including here. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Knock off the cheap shots at other editors. Your reply above is strong evidence of Llywrch's comment that too many editors are stuck on the rightness of their position. Also, cowtow, not cowtail. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree that Drawn Some should not make cheap shots at other editors. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Har-har. I was talking to you. Stop baiting him. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
              • An editor should not bait another by saying that "your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia," which any reasonable editor would respond to in at least the manner that I did, although many might respond much more harshly. I can only take seriously any comments that first takes issue with that initial post. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                • For a guy who spends an awful lot of time monitoring others, you sure seem unable to be the bigger man when you are involved in something yourself. Be the bigger man, and move on. Besides, DS is bringing up issues as he goes, and it doesn't look like you're in a vast majority. learn to move on, or stop commenting so often on the behavior of others. Hypocrisy's a poor color for anyone to wear. ThuranX (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Yes, his post probably should not have been dignified by a reply in the first place and it is exactly hypocrisy that concerns me, i.e. saying something to me while ignoring the initial less than civil comment I replied to in the first place. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
          • It's really "kowtow". Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, I agree with you on that one per Kowtow. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support All of these articles have possible value. Until we've established how useful we think that is, there's no reason to get rid of them one by one. Shii (tock) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That really doesn't make much sense. Some of the articles have value and some do not. How do you propose we sort out which is which if not "one by one?" I have seen no one with a proposal for a new method yet that would have any chance of adoption. Does anyone have one? Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the standstill: to remove everyone from the immediate "must rescue/must delete this article RIGHT NOW" attitude and give everyone some breathing room to calmly work on a consensus guideline for this.--Aervanath (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The obvious solution is not a standstill or moratorium but removing the articles from the main space. That eliminates all time pressure. People who want to work on them may do so as they are interested and at their leisure. If a non-notable article is introduced into the main space it can be brought to AfD as all articles are. The problem is we have hundreds of non-notable articles in the main space that were dumped there by a rogue editor now banned. Undo that damage that he caused. No one is hurt, everyone is happy. Drawn Some (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

About two months was spent on developing this white whale of a special conesensus guideline. And that conversation was an epic fail. Why would it be any different in anothe month? Special notability guidelines (which will never get consensus) aren't what's needed. What's needed is case by case evaluation, which is ongoing. Some hopeless articles have been deleted, some have been demonstrated to be notable (i.e. PNG-Indo, which will rightfully sail through afd with hardly any opposition) and some have muddled through as no consensus and will need to looked at again in six months or a year. This is all a good thing. Ostriching over the issue (and the meta issue of unsourced content more generally, and the way we're allowing original research to proliferate) will not help matters. Awright, i've said my piece enough on this thread.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the United States have a full set of bilateral stubs based on the US State Department website, and the same rational is used to delete other smaller countries stubs? Wikipedia "contains elements of an almanac" according to Pillar I. What good is an almanac if it only contains information on the United States? We are supposed to be eliminating regional bias, not increasing it. An almanac just has to be verifiable, we accept all townships as notable on the same concept and use a dump of census data from the United States Census Bureau as the sole source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually support deleting many of those US-very small country stubs as most of them can be merged into Foreign relations of Smaller country X. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LibStar, every article on a topic not notable by Wikipedia guidelines should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs but see WP:NOT#ALMANAC. Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#ALMANAC points to raw statistics. You do know what a statistic is right? It is some numerical value. I don't see this at all in any of the articles under discussion. This is another red herring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That shortcut should be speedily deleted as it is inconsistent with our First pillar. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the above comment, I would like administrators to note that A Nobody has already proceeded to change wikipedia policies in order to suit his own interpretations, by simply deleting the section reference to WP:NOT#ALMANAC Drawn Some cited above: here and again here. Is it clear by now that some users are pushing a marginal interpretation instead of consensus by any means necessary? Dahn (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who added that minority and consensus lacking viewpoint to Not in the first place as it clearly contradicts our much older and consensus backed Wikipedia:Five pillars. In any event, we cannot have contradictory policies and guidelines. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everybody is wrong but you. I know the drill. Dahn (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was created on 4 May 2005. Now looking at WP:NOT from the same time, I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1. No guideline has ever said "we are an almanac". 2. The claim about time precedence is ignoratio elenchi and special pleading, misconstruing the mechanisms driving wikipedia. I shall ignore it as such. 3. The entire text accompanying that caption, which is the result of consensus, still evidently contradicts your claim about the "almanac" importance of factoids. 4. Not seeking every possible input at the exact same moment is not the same as lacking consensus, but time can verify that consensus. As it has. 5. My part in this discussion ends here, because I sense it won't be long before A Nobody will start over again with the same arguments (as has happened in the past), and following that trail will leads nowhere. I posted this here for other users, preferably admins, to assess what's going on. If anyone needs further comments from me, let them contact me on my talk page. Dahn (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What consensus backed discussion has ever said we are not an almanac? Also, the disputed addition only appeared on 5 May 2009, i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9#Not_an_Almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_1#Is_Wikipedia_an_almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25#Wikipedia:_Almanac_or_not.3F hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, the First Pillar of Wikipedia itself contradicts you. It says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of... almanacs.... Elements of is important. If you're going to refer to text make sure it actually supports what your are saying, people are familiar with things and some even check on sources. Drawn Some (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It also says we incorportae "elements" of encyclopedias, so by your logic, we would "not" be an encyclopedia either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#ALMANAC was a redirect using the wrong synonym to point to Wikipedia is not raw statistics. No almanac I know of is comprised of raw statistics, all info is in tables and comes with explanatory information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: 12 months? That is absurd on its face. A year of leaving non-notable articles in place? No thank you. A shorter date might be agreeable, but 12 months? Come on. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

• Support my own proposal. Stifle approached me about this early yesterday on my talk page, and I was delighted to agree; I suggested some modifications in wording, not in principle, which he accepted. He and I tend to disagree about standards of notability and quite a number of other things, but from any reasonable point of view the situation was becoming intolerable. I can accept if necessary an encyclopedia with most of these deleted; I hope Stifle can accept one with most of them kept; what neither of us can accept is an encyclopedia with a random selection of them. Nor do we want to devote the bulk of our energies on WP to arguing about this particular group of articles. At present the settlement of these depends mostly on how much pressure the various sides exert, on on the very varied personal view of whoever chooses to close, and neither of these is sensible. The only people who would oppose finding some means of accommodation here are those who would rather get their own way on some articles, however few, than accept a consistent compromise, and that does not help build a good encyclopedia. In practice the arguments at present depend on whether particular sources found are important enough, but the views expressed on that depend not on the facts of the actual case, but the general idea of keeping or deleting the articles. As I see it, whether the sources are significant depends upon the intended scope of these articles--whether to accept relations in the broad sense or interpret it as formal diplomatic relations only, and if we approach it this way, we may yet agree. We must have a rational procedure for resolving stalemates other than mutual exhaustion. That is what we have used in the past, and I hope nobody will support continuing that way, because it decision essentially by trial by ordeal, more specifically ordeal of the cross. I'd rather lose arguments than have them decided that way. Civilized people rejected that method of decision in more important matters many centuries ago. It's time we followed suite. DGG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is not untrue but it misses the essence of the situation, that a bunch of articles were created without consensus and contrary to our normal flow of article creation and they were dumped into the article space and many of them are on non-notable topics and shouldn't be in main space. It would be better to remove them all from the main space to eliminate the time pressure and work on them at our leisure and on the ones we are interested in as we normally do. All of our processes and guidelines support that normal process and the problem is not with the process but with the dumptruck full of ill-conceived articles dumped into it. Remove that mess. Drawn Some (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am inclined to view this proposal favorably. The AfD process is perfectly suited to deal with articles on an ad hoc basis. This is fine for the normal random mix, but it can break down under the weight of sheer numbers. There is no good reason to burden that system with constantly re-deciding what is essentially one issue. As the proposers of this respite point out, the outcome of the AfD discussions currently is not a function of which articles truly are notable, but instead a function of who shows up to argue on a particular case. The repetitive nature of these discussions has the effect of self-selecting for the editors who feel most strongly about the subject, to the exclusion of those who have not become so firmly entrenched. I think it is worth a break to try to engage some of this latter class of editors into the process, and hope for a new perspective. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A comment from a completely non-involved editor: I haven't commented on a single A-B relations AfD, nor do I have any real opinion on whether these articles are generally good or generally bad. I have read some, but by no means all, of the discussion on this topic and would like to offer a neutral observation.

First of all, some sort of calming of the situation is needed. There is no way anyone can cognitively evaluate dozens of relations a day (as has often sent to AfD). Not surprisingly, given the volume of AfDs, people on both sides will fall back on standard arguments and not truly evaluate the case at hand. Further, both sides are so entrenched in their view that any attempts to provide evidence in a particular case will mostly just be dismissed by the other side. The community is definitely not served by rehashing the same basic argument hundreds of times. At the current pace, good editors are bound to burn out and leave the project entirely.

Second, this thread is strong evidence of how deeply the conflict runs. People on the "delete most" will largely argue that a moratorium is bad unless the "junk stubs" are deleted first. People on the "keep most" side will argue against any attempts to move "junk stubs" outside of article space. As someone who doesn't really care if these stay or go in the end, I would say there is very little harm leaving things the way they are until people have had a chance to cool down. Wikipedia's default policy normally is to keep things the way they are when there is a dispute.

Third, a break from the daily AfDs might not resolve the problem, but it couldn't hurt. When a page is being edit warred over, we protect the page to force discussion. While not an identical situation, of course, I feel it would be a good idea to force discussion into one location, rather than hundreds of AfDs, for now. Without the pressure of "saving" or "removing" A-B "right now", there is at least some chance that the situation will calm itself and the sides can start working towards a reasonable compromise.

Now, some will say the stubs harm Wikipedia, or stopping the normal process harm Wikipedia. They may be right, but I feel far greater harm will come if the situation is continues on its current path. Wikipedia has no deadline and waiting a little bit to give the situation a chance to calm itself down is highly advisable, In my opinion. Thus I support the proposal as written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (aUTC)

You're greatly overestimating the number of bilateral relations AfDs daily.

6/10 - 2

6/9 - 4, one of which was shut down procedurally even though the relations are non-notable [3]

6/8 - 3

6/7 - 2

6/6 - 1

6/5 - 3

6/4 - 2

etc.

So the problem is not fatigue caused by evaluating "dozens" daily.

Neither is the conflict over bilateral relations articles, it's over whether or not Wikipedia guidelines for notability should be followed or whether anything verifiable should be in the encyclopedia.

If the default is to keep things the way they are, it should be the state prior to the dumping of hundreds or thousands of articles on non-notable subjects into the main space by a now-banned editor. When vandalism is committed the default isn't the state of vandalization, it's the state prior to the act. Same principle should apply here. Move the articles out of main space if you want to stop action on them but don't interrupt Wikipedia's processes in an attempt to "fix" an interruption of Wikipedia's processes, that's only compounding the damage. Drawn Some (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with the proviso that someone get to work on developing Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) during the month-long freeze. I am normally adamant against the creation of new notability sub-guidelines, but even I have my breaking point. We need community driven guidance, and while WP:N should be enough, it clearly is not else we would not be here right now. What the community needs is a clear set of guidelines as to which sets of articles are likely notable and which are likely not, or else this will all just start up again when the editing freeze ends in a month. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This appears to be an attempt to do an end-run around the results (or, to be precise, lack thereof) at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. There is no consensus at all that a notability guideline is needed (see, for example, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations#What's the matter with WP:N? and no clear views on what such a guideline should include. By definition, guidelines have no hope of being completed or adopted if editors don't think that they're needed and can't agree on their content. As such, there's no reason to suspend AfDs to facilitate something which isn't going to happen. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support—Provided that the freeze is time-limited, the moratorium on creating new X-Y relations stubs/articles is vigorously enforced, and AfDs that already in progress when the freeze comes into effect are allowed to run their course. These are all element of current/original Stifle-DGG proposal, and losing any of them would be a deal breaker for me. I would add that for AfDs already running if & when the freeze is affected, the existence of the freeze should not be considered a valid reason to !vote keep, and closing admins should disregard any !votes using this logic.

  Also, I do not support a freeze solely for the sake of a freeze. Let's use this time to draft some binding notability guidelines or at least try. I realize there is currently a large chasm between two camps, but I think that if we can come to some agreement around the edges, it will still be better than the current situation even if we still leave a large gray area in the middle . So a suggestion: rather than formulate competing sets guidelines, none of which are likely to stand much of chance of gainng consensus, perhaps we could come up with an array of elements of a guideline, and !vote on each one seperately. At the end of the freeze, which ever elements have consensus would become the guideline. That guideline would probably still have a huge gray area, and there would always be a need to deal with some, maybe most, pairings on a case by case basis, but I believe it would be better than what we've got now, which is just the WP:N. (WP:N would still apply, but the emergent guideline for X-Y relations would hopefully help apply WP:N to these specific cases.) Some examples elements of a guideline that I hope would gain immediate consensus include:

• In general, X-Y relations are not inherently notable.
• Relations between any two countries that share a land border are alway notable.
• Relations between states that, in modern history (20th century), were formerly part of the same country are always notable, i.e. relations among former Soviet states with one another, or relations between states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia.
• Websites of X & Y's governments can generally be used verify facts in an X-Y relations article, but coverage of the topic of X-Y relations in these sites does not, by itself, establish notability of the topic.
• Relations between countries having fought a war are generally notable, with the exception of fighting as part of a multination coalition. For example, the Falklands war is enough to establish that British-Argentine relations are notable, but that the fact Polish troops were part of the coalition in Iraq does not, by itself, establish that Poland-Iraq relations are notable.
• Etc.

So I think getting consensus on as many little points like these as possible would be useful. There's a lot a gray area in WP:N and disagreements about how to interpret it. Even if the exercise only narrows that gray area a little and/or clarifies it only slightly, I still think we'd be better off for it. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There was already a lengthy discussion on what to do with the information in these pitiful stub articles without actually keeping pitiful stub articles on Wikipedia. Most of this work of merging was spearheaded by User:Ikip, but unfortunately he seems to be on an enforced wikibreak for several weeks, so I don't know the status of it or who's taken up the task in the interim. In any case, even then, bringing up articles with valid concerns against them to AfD was never decided to be suspended by concensus, and I see no reason to do so here, given the ability of these articles to be userfied or the ability of users to merge the (scant) information to another article within the week provided. I see no compelling reason not to continue to bring up these articles at AfD, only to end their creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The wikiphilosophical drama surrounding these articles is a waste of time only for those who choose to participate in it. Individual AfDs are a perfectly suitable forum in which to address the issue of their inclusion. Closing admins can give proper weight to the arguments expressed, so bloc voting should in principle not be a problem. We will probably end up with an encyclopedia with a random selection of them, as DGG fears, but these will tend to be the more notable or otherwise interesting ones, so I'm inclined to see this as a feature rather than a bug.  Sandstein  17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• We need to do something. Editors concerned with this matter are dividing into mutually-opposing camps, and it's having an unnecessarily divisive effect.

  Normally I would agree with Sandstein, but the trouble is that the results of the AfDs are not being accepted by either side. Instead, we have significant numbers of them ending up at DRV or being inappropriately relisted at AfD (in one recent case, less than a month after closure as "keep"!) because there's a determination among some parties to see these articles destroyed or killed with fire, and a determination among other parties to retain them, at any cost.

  What I'm saying is that this content issue is in danger of becoming a very messy conduct issue and inaction will not do.

  Also, inaction leaves us open to future editors repeating a similar exercise for purely disruptive purposes.

  So if you don't like the Stifle/DGG proposal, come up with a better one that doesn't involve trying to cope with the whole morass of articles via one of the usual routes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose (as if it wasn't clear, but since we're in "It's not a "vote" it's a "!vote" mode...). Sandstein i think puts it very well. There is no better system for hashing out these kinds of disputes than the one in place. The insistence that i come up with some better system to replace this one because it's "messy" seems to misunderstand the fundamental messyness of people when they disagree. These disputes need to be aired and debated. And not airing and debating them in well-established (albiet creaky and imperfect) forums is a terrible idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Warn and then topic ban disruptive editors Continually ignoring Wikipedia consensus as expressed in notablility guidelines is disruptive and shouldn't be tolerated. Editors are free to disagree with guidelines and to try to change them but to continually disregard them at AfD in order to interrupt the process of deleting articles on non-notable topics should be grounds for a topic ban from the AfD board. WP:NOTE is very clear about the need for article topics to be notable. Let's stop pretending that a break or process change will solve the problem. We have a bunch of articles that are on non-notable topics and they need to be removed from the article space. If an editor tries to interfere with that process by ignoring consensus, warn and then ban. Drawn Some (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Because the problem really isn't an intractable one over nationalistic or ethnic feelings, but that two groups have gotten themselves stuck together like two mountain goats who have locked horns. Both sides simply need to walk away from this for a while, work on something else, then return refreshed & with a clean slate. I offer proof of this with one example: a while ago I created Ethiopia-Qatar relations because I found I honestly could not create it. (Unrelated to this dispute, I have been trying hard not to create any new articles; for the most part, I have succeeded.) Then someone I exchanged heated words with, LibStar, saw the article, and improved it. I left a note thanking him for it, & we've been able to collaborate more or less successfully on the article since then -- which is the ideal of Wikipedia. (The irony of this instance is that much of the content of the article is duplicated in 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden, where it could be argued it makes more sense -- or Ogaden -- & in a less hostile environment we could have an amenable discussion about a possible merge.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The purpose of our suggestion is to not change the general rules for resolving disputes over article notability, or changing the deletion procedure. Normally, I;d tend to agree with Sandstein's overall position: the WP concept of deciding article by article has merit--it prevents a small cadre from trying at some obscure policy decision to foreclose debate on a general matter. Small groups may be best for deciding technical matters, but then whatever they do needs to be exposed by the community and supported by it. Similarly in the opposite situation, in cases where the need for a supermajority prevents making formal policy, as for schools, the practical consistent decisions at individual article discussions can be effectively broadly supported policy. This suits me fine personally, because normally I am much more willing to do immediate time-limited advocacy than trying to fine-tune rules in interminable policy discussions which come to no stable conclusion.

But this is an exceptional situation. The sheer number of these articles prevents rational action. The quantity that are likely to be nominated for deletion and come to AfD greatly exceeds those we have already dealt with. The creation of these articles in this manner was wrong from the start, but given their presence , we must deal somehow with them. A method of sorting that gives 10% error is tolerable--actually I doubt AfD routinely does much better than that. sa method that gets 40% of them wrong is not much better than random, and not worth the detailed and extensive effort this is taking from dozens of people. In much simpler cases, this could perhaps be dealt with by batch nominations, but it has turned out in every batch proposed that some of two of them were much differently notable than the others & it can't really be decided without detailed work on sourcing each of them--sometimes discouragingly without success. This is not a fundamental dispute over the level of notability, but a question about a new type of article for which the old ways don't seem to work very well. The obvious thing to do would seem to be devise new ones. Not that I expect to like the new ones 100%, and neither would Stifle, but we can agree on something better. One cannot reach a compromise while the matters subject to compromise are unreasonably vanishing or unreasonably being kept, and where each decision reasonable or not is appealed individually. There are 3 rational things to do: throw them all out & wait till someone does them right, keep them all in and hope that someone does them right, or figure out how to sort them into those capable of rapid improvement and those incapable. This is not a topic I really care to work on personally, and I'd be glad of almost any stable compromise. The point of this is to free up AfD for the things we need to do there individually. DGG (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I only support this till June 30 and a review thereafter if issues resurface again. I do not agree that somehow during this time (or longer), a new bilateral notability guideline will be magically developed given that 2 months ago people tried to and it got nowhere. I think it would be really difficult to get any consensus on a guideline. So I support this solely for people to calm down and get over it. I do not support attempts by stop nominations from any other process except gaining consensus here or WP:SANCTIONS. I do not support any admins taking matters into their own hands and unilaterally starting to block people for nominating AfDs without community consensus. So on that token, if this proposal fails, people should feel free to nominate for deletion or create as per usual. I will however abide by any decision reached by clear consensus here. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I agree with everything Drawn Some has written, but I still would be happy to have a break to see if some better strategy can be determined. I would like some forum to be established where DGG and Stifle could moderate a discussion (please). There is no point in having a long is so vs is not hands-over-ears argument. Instead, I suggest a page with a Reasons to keep section that is edited by those in favor of keeping (no signatures; just edit to achieve the best argument), and another Reasons to delete section to be edited by those opposing. I would pick just one or two examples to discuss, say User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations. Perhaps something could grow from that? I suppose those who want to keep many of the X–Y relations articles are frustrated with people like me who repeatedly say that a particular relation fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. But I am more frustrated because I don't see any response from the keepers other than to add a few more sourced factoids, then say that the source is notable, so the factoid and the relation must be notable also. There is no attempt by those supporting the articles to engage in what "notable" actually means, or to say what their favored outcome is (18,000 X-Y articles?). For example, there are no "keep" arguments at User_talk:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg_relations. So I want one page where one set of arguments can be tuned, and we'll what is the best from each side, and whether some compromise is possible. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support We need a wikipedia wide vote on the rules. As it is now, the policies and guidelines are determined by whatever small group of people can camp out there arguing the longest and get their way across. What you end up with, is the same arguments being made at the same types of AFD, this time national relationship articles. Sometimes they are kept, sometimes not, depending on whoever is around at the time to form a consensus, and the opinions of the closing administrator. Some wish to delete things outright, while others say leave them be, and others may expand on them over time. Some claim government websites shouldn't be used as references, because they don't trust governments, even when its just an announcement of a treaty which isn't something any nation would actually ever possibly have a reason to lie about. Some believe one nation once being a colony of another, and strongly influenced by them culturally is a notable relationship, while others do not. Same for economic treaties, one nation's troops inside another nation for peacekeeping or other reasons, and etc. Different opinions. We need to decide on what is acceptable, and what is not, before moving forward. Dream Focus 09:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support We're having the same argument at WP:Afd every time. Then re-arguing it at WP:DRV. The policy obviously needs to be clarified. I think we should try to resolve what the words "significant" and "trivial" with regard to sources in the notability policy really mean because that's where I see most of the problems arising. Is a visit by a head of state significant? Is the creation of an embassy? A big football game? Organizationally speaking, would this information fit best on a foreign relations article, a state to state relations article, or a specific article about that visit or embassy or football match? Is it against policy to have all three or is it just an aesthetic judgment? These things should have been clarified months ago but were not. In the interim, the Afd discussions have continued, resulting in a large amount of well sourced information being deleted (when it could have been merged but was not) and the acrimony between editors has increased. The pressure, on both sides, to just add votes instead facts to the Afd discussions has increased with the tidal wave of deletion nominations. This flood also prevents adequate research from being conducted to save worthy articles by the Article rescue Squad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no flood of articles. I listed the numbers for the last week above and it is less than three a day, usually one or two. This perception that there is some huge number or that our process is flawed is not based in reality. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

tidal wave? how about the super mega mega tidal wave of Groubani in producing 100s if not 1000s of stubs that has soaked up weeks of editors' time in cleaning it up? Groubani was only stopped after being banned for excessive stub creation. If Groubani actually researched which were notable or not, we wouldn't have this problem. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: the crux of the problem here is insoluable without wider concensus on if these topics are notable or not. The issue here is that one group of editors is convinced they are inherently not, and therefore can accept no outcome but delte, while another group of editors is convinced they are, and can accept no outcome but keep. This has devolved into a drive to nominate all such articles to be deleted and vote them up/down as quickly as possible so the otherside can't "win". The utter failure of the two group's attempts at compromise shows this issue must be taken out of their hands entirely, and a wider community concensus developed on these articles as a class. Note, that if this pause is not used by uninvolved editors to develop such a concensus (and the willingness to enforce it thereafter) this silly battle will just start up again. T L Miles (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support for one month. Beyond 30 days I would oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support...kinda I opposed a blanket moratorium when it was proposed on WT:AFD (or someplace like that), because it seemed to me to be a tactical tool against opposition and a demand for inclusion masked by a call for consistency. I'm still worried that a similar freeze will result in the same outcome, but I don't really like the alternative. I will say that freezing these AfDs/articles and getting some centralized discussion will not resolve the dispute. I hate to shatter expectations here but the dispute isn't so much about the articles as it is about a philosophical stance regarding wikipedia. The articles themselves (like E&C articles before them and pokemon before them) are the impetus. we will not, at the end of 30 days, be any closer to agreement on where a line should be drawn demarcating the encyclopedia. At worst, we will sanction people who ignore this freeze and consider ourselves better off (the traditional DR result). At best we will come to some local agreement which respects BOTH sides as bringing points to the table. This "full speed ahead" crap or this "I think that nothing should be deleted" crap needs to be left out if any progress is to be made. I'm not optimistic, given that BOTH sides of the inclusion debate merrily torpedoed our last attempt at an amicable compromise over notability. But me being optimistic is not a necessary condition for action. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support suspending this ongoing battle I'm not bothered if this is for twelve or two-hundred months but this ongoing battling at AfD, DrV et al is draining on the community and forcing them to civilly engage or desist seems the best option. There are hundreds of articles in these groupings and by the looks of things at leats a few editors won't be happy until they can remove everyone they don't approve. I have little doubt we'll soon see a merging war as well so please consider a moritorium on that as well. Staying just within community standards is actually still violating the spirit of why we have standards including guidelines and policies. -- Banjeboi 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support I propose that we form a committee of 2, DGG and Stifle, and let them come up with a way forward during those 30 days. (Oh, wait, they have lives elsewhere, damn). Seriously though, I do think the two of them could come up with something reasonable in a few hours. I personally think WP:N is the right way to go here. But the block voting is killer. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't have a consensus on why relationships are notable, and we will keep not having it if we can't test it at AfD and see how articles are saved. Also, this would artificially prevent the removal of any relation that totally fails to pass WP:N because of utter lack of any source talking about the relationship. And if it doesn't pass WP:N, then it won't pass any future guidelines interpreting WP:N, so why should it be kept. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal

How about a mass-removal of all these articles from the mainspace into a special userspace where those who like these articles can work on them in the meantime? They can be moved into the mainspace when some reasonable criteria are agreed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You want to move all of them? That sounds like it'll complicate matters. I don't think anyone could realistically think that Russia-United States relations should be temporarily erased from a main article space and it will never happen. There would just be a fruitless discussion about which articles should be moved that would mirror the current discussion about which articles should be deleted. I oppose this proposal.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support I offered the same proposal and support it. It completely eliminates the problem and everyone is happy. The non-notable articles are out of the main space and none are deleted so if anyone wants to work on them they can. We don't even need a special userspace, I volunteer mine and I'll be glad to help move the articles. I should be able to do about two a minute or over 100 an hour so it is doable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Question some of them are perfectly OK by anyone's conceivable standpoint with respect to notability, eg Iraq – United States relations, so I suppose you mean that this be done instead of deletion in all cases? Or just that closers consider this more frequently? DGG (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's articles should remain in one place, one namespace. There are no special cases to be made for certain classes of articles; forking is not a solution. (You could create a bilateral relations wiki if you'd like, though.) Cenarium (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Many articles are drafted in userspace or project space. If the subject is notable the article should be in the mainspace, if the subject is not notable the article should be deleted, if the notability is unclear but there is a reasonable possibility it could be established through further editing, the article should be in user space or project space. In this case it would seem that project space would make the most sense. In fact we have WikiProjects with this in their scope, viz WikiProject International relations. Maybe a subpage or even a subproject of that project would be a good place to move these. Instead of a moratorium, we could continue with the current process but when an AFD consensus is unclear or particularly contentious move the article to project space for further work. When enough sources are available it could be moved back to the mainspace.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but in those cases, project space or user space is used as a sandbox for creating articles, or a workplace for improvements. There are a few wikiprojects doing that, but they plan to move the content in mainspace eventually. Doing so couldn't address the issue of notability for those 41 209 potential articles, anyway, which is the main problem. Cenarium (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in your assessment of the problem. You need to divide by two for the potential number to account for Greece-Italy and Italy-Greece not being separate articles. The actual number is much lower. You may not realize that these articles were created by a now-banned user. Removing the articles from the main space would restore the status quo before that vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually it makes 20 503 articles by excluding relations with oneself (with 203 states, based on List of sovereign states). But that would be much work to move them somewhere else. And I don't see how it would address the main problem, their notability and the ensuing disputes, and there's the problem of which ones should be moved, I'm sure people would disagree and we may have arguments and maybe even move wars over this. Limiting the number of AFDs to give time to improve or merge those articles would be a better solution, in my opinion. Cenarium (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As Cenarium says. Removing all is overkill and will cause lots of complaints. And I'm not sure that this makes a good predecende, with a whole class of articles being downgraded to a second-grade tier. And specially since some have managed to pass AFD with flying colors after being improved, so we would be degrading those too. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed closing of consensus on June 17

Dear all, as Stifle started this ANI on June 10, I am proposing a non-involved admin to close this on June 17 and make a decision regarding on consensus of this proposal. If it is passed, I think the actual time of the proposal standstill is not clear as many editors differ on the timeframe. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with this proposal. If there is a consensus to enact it, I intend to begin work on notability criteria for FBR articles (along the lines of "topics with features A, B, and C are presumed to be notable, topics with no features other than X, Y, and Z are presumed not to be notable, and anything in between is a matter for discussion in each individual case"). Stifle (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• And just signing here to stop the bot archiving. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Zelenoff/Vintagekits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A number of uninvolved admins have now reviewed and concluded no further action is merited. There is no evidence of sock-puppetry, no evidence the editors are perpetuating a hoax or spoof and no evidence of ongoing disruption. Rockpocket 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention Vintagekits (talk · contribs) edits to the Charlie Zelenoff article and subsequent behavior. It's a spoof article that was just deleted for the third time. I was not aware at the time that two other editors had already separately deleted the article before I stumbled upon "see also" links to the article on a notable MMA fighter page (Kimbo Slice). Vintagekits claims he is not the UCLA student using the alias Charlie Zelenoff in a quest to become an internet sensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Zelenoff&action=edit&redlink=1

Charlie Zelenoff is supposedly a notable boxer, however, upon investigation I found that the he only had 1 spoof fight that went half a round before he gave up against a fighter with a losing record. Vintagekits left a note on my page making it clear that we will have to endlessly delete the Charlie Zelenoff spoof page. He seems quite eager to continue wasting editors time.

Here is what he wrote on my talk page:

"I'll take it that you actually havent got an answer as opposed to not wanting to continue the discussion. I think you are mixing up the terms "spoof" and "non-notable". In a !vote of 4:3 it has been deemed that at this moment he is not notable. However, with an upcoming fight next month there will be more material on Zelenoff and the likelihood that the article will be recreated. Personally, I look forward to it!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"

I'm the third editor who has had to deal with vintagekits on the Charlie Zelenoff article alone. I believe he may have a second editor alias that he uses to agree with himself by the name of LiamE (talk · contribs)

I've encouraged him to move onto greener pastures, but he seems intent upon being a disruptive force on Wikipedia and reposting articles that have been deleted multiple times. I propose that he be banned from editing the Charlie Zelenoff page and that a quick search be done to see if he's using multiple editor names to create a false consensus. Lordvolton (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you want to be careful who you are accusing of what there matey. I think your lack of assumption of good faith on my part and that of Vintagekits does you no favours. A quick glance at the edit histories of myself and Vintagekits would assure any sane person that we are most certainly seperate individuals. As for your assertions that Zelenhoff's fight was a "spoof" I think you need to look a bit closer at the facts of the matter. The fight was reffed by a professional judge who has reffed fights for the likes of Bruce Seldon, Donny Lalonde and Iran Barkley and was licenced by the state board. It was, most certainly, a pro fight. Furthermore your dismissal of his notability flies in the face of the great deal of internet chatter about him. I have seen a single forum discussion thread on him with over a third of a million hits and something like 55000 replies. Now I realise most of the chatter centres around how remarkably bad he is at his chosen profession but the fact he is more infamous than famous should not be a bar to having an article on him. If it were we should go ahead and remove articles on Eric Crumble and Eddy the Eagle for starters. Now, I won't recreate the article as it was deleted but it is only a matter of time before someone else recreates it as it is exactly the sort of thing that some people will look to find here. The deleted article was factual and sourced and pretty well written. He is a current pro boxer with another fight lined up. How many fights will he have to have (and most probably lose) before you accept he warrants an article? --LiamE (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A. I am not quite sure what exactly I am being accused of here to be honest. is he saying I am Zelenoff?
• B. One point that sticks out is that Lordvolton doesnt seem to know the difference between "non notable" and "fake"/"spoof". Its something I have asked him to explain on a number of occasions without success. One thing that cannot be argued is that Zelenoff exists!.
• C. I participated in the recent AfD of Zelenoff and the closing admin made some rather interesting analysis which I dont really consider valid but hey-ho thats the way it gos sometimes. I have no problem with that and actually had a rather muture discussion with him here about it.
• D. Actually it was Lordvolton that nominated Zelenoff for deletion. Again I have no problem with that - the guy (Zelenoff) is an idiot and has had only one fight and lost that - so he is entitled to do that. However, what he also did whilst the AfD was proceeding was remove all the redirects and references to Zelenoff on other pages. He was asked to stop this and explain his actions on two occasions, here by Willking and here by me but continued and never answered. Infact I really struggle to have any kind of policy based discussion with the guy and find him pretty irrational (like I find being reported here for this a little absured!). I am not sure I could have interacted with the guy in a more patient and balanced manner.
• E. I notice that this seems to be a recurring theme with Lordvolton who seems to consider AfD as personal attacks. In the last AfD he was involved in that it followed a similar pattern and that he was blocked for incivility and warned about canvassing.
• F. It reminds me of the situation with Kimbo Slice when that article was AfD twice prior to sufficient secondary sources worked there way through to mainstream media - the difference being that Slice is pretty good and Zelenoff is embarrassingly bad. What does this LordZolton guy want? a complete ban on the article ever being created again? That isn't going to happen in my opinion - Zelenoff has a second professional fight coming up next month and hopefully there will be new sources that come forward to justify an article - if not then it will stay deleted. I would be happy if more and better sources do come forward. Until then he will just have to stay an internet forum hero.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the Charlie Zelenoff AFD, I think I'll add a few comments. I have no evidence that either Vintagekits or LiamE have behaved inappropriately here. While they disagreed with my closure of the AFD, and quite strongly, both of them were civil about it, and have abided by the decision. The deletion log does not show any recreation of that article since the AFD was closed.

The first deletion was an A7 speedy delete, and recreating an article which does assert notability is routine practice. DGG who deleted the article a second time made a selective restoration of the article upon request, so I see no edit-warring or other inappropriate behavior there either.

I gather that Vintagekits and LiamE have an interest in reposting an article when the person becomes more notable (i.e. fights more matches), which is an accepted Wikipedia practice although a draft in userspace for community review is perhaps the best approach.

There is clearly a measure of disagreement on whether "internet fame" is a sufficient grounds for calling someone notable, as well as whether boxers like Mr. Zelenoff who are officially "professional", yet have not produced results which they can build a career on. In the AFD I closed, I felt the consensus, as well as the arguments, supported deletion; but it was not a unanimous decision. The people who argued to keep the article were not being stupid in their arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, I will create a Zelenoff page in my user space and as and when new sources come to hand I will add them. I will then give you and the Boxing Project a heads up as to when it is in a fit state to be recreated and discuss uploading it again then. p.s. thanks for your input. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion a few thousand views on a YouTube article is not "internet fame". Simply stating there is "disagreement" doesn't answer the question of whether that disagreement is reasonable. One of the YouTube comments states that everyone has been duped and that the whole thing is a hoax, a hoax perpetuated by Vintagekits on Wikipedia. A student at UCLA working on a school project who fought half a round against a guy who with 1 win and 13 losses is not notable. The question we have to ask is why Vintagekits would work so hard to post and repost an article for this UCLA student? This is not debate about whether Vintagekits invests incredible amounts energy defending his actions after the fact -- he seems to enjoy exploring the limits of notability and the patience of other editors. The facts are far more important than the fervency of his defense.

There are scores of legitimate fighters with a single fight who lost. They're also not notable even if they have a YouTube video of that loss. To defend his actions Vintagekits references Kimbo Slice, an MMA fighter who has fought for EliteXC and appeared on CBS. Kimbo Slice now fights for the UFC. But let's assume Vintagekits had a basis for his unfair comparison, which is YouTube.

Kimbo Slice has millions of views of actual fights prior to his MMA career. Tbe UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff has 20,000 views of a media experiment for class with a lot of negative comments. That's just a blatant attempt at failed self promotion which is continued here on Wikpedia - Vintagekits even promotes this activity by creating "see also" links on the Kimbo Slice page. There are plenty of other fighters with losing records who Vintagekits is not constantly creating article for in the state of Arkansas. Why Charlie Zelenoff? The comparison itself is flawed since Kimbo Slice was not attempting to create a spoof and participated in street fights for money -- not in a boxing ring for half a round as a hoax.

Vintagekits tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an idiot, but his actions speak otherwise. A person you think is an idiot is not the person you faithfully defend and create articles to promote and link to on legitimate fighters pages. The only reasonable action is to ban Vintagekits and any other editor names he may be using from recreating the Charlie Zelenoff page and whatever other actions are deemed necessary given his past history on Wikipedia. Otherwise we end up condoning spurious articles and countless hours debating with Vintagekits about their notability. Lordvolton (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this matter WAAAAY to seriously and are throwing accusations around like confetti. Have you ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that VK is in ANYWAY related to Charlie Zelenhoff? Have you got ANY evidence that I am an alias / shill for VK? Have you got ANY evidence that either myself or VK has acted in anyway that is not entirely reasonable with regards to this matter? Have you got ANY proof that the fight was indeed a spoof as you so fervently claim? "A few thousand" hits is a bit of an understatement dont you think when a single thread at East Side Boxing about him has has upwards of a third of a million views and 55000 or more posts. That alone puts him head and shoulders above other 1 fight novices in terms of noteriety. Now dont get me wrong I am a not stupid and can clearly see that Zelenhoff's career may well be a staged stunt but that does not make his pro fight any less real nor his noteriety for ineptitude and the less. Frankly you appear to acting in bad faith on this matter and seem to have a personal grudge with VK. You have made your mind up its a spoof and wont listen to anything else and want to have bans thrown around for no oither reason that someone dares to disagree with you. Can we be clear here... why should anyone get a ban from anything over this issue? And what are you actually here to complain about? --LiamE (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's extremely safe to say that Vintagekits is neither Charlie Zelenoff not a student at UCLA, if that's what's being alleged here. I don't think there's any outing involved (given that a quick skim over his history will show it) to say that VK is from Sligo (and has uploaded numerous self-taken photos of the Sligo area). VK can be a pain in some areas, but in almost three years I've never – as in, never – known him to be wrong about anything related to boxing. – iridescent 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In the few days I've had to deal with him he's been wrong multiple times: 3 times with regard to the Charlie Zelenoff article alone. He's been unable to explain his zeal for reposting an article on a fighter who went half a round as a spoof. Worse, he tells us that he's looking forward to it being REPOSTED -- only days after it was deleted for the third time. In the next breathe he tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an "idiot". It doesn't add up.

I believe the only reasonable response is to ban him from the article. Lordvolton (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain exactly these 3 things I said that was "wrong". 1. I havent "reposted" the article. I may to in the future when the article is in a stronger position. I posted the article - once! 2. My "zeal" - I believe he is notable at the moment per WP:ATHELTE but I will wait until he actually fights again and she if the bring more sources to the article and discuss it prior to I or others colleagues posting the article. You dont seem to be able to discuss the issue in a logical manner so I probably wont be replying again. In the mean time enjoy this piece of journalism - hopefully you can add to it and make it better. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that Wikipedia is an ongoing process and that new facts or evidence can of course justify the recreation of a previously deleted article. By the way, I don't think that one must have a positive opinion of an article's subject to consider it notable - otherwise Wikipedia would surely have no articles about murderers, war criminals or dictators. Futhermore if the time someone has spent on an article would be suitable to make assumptions, then you would put up with speculations, too. Overlooking User:Vintagekits actions, I can't see anything he has done wrong, therefore I reckon this discussion redundant.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If Vintagekits hadn't reposted the article multiple times and communicated his desire to do it yet again only days after it being deleted for the third time we could have given him the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe posting and reposting and then stating this will continue should be rewarded. At a minimum, a ban from the Zelenoff spoof article should be enforced. If you think you're dealing with someone who is reasonable, this is what he had to say to another editor named BastunnutsaB regarding some of his other edits:

"A request for Arbcom enforcement concerning you has been made here. BastunnutsaB 11:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   You are an absolute dick! Talk about trying to cause hassle and drama where there isnt any.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"

Is this the voice of a reasonable editor? Lordvolton (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the words I would have chosen but the sentiment is pretty representative of a reasonable editor on the receiving end of your accusations and ramblings on this matter. You are continuing to make a drama where none exists. You have continued to throw around baseless accusations and you continue to push an OR POV that the fight was a spoof. I've asked if you have evidence to back up your claims and accusations. Where is it?? --LiamE (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And while you are at it please let us know why VK being involved in an entirely seperate Arbcom discussion has any bearing on this matter. --LiamE (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They're not baseless accusations - they're fact. Did you watch the single Zelenoff fight on YouTube? He went half a round before his corner waved off the fight against an opponent who had 1 win and 13 losses. Have you read the comments? It was a hoax. It's time for you and the other editor named Vintagekits to stop promoting Charlie Zelenoff and wasting our time. The joke, of course, is on us since we continue to give you and the other editor named Vintagekits our undivided attention. If the UCLA student posing as Zelenoff cannot become an "internet sensation" maybe he can become notorious on Wikipedia for frustrating editors. You're the same editor who was has repeatedly supported Vintagekits in his efforts to promote Zelenoff stating it's "definitely a keep".

Vintagekits has little respect for other editors as evidenced by his harsh words for BastunnatsaB. And his edits reflect that of a editor that is not mindful of other editors time. I'm the third editor forced to take this issue up and absent a ban on Vintagekits and whatever other editor names he may be using on this article we'll be back here again. And I expect we'll see fervent defenses by Vintagekits with consensus from LiamE, as has been the case in the past.

We will eventually see another "see also" link on Kimbo Slice to Charlie Zelenoff. Vintagekits will no doubt play other Wikipedia editors for fools prefacing his comments with things "sadly, he is for real". It's a spoof and we need not waste any other editors time playing nanny for Vintagekits and whatever other editor names he may be using on this topic. Again, I believe at a bare minimum a ban is appropriate given his unwillingness to stop reposting the article and creating "see also" links on legitimate fighter pages such as Kimbo Slice. He's also gone through the trouble of listing Charlie Zelenoff as a notable person from California and Los Angeles -- quite a bit of energy for someone that he claims he holds in low regard? Lordvolton (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Your assertion that the fight was a spoof despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary is a comment on a youtube video? And because some editors dont agree with your stance bans should be handed out to editors that have acted reasonably in this matter? VK's behaviour in other matters has no bearing here. I've asked for you evidence to back up your claim and accusations. So far all I can is see a comment abut a youtube video. Seems to me like you reaching a bit. Again I ask you where is your evidence I am an alias or shill for VK? If you want to drag my name through the mud man up and back up yoru accusation with something. Where is you evidence that the fight was a spoof? Where is your evidence taht VK has repeatedly reposted the page? Where is your evidence that VK or myself intend to submit the page again without more information being available? In fact where is the evidence for ANY of your claims taht have any bearing on this matter?? --LiamE (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So, three days after accusing me of being a sock / shill for VK in what I can only assume is an effort to get me banned from wikipedia for simply disagreeing with you in a reasonable manner you still have produced exactly nothing to back up your claim. I want to hear why you made that assertion or I want you to acknowledge you made an error of judgement and retract your accusation against me. Do you seriously think that VK had the foresight to make an alias a year before his main account and despite being involved in several heated discussions only decides to use that alias to back himself up on the matter of a dreadful boxer? A matter that had been resolved without any drama whatsoever as far as I can see until you started throwing baseless accusations around.

For the record, despite your repeated claims, the fight certainly was not a spoof and the article was deleted not on the basis of it being a spoof but not meeting notability standards. I disagree with that, but I accept that and I have gone about noting my disagreement in a reasonable manner. It is standard wiki practice for these matters to be revisited if and when more evidence of notability arises. It is not for you to crystal ball and say it can't happen and therefore those looking for more evidence of notability should be banned from the article. This, however, is a very minor point in comparison to the accusation of sockpuppetry / shilling made against me which could potentially lead to me being banned for wikipedia entirely if it had any substance or an admin made an error on the matter. Time to put up or shut up. Where is the evidence I am an alias for an account created a year after my own, edited from different locations, with very divergent editing histories? If you have none be a man about it and retract your accusation.

If you want to make accusations against editors such as myself I think perhaps you should keep your own house in order. I notice some of your recent edits could be construed as canvassing, you have previously been blocked for incivility and have used your own blog as a cite to push your own POV in articles. --LiamE (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that it's non-notable -- it's his stated desire to see it reposted. Charlie Zelenoff was a hoax. Do you vehemently defend every fighter who has gone half a round and lost against a fighter with a record of 1 win and 13 losses? Is that your standard for notability?

If he had not gone through the trouble of linking and re-linking to a famous MMA fighter Kimbo Slice perhaps nobody would have noticed the failed media experiment and been the wiser.

The fact that you both act in unanimity on spurious articles makes one wonder. Why is LiamE so eager to defend an article that has been deleted three times? I know you claim you're not VintageKits, but a quick review of the records will determine it one way or the other. If you're not the same editor, then you need to review the guidelines and stop assisting VintageKits in his efforts to waste other editors time.

Perhaps the UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff can bring this hoax to a conclusion? I wonder if he gets extra credit for wasting editors time into the summer session? And then VintageKits can go back to editing articles in a non-disruptive manner. A much easier solution is to simply ban VintageKits and whatever other editor name he may be using. Otherwise we'll be reading reams of point, counter point by VintageKits and LiamE, which has become a familiar patten. Lordvolton (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is ridiculous, Lordvolton. First of all, Vintagekits is not a UCLA student. I lives and edits many thousands of miles from there. Secondly, he is not editing from multiple accounts. Why? Because that could easily be shown by a check-user and, if he would found to be sockpuppeteering again, he would be perma-banned. Do you really think he would risk that for this stupid little article? Finally, although he didn't exactly state it in the nicest way, what he said is correct. There is every likelihood that this person will eventually become notable enough for an article. This is done, let it go please. Rockpocket 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You really are incredible. "I know you claim you're not VintageKits, but a quick review of the records will determine it one way or the other." How about having a quick look yourself before posting baseless and very serious accusations? I will ask you one last time before I take this matter further. Post your evidence that I am an alias of Vinatgekits or retract your accusation. Your behaviour towrds me to my mind has now crossed the line from an honest mistake to a personal attack. To repeatedly assert that I am an alias is a serious matter on wikipedia with serious consequences and should not be done lightly.

Perhaps you don't realise that Kimbo Slice fame started off as internet chatter. Now whereas Slice has some ability Zelenhoff appears to have none and has a significant ammount of notability because of that in boxing circles. Has it not occurred to you that both I and Vintagekits might know a little more about the subject matter than you? Has it not occurred to you that we might just happen to agree on this subject because of our knowledge of the matter at hand?

Your repeated assertions that he is a hoax is pure WP:OR and is nearly as baseless as your accusations against myself of sockpuppetry. Where is your cite to say he is a hoax? A comment on youtube video? Ah come off it. If you want I can link a dozen youtube comments saying Joe Calzaghe is a fraud. Shall we assume he is a hoax based on that?

I noted my disagreement to the original ruling based on the level of discussion about him in boxing circles. The two most popular threads about zelenoff at one major boxing site have had 420,000 plus views and about 65,000 posts. In comparison the 2 most popular threads about boxers other than zelenoff have had half the views and a fraction of the posts. But if you knew a little more about the subject, you'd already know that.

As for timewasting, please dont make me laugh. You seem to be the one causing all the fuss over this matter. Your assertion that VK should be banned from the article because he would like to see it reposted is beyond banal. IT IS STANDARD WIKI PRACTICE TO REVISIT SUCH ARTICLES AS AND WHEN MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Now, retract your accusation of sockpuppetry against me please or I will have to take the matter forward. Feel free to take the time to investigate my edit history, something you should have taken the time to do before making the accusation. --LiamE (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lest there be any doubt, here is a link to the fight. Charlie Zelenoff (aka UCLA acting student) with a professional record of NO WINS and NO LOSSES versus Andrew Hartley with a professional record of 1 win and 13 losses at the time of the fight – Mr. Hartley has lost two more times since this fight.

The UCLA student lasts for half a round before you see his corner wave off the fight. He ends up with a record of 0 wins and 1 loss. Clearly this is not a notable fighter but if he were then anyone who gets into a shoving match on YouTube could have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxtDLPKnDA

Here is my favorite comment found on page 2:

“Just to let you guys know, you have been scammed for the last year. charlie zelenoff was a student at UCLA doing comedy for a class he was taking. i would say he was pretty successful after the first 3 months with the height of his popularity. now he does it to make a name for himself and to make money on the side. his goal is satire and to become an internet legend. charlie planned to quit before the fight started. his real name aint even charlie zelenoff. folks he is acting.”-uzkoglazieyCharlieZ

The hoax worked fantastically! We’ve got two editors who are “punch drunk” writing articles about it. The truth came out two months ago and they won’t let it go.

My hope is it’s actually the UCLA student trying to plug himself in a failed attempted to become an “internet legend”, otherwise we have one (or possibly two) editors with no regard for Wikipedia guidelines. I find it hard to imagine someone plugging the UCLA student posing as Zelenoff for no reason, but stranger things have happened.

On a random aside, how do you become an internet legend by losing to a guy with 1 win and 13 losses?

The “see also” links on the Kimbo Slice page, who is a legitimate internet legend and MMA fighter, led me to believe there may be some nefarious activity. Perhaps I over estimate the research skills of Vintagekits who others have said is well versed in boxing – I’m taking them at their word.

And that is why we must ban Vintagekits from this article and determine if LiamE is the same editor. It’s time for this disruptive media experiment to finally end with the swift hand of Wikipedia justice. Lordvolton (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's time for this disruptive media experiment to end. This thread is achieving nothing. Vintagekits isn't about to be banned from any boxing-related article (barring a serious meltdown). There doesn't seem to be any ongoing disruption that needs admin attention. Editors are encouraged to work on draft articles in user space. If, after a reasonable period, you feel that an article page in user space is no longer being worked on, then nominate it at WP:MfD. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether VintageKits should be banned from legitimate boxing articles is a separate issue, however, with regard to this hoax article I believe the only reasonable course of action is to ban VintageKits and whatever other editorial names he may be using. Otherwise we'll be forced to repeatedly watch Charlie Zelenoff's opponent with 1 win and 13 losses (now 15 losses) have a CHAMPIONSHIP BELT placed around his waist after defeating an aspiring comedian in a spoof fight. Was that the Arkansas Middle School Championship?

Clearly, this doesn't reflect well on VintageKits or LiamE's research. The article has been deleted three times so they've had several opportunities to correct their mistakes, instead they've repeatedly reposted the article and vigorously defended it and linked it to other legitimate fighters. This results in other editors eventually being introduced to VintageKits and by default LiamE.

A lot of professors question the reliability of Wikipedia and its this process that protects the integrity of the articles.

If VintageKits and others are allowed to recklessly post articles, even after they've been given every opportunity to behave in a manner that is respectful of others, then we've not only failed in our duties but we've proven those skeptics of Wikipedia to be correct. This isn't just about VintageKits, it's about the standards set down by Wikipedia and whether we have the courage to stop abuse. If this were the first time VintageKits had posted the article and there was reasonable disagreement then these harsh measures may not be required, but VintageKits has proven time and again that simply asking him nicely to stop doesn't work.

The repeated offenses merit a stronger response. At a bare minimum he should be banned from this hoax article. Whether his recent actions on other articles are deserving of more extreme measures is something I will leave up to others as I haven't bothered to review his edits.

Although Wikipedia may have its critics when it comes to the reliability and notability of articles, I am confident justice will prevail. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

William S. Saturn

A year ago, while I was away, my previous account, User:Southern Texas was blocked for sockpuppetry. The user talk page was protected after another member of my household used the account in an attempt to get me unblocked out of guilt for her actions as a sockpuppet. She was asked to create a new account by User:Sam Korn. After I returned from my trip, I found that my account had been blocked and the talk page protected. I had my sister log in as "Uga Man," (her main account) and I gave an explanation of what had occurred. This explanation can still be viewed at User talk:Uga Man. Administrators did not believe the explanation and declined to unblock the account. So I decided to start over and took Sam Korn's advise. That is when I created this account. If one looks at the edits of User:Uga Man and compares them to my edits under Southern Texas and William S. Saturn, they will see that the accounts belong to two different people. This month, I decided to return as an active editor, and I explained the situation to the admin User:Happyme22. He advised me to post the situation here. My request is for the Southern Texas account to have the sockpuppet label removed and for it to be redirected to my page. If possible, I would like for the edits of Southern Texas to be merged to this account. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Texas (now William S. Saturn) and I interacted with one another on pages including Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008. That is why I was shocked to see that he had been blocked for sockpuppetry. He recently came to me as William S. Saturn seeking a copyedit on Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008, revealing that he was Southern Texas and explaining the situation to me with his request.[4] I suggested taking it to WP:AN to gather other opinions. He was relunctant at first, fearing that admins would misundestand his quandry and promptly block his new account.[5] Thus here I am, informing all parties that I have had a history with Southern Texas/William Saturn and believe him to be telling the truth. The edits of Uga Man (his sister) and Southern Texas are starkly different and does give some credence to Saturn's claim that the two truly are different people; Uga Man edited a wide range of articles while Southern Texas' edits were usually contrained to presidential campaigns and political figures. I am unaware, however, if merging the edits of the two accounts and redirecting the old Southern Texas information and user space to the new William S. Saturn page is even possible -- I'm not an extremely experienced admin. Happyme22 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the background on the claims of the actual human using the cited accounts, there is a constellation of sockpuppet accounts that were banned from use, and the history of the banning should not be obfuscated, nor should the fact of their banning be made confusing or obscure by merger of the account's history into other accounts. As such I oppose the request of William S. Saturn, whose accounts in the past, apparently more than a few times have broken past promises on the topic of intention to behave according to Wikipedia standards. This history should not be hidden. The constellation of sockpuppet accounts participated in editing, among other things, high profile political biographies and political article templates during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign. I urge reviewing administrators to look at the the background made visible in this posting on the Administrators noticeboard:

Incident Archive: Case of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry Reported at 19:24, May 13, 2008 -- Action by admin: User: east718

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Given the length of time elapsed, I have no problem in having the user page for the old user redirect to the new user page, but I oppose merging histories or anything like that, for the reasons that User:Yellowdesk has articulated above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

• Technical note: From Wikipedia:Changing username#General notes, "It is not possible for bureaucrats to merge [editing histories of] two accounts".--64.85.217.144 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I also worked with Southern Texas on political articles at the time. The user had a rocky beginning with some edit warring, then stabilized to become a better and useful editor who did a lot of positive work in the less visible parts of the 2008 presidential candidates set. I was surprised to see the sockpuppet-running come out, but after looking over talk pages and based on my WP instinct, I believed then, and still do, that Southern Texas really was engaged in some good hand/bad hand activity. I have no quarrel with the new William S. Saturn account, but I would oppose the obscuring or merging of the Southern Texas account or history. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: William S. Saturn is asking me to explain myself beyond saying it's my 'instinct'. I didn't do then, and don't want to do now, the detailed histories analysis and time-period studies and diff-level work and IP address comparisons and motivational understanding and whatnot that goes into a sockpuppet investigation. (I've done enough of that to flush out some socks on other sets of articles.) I don't see the "different posting style" fact as necessarily clearing; any smart sockpuppeteer will adopt a different voice for the socks (although surprisingly, many don't). It's certainly true that if someone does masquerade as you on WP and act badly and you're innocent, then you're really screwed here and no one is likely to believe you. But at the time my sockdar didn't buy Southern Texas' story. If I'm wrong, then perhaps it's unfair that I'm saying this now. If an admin wants to strike my comments off, she can, but a topic like this at AN invites people to respond and so I did. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:I Seek To Help & Repair!

Resolved

 – Nothing really wrong here. –xeno^talk

This is not yet resolved. It seems like I Seek To Help & Repair is being forced into an unnecessary name change. Kingturtle (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I've been considering name change for a while. I especially don't like the ampersand anymore. Thanks anyway Kingturtle

---

Is this chap's userpage appropriate? It doesn't exactly make communication between users easier... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

His userpage is fine. His 'feedback' system's cumbersone, but nothing requires other users to jump through his hoops. The 'new section' button's still there, so it can be used instead of his charts and graphs based triplicate TPS report style. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He should probably be told about the WP:UP#OWN per the statement at the top of the userpage, other than that, I don't see a problem. It's over-the-top-, yes, but you don't have to look at the userpage. –xeno^talk 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dear God, my eyes. You should warn people before doing that. Some of us have hangovers. //roux   17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. His sig signs his username as 'Sought', which is actually the name of another, albeit never-active, user. My memory is hazy on this, but I was under the impression that one must sign with a username that is at least somewhat related to the account name, and definitely not with the username of somebody else. Am I wrong on this? //roux   17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think someone suggested to him in his recent RFA that he change his name anyway, I would echo that; especially given the ampersand which can cause issues with templates and the like. Perhaps he would like to WP:USURP "Sought". –xeno^talk 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Signature forgery: "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents." There are established users who use a signature totally different from their username (like older≠wiser or the numerous people who sign with their real name which is not their username). I don't think it's a problem at all really. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I will change my signature (I was planning on a new signature anyway), but I currently have no desire to change my user name, also I agree with Xeno, you don't have to look at my user page, also, I keep my talk page at soft colors so it does not visually offend anyone, my talk page is necessary to all, my user page is necessary to some. My feedback system: Are you able to leave me feedback? Yes, then isn't that enough? Aren't there other Wikipedians that have far worse, more offensive user pages +? I am aware of the WP:USURP, I also am aware of the ampersand, so if my user name is changed I would like it to be something I like that doesn't contain an ampersand, and I would rather not have a user page that everyone contributes to. If you don't like my user page, then you don't have to stay on it, also, I made the main color yellow, when clearly the harshest colors are blue and red. Thank You, Please contact me if you have anymore concerns Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to check out my signature and maybe edit it for the better, remember the character count Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There you go, it's changed ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fairly incomprehensible. Kind of reads like Ishtar. Have you thought of a simple "I Seek" - short, memorable, reference to the actual name. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please see my usurp notice Thank You, ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with ISTHnR as a signature. If the & is a big deal, may I suggest I Seek To Help n Repair! or I Seek To Help And Repair! ? Kingturtle (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

120+ edits within the last day

Resolved

I have a question, which is unclear. I have been wondering if there's actually a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time.

One editor, SpectrumDT (talk · contribs) has made more than 120 edits within the last day. These edits occurred within less than five hours of editing. According to the edit summaries, all of these edits are category edits, although that's not really important though.

Here's a question. Is there a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time? If there is a more appropriate forum, please feel free to take this somewhere else. I am pointing out who raised the question in case it is AN worthy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not notified the editor of this thread. Can somebody drop a note on the editors talk page? Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

heh... well you probably should have, myth! - I've done so, but must let you know that your request for someone else to drop in a note could come across as a little bit rude, although probably well intentioned :-) - I think the correct response to this thread is 'lurk moar' anyways (or is that 'rtfm'?) - your question isn't a great fit for this board (answer - 120 edits in a day is no problem, no technical limit to edits per day, folk who work with bots will prick their ears up if you start to do 120+ per minute) - there's nothing wrong with using talk pages for such questions, so feel free to drop me a line directly (or someone you know, or someone friendly) if you'd like to chat more... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In future you can use the help desk, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On 14 January, I made more than 5600 edits. No one complained, so it's probably okay to make as many as you want, even as a human. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Were those "5600 edits" all in one day or was that a milestone? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats just a day for J.delanoy. His edit count is in the hundred thousands, I believe. ~fl 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's not unusual to have hundreds of edits in one day's time if you're using AWB or Huggle (even for a brief vandal-hunting session) for instance. MuZemike 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What about how many of which are allowed? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How many of which what, hmmm? (edit #156 for this date). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How many edits are allowed to be made in a period of time. For example, is it okay to make more than 100 edits in a minute? Is it okay to make 2500 edits in one day? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just did a batch of 10 edits in less then a minute. I think there is a rate limit but it's higher than 10 edits per minute, so with that math, you could theoretically perform 14,400 edits a day (10*60*24) without rate limiting. ~fl 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've made at least 200 edits per day for about a year now, with the exception of a couple holidays. It's not a problem. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to pile up 100+ edits in the days I got started on vandal fighting. I guess there's no problem with high edit counts within a limited time unless the editing rate is too high for a human :) Anyway I hope there's not going to be a limit, because J.delanoy has already confessed to a rather scary number of edits in a single day, and he can't get away from us now if we decide to go hunting :P Chamal ^talk 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I once got 1337 edits in one day. (No, seriously 1337...). I've also gotten over 400 edits in 45 minutes when the vandalism was particularly heavy. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember young grasshopper. Its not the quantity of your edits but its quality that counts.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. A low quantity with a good quality is better than a high quantity with a low quality. But, you should also know that quantity also counts in many aspects. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may advise - we are all, supposedly, here to build an encyclopedia, so one should strive to edit in the mainspace as much as possible. Your contribution count, for instance, show 5,204 edits overall, but only 2,076 to articlespace -- which is 39.89% I'd say that's not a particularly good ratio. You need to work a little more and talk a little less (and start frivolous threads on AN nevermore). Wikipedia isn't about having rollback, it's about editing the articles and writing new ones. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"If your EPD is lower than 50, then you are a failure at Wikipedia." (WP:Edits Per Day). hmwithτ 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My EPD is 56.36 (on average), I'm just barely not a failure! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a darn about "edits per day", but I do care that some people seem to think that Wikipedia is some kind of gigantic multi-user role-playing game, or that it exists for the pleasure of these ruminations. It does no harm, on occasion, to remind folks of why we're here, and what we're supposed to be doing. It's bad enough that admins, are forced to spend more time outside of articlespace than they should, but an ordinary editor who isn't actively contributing to the encyclopedia and spends most of their time on talk pages, noticeboards and other frippery ought to be reminded: that's not what we're about. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

A notorious sockmaster has been allowed to create a new account, but with limitations on his editing rights. I question the manner in which this happened and would like to see this discussed thoroughly. IMO, this sets a dangerous precedent that makes the project vulnerable to gaming and undermines confidence in the blocking and unblocking processes. Just how far should AGF be stretched toward such disruptive users?

I would like to see wide community input. So far very few editors have been involved, and I am unsure of the matter. I have my own opinions on the matter, but the community should make the final decisions.

Notifications of this thread:

• User talk:Georgewilliamherbert
• User talk:Avathaar
• User talk:JWSchmidt
• User talk:NootherIDAvailable
• User talk:Brunton
• Talk:Homeopathy
• User talk:Whig

Relevant links:

• Dr.Jhingaadey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey

• Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr.Jhingaadey

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#NoOtherIDAvailable

• User talk:NootherIDAvailable: Lots of discussion.

• Archived NPOV Noticeboard discussion

Newer developments:

• Discussion at Talk:Georgewilliamherbert that started the reinstatement of the banned user. It was started by User:JWSchmidt, whose role should be examined. Is his role a form of meatpuppetry? Should he be allowed to (mildly) "intimidate" (maybe a strong word, but I'm not sure what other word to use) users who question the "new" incarnation of a banned user? While I believe his actions may be unwise and ultimately futile, I AGF that he has the best intentions, and the desire to help someone in need is generally a good character trait. For that I applaud him.

• Latest block discussion with lots of input by the involved User:JWSchmidt

• User talk:Avathaar: New identity of User:Dr.Jhingaadey.

Note that this user was still evading his blocks using various IPs right up to while these discussions were occurring!

Fundamental matters of principle to decide:

1. Was proper unblocking procedure followed?
2. Shouldn't the unblocking of such a community banned user first be discussed using an RfC/U, rather than occurring on an obscure corner of Wikipedia (a userpage) where few editors realized what was occurring?
3. To what degree should editors here be allowed to act as advocates/meatpuppets for banned or newly returned users who are under "probationary" status?
4. Should this banned user be allowed back at all under these circumstances?
5. Should the new account be closed and the banned user's bans be reinstated?

Consider this thread to be the start of such a discussion.

-- Brangifer (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses

I don't a problem with it as long as he is watched closely, we can see where it goes from here. Banned users should be given the opportunity to reform. Triplestop (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the links? There are procedural issues to discuss that are setting precedent. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We aren't the Supreme Court; we don't have to follow precedent. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's human nature to follow examples of what's been done before as a guide and justification for how to behave now. Wikipedia will be no more successful at waving its hands and saying "Precedent doesn't matter" than Communism was at denying the existence and power of the profit motive. Precedents do matter, and we'd all better get used to the idea that things we do now will potentially be used as models for things done in the future. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Therefore it would be extremely helpful if BullRangifer could clarify what these precedent-setting procedural issues are in his opinion. His thinking tends to be a bit woolly, and I simply can't follow him here. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Those procedural issues are mentioned in part of that last five point list. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
2. Since this isn't a full unblock/unbanning, that is not a big problem. What occurred here is pretty reasonable. However the community should have been alerted to this, as they are now.
3. If someone wants someone back then there is probably a good reason, assuming good faith. A ban is a community thing after all.
4. We can take this slowly from here and see what happens.
5. If the community objects to this allowed return then yes.

Triplestop (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

We do a lot of this - if a blocked/banned editor says "Oh I get it, I won't do that anymore" we tend to give them another shot. You mentioned that this user was evading blocks with IPs recently - do you have evidence of this you can share? If so, did it come after the I promise to behave note? Its fairly easy to reblock someone if it turns out they don't truly want to contribute productively. Shell ^babelfish 20:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe many if not all of the IPs are in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr.Jhingaadey. But it's a bit tricky to find them because they are mixed with those of last year. I am not aware of any since the promise. By the way, as he seems to be using dial-up, changing IPs should not be held against him. I guess part of the problem was that admins did not have the technical means to communicate "we really mean it" under the circumstances. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's welcome to use dial-up IPs, but he should have logged-in. That's why we have usernames. Avoiding the scrutiny of other editors, especially for disruptive purposes, is forbidden here. If you have a username, you're supposed to use it. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer is overreacting to RJ (I will call him by the initials of his Citizendium username). Currently he is the only one doing so; last year, when RJ first appeared at Homeopathy, there was an entire mob. In my opinion:

• The greater part of the disruption that surrounds RJ is caused by overreactions from the anti-homeopathy camp.
• Even under the most favourable circumstances that we can realistically expect, RJ will not be a net positive to Wikipedia. To one side he is an easy target; to the other he is an embarrassment with his extravagant claims of healing cancer and AIDS and whatnot with homeopathy.

This opinion is based in part on what happened here before it was found out he was User:NootherIDAvailable and on his editing history at Citizendium.

BullRangifer's questions are bit misleading. They, and the title of this section, assume that he is formally community banned, perhaps even multiply. His real status is that of an editor who was getting on everybody's nerves, who was blocked a bit out of process, and who acquired the status of a "no admin willing to unblock" de-facto indefinitely banned user through a series of naively transparent block evasions. (E.g. initially he used various subsets of his real name in various spellings.)

Under these circumstances and assuming what I believe is the standard reading of the "no admin willing to unblock clause" (that the ban ends as soon as an uninvolved admin is willing to unblock – please correct me if there is no general agreement on this) it would be totally OK for JWSchmidt to unblock one of RJ's accounts. I am not sure why the new account, but there doesn't seem to be much wrong with that either since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the user was banned by the "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" community ban process and that any uninvolved admin may unblock; but I also believe that decision to unblock is subject to community discussion to determine whether there is consensus that the user remain banned. In other words, we all have a stake in the "de-facto ban" and we have a right to consider whether in the absence of a de-facto ban we would have banned the user by another process and would not now lift the ban; in which case the unblocking would be a bad idea.
• I generally think we should give the user a chance and that sock bans can become poblematic because a blocked user trying to get a fresh start but not understanding how things really work quickly becomes an illegal sock, even if no harm is intended. So, in general, I would support unblocking. However,
• I find the link provided by Scientizzle at User_talk:JWSchmidt#Nootheridavailable to be particularly troubling as it shows the user has been given a "second chance" before and I do not generally support third chances.
• I applaud JWSchmidt for this bold and demanding endeavor.
• I am not willing to give the user a third chance but I will support giving JW a chance to prove to me that I should. In other words, you won't get any leeway from me and I'm fairly certain you'll be bashed against the rocks, but I wish you luck and will support your attempt by waiving from the shore you crazy fool.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re your first point: I totally agree, and I expected that BullRangifer would start a community ban discussion. If that's what he intended, he could have made it a bit clearer. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• The last two points in the five point list mentions this, and I ended with a shot from the starting gun, so to speak. Now the community is having its input, and that's what I believe is the proper procedure BEFORE unblocking such a user. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I offered this user a "second chance" months back because I felt the banhammer came down too quickly on an obviously upset newbie editor that may not have received sufficient instraction and warning. It became quickly apparent, however, that this editor (at that time) was not willing to appropriately engage the relevant issues, instead engaging in largely combative behavior to achieve ends that were at odds with the Wikipedia pillars. It's been a while since then, and little I've seen since convinces me that this editor is willing/able to distance himself from his deeply held beliefs to work within NPOV, UNDUE, RS, FRINGE, NPA, and all the other relevant acronyms.

I also can't help but note that the most recent incarnation, Avathaar (talk · contribs) was created 12:05, June 11, 2009, half an hour after his latest IP sock made an appearance and four hours before JWSchmidt's generous offer of another chance...my suspicion is that this editor would likely have continued this nonstop cycle of disruption and block evasion using this account anyway. (Note: I see no evidence of block evasion since JWSchmidt's offer.)

All that said, I'd be comfortable echoing every point Doug made here. JWSchmidt appears perfectly willing to see this through and has laid out a rather restrictive re-imersion program that has at least a chance of working. I wouldn't have the patience...As I said to JWSchmidt: give it a shot. — Scientizzle 00:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that anybody who sees any good in someone with this user’s history has just completely lost the plot. There’s assuming good faith, and then there’s handing an escaped mental patient a loaded gun. I don’t see any good in allowing this user to return, other than maybe giving an admin some training in chasing him around fixing the damage he does. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"chasing him around fixing the damage he does" <-- That is a fair description of what Wikipedia got from past treatment of this editor, including the initial failure to welcome him and explain our rules. "allowing this user to return" <-- Wikipedia cannot stop him from returning. "completely lost the plot" <-- The problem is larger than this one editor. Wikipedia has systemic biases and the world is not blind to this phenomenon, even if many administrators are. I agree with "Dr.Jhingade" that there is room for improvement in Wikipedia and I'm willing to listen to his suggestions for how to improve articles such as Homeopathy. All I've done is make it clear that I'm willing to listen as long as he follows our rules. It is up to him to decide if he will follow the rules of Wikipedia and make constructive contributions. It saddens me to see administrators who only have one tool -the mighty ban hammer- and an approach to new editors that treats difficult contributors like nails. I have the time to treat "Dr.Jhingade" like a person. If my effort falls short then all the nail bashers can continue their game of wackamole. --JWSchmidt (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see any problem with JWSchmidt helping the editor to become a constructive contributor, but the multiple accounts are a bit worrisome. I'm frankly not sure what talk page to leve a request on, but I think s/he should be strongly encouraged to pick one username and stick with it... whichever one is preferred can be unblocked by JWSchmidt, but the other accounts should be locked down. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SB Johnny. Right now, TTBOMK, none of the blocked accounts have been unblocked, so we are actually dealing with a currently blocked editor who has never been unblocked, but who is allowed to edit anyway (at present in a limited manner). I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. He needs to have one account unblocked and use only that one, IF HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED BACK AT ALL. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dr. Jhinghaadey has shown absolutely no respect for or interest in this site's goals, content policies, or conduct policies; he constantly creates disruptive socks and then lies blatantly, if unconvincingly, when caught red-handed... someone please explain why we're contemplating abusing the time and goodwill of editors who actually bother to respect this site's policies? I'm not going to stand in the way of allowing him to edit one account's userspace, but I will reblock him myself without a second thought if he fails to adhere to those terms, or if those terms are expanded without input from the people whose volunteer efforts are most adversely impacted by Dr. Jhinghaadey's inappropriate advocacy. MastCell ^Talk 03:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I have tweaked my statement involving JWSchmidt in the introduction to this thread. I AGF in his intentions, even if I think they are unwise and ultimately futile. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for JWSchmidt: Who formulated the statement in Avathaar's first edit? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Who formulated the statement? Several days after I exchanged a few words with "Dr.Jhingaadey" on his user talk page, he contacted me. I told him what I thought he would have to do in order to be able to participate at Wikipedia. After several more days he informed me that he had posted a statement at User talk:Avathaar. That statement says what I told him he has to do if he wants to edit at Wikipedia. --JWSchmidt (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I was wondering about that wording as it doesn't sound like anything he would have the slightest ability or understanding to formulate on his own. -- Brangifer (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I find that the restrictions set by JWSchmidt are enough to warrant the least disruption possible while trying to recover a banned user for wikipedia. Whether Jhingadeey is actually recoverable is a different matter. If JWSchmidt manages to get him to become a productive editor then he can bring him here for review, if he doesn't manage it.... then... well, then JWSchmidt will have learned a valuable lesson about how you can't force people to change unless they don't want to change. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional Comment by Doug - Oh, and the user needs to disclose all socks, certainly he may not be able to disclose IPs as a practical matter (he may have no idea what ones he's used) but any registered accounts must be listed on his userpage before we go any further. Any that are discovered post hoc, even if created before this discussion, would be a VERY BAD THING.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interviews needed. I would like to have users question him about each of the four parts of his statement:

• ""I have previously been blocked from editing as User:NootherIDAvailable. I agree to editing restrictions and mentoring: 1) I will only edit my own user pages until the Wikipedia community lifts this editing restriction. 2) I will restrict my edits to specific suggestions for how to improve Wikipedia 3) I will not behave at Wikipedia as an advocate of homeopathy or proclaim any personal partisan point of view with respect to the efficacy or medical value of any treatment, therapy or style of medical practice. I now recognize that such advocacy disrupts Wikipedia and does not help to improve the encyclopedia. 4) I now understand the goal of creating neutral Wikipedia articles that describe, in a balanced way, what is said in all reliable sources about each topic."-Avathaar (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)"

I'd like to have him explain to their satisfaction what his understanding actually is. That can be done in appropriately titled sections on his user talk page. We can thus ascertain for ourselves if he is (1) capable of rehabilitation and (2) really willing to reform. This is a process that I envision will be happening with candidates for rehabilitation in the Wikiproject User Rehab. Personally I wouldn't recommend him for that project, but at least a probing of his thinking might satisfy many here about his suitability for readmission to full rights here. This can be done as a form of RfC/U where he is participating. Anyone can start the process. Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would add that any further sockpuppetry by this user will put a speedy end to the slack he's being given. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I agree with BullRangifer that he must be subject to questioning. I'm not sure I'd say he has to run all of this before there is any decision, just make the decision "subject to". It's a valid part of his rehab anyway - part of "coming clean". If he balks, he's toast.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In the past he has shown no hesitancy to tell bald-faced lies when it suits his purpose. So, his response to any questioning should be taken with a few grains of salt (or a whole shaker-full). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(←) I think it's pretty clear that he should stick to one account and disclose the others, but outside of that I think we should do best to close this thread and let JWSchmidt work with him without a parallel discussion hanging over them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The experiment isn't working, so reinstate ban

The fourth edit he has made has been a resumption of his advocacy campaign, in violation of the promise he made at the top of his user and talk pages. Since he obviously didn't formulate or understand the promise he made, what else can one expect? He still doesn't understand our policies and the EXACT same complaint has been made by him literally dozens(?) of times. Seeking to enlist meatpuppets is a serious offense. The indef ban needs to be reinstated. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Bran, let the experiment run its course and give time for JWSchmidt to realize by himself who he is dealing with. It will be a valuable learning experience for him (no, seriously, he will learn a lot). Also, watching slow-motion trainwrecks is fun, and this one looked promising, so don't be such a party pooper. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: Mind you, I respect and admire JWSchmidt's efforts to recover users for the project, it's just that I don't think that this particular user has any interest in becoming a NPOV-respecting wikipedia editor, so I find his efforts to be doomed from the start. Still, he needs to learn this by himself. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I could commit a combined sin of omission / point violation by doing nothing.... I just have a soft heart and hate to see needless suffering. As an experienced hunter, I'm accustomed to putting an end to the misery as fast as possible, but there is a certain sort of sick and sadistic pleasure one can get from watching such a train wreck. Let's see what the community decides to do with an indef banned user who isn't unblocked, but yet is allowed to create a new username, and who then immediately reverts to his old POV pushing, even though his return was on condition he wouldn't do such things anymore. Hmmm... -- Brangifer (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pow pow pow! — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

CAPTCHA word list

Someone may want to look through the word list used to generate the CAPTCHAs (like the ones shown to IPs who add links) and remove "inappropriate" words. The CAPTCHA I was recently served with was "headshits". I'm amused more than offended, but you may want to change things so that you avoid serving up profanity with a vandalism prevention tool. Kinda sends the wrong message. (BTW, sorry if this notice is misplaced. I tried to find the most appropriate location, and this was the best option listed at Special:CAPTCHA.) -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 50#Offensive word in captcha, and see also Template:Bug. Anomie⚔ 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Its only offensive if you don't see heads...hits ;) Shell ^babelfish 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Honi soit qui mal y pense. MastCell ^Talk 03:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

• All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
• Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
• Tony1 (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Greg L (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
• Kotniski (talk · contribs) reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
• Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), 2008Olympian (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs), SkyWalker (talk · contribs), HJensen (talk · contribs), Dudesleeper (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), Tennis expert (talk · contribs), and G-Man (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months.
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

• While I'll refrain from comment here on the actual decision, I'd like to thank the committee for their attention to this long-standing heated dispute. –xeno^talk 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'll second that. It's refreshing to see ArbCom issue decisions and remedies in a timely manner. KrakatoaKatie 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Grilled with dill and lemon?

• • Timely?Thanks to the hardworking arbitrators, actually. Good job. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Case Opened on 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Case Closed on 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unenviable job, and hard on the heels of Ayn Rand and Scientology Ohconfucius (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Plus Macedonia, and Obama soon to follow. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• To be blunt, I wouldn't call it timely, but I am surely not complaining. I think the minor disruptions in between led to delays, such as the RfC, the introduction of new evidence near the end and the petty bickering even during the case. ArbCom had a lot to deal with, and this case involved intricacies, including just about every type of "bad behavior" that is possible on Wikipedia. Arbcom is to be commended for their persistence and effort dedicated the case. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• The time taken relative to the difficulty of the case is far less for the 2009 Committee than it was for the 2008 Committee, and for that they deserve credit. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd also like to give a shout out to Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), one of the clerks for the case. He went above and beyond the call of duty in designing and managing the latest RfC on dates so that the stalemate could be broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting corrections. Tony (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I hope that ArbCom doesn't burn out. With so much work done, no matter the time frame, a break might be in order. Even the Supreme Court breaks from session. I honestly recommend a break for all of them even if it's only a couple weeks. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Seriously. Keegan (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Still awaiting the correction of an important mistake concerning Remedy 7, which has been notified as Proposed Remedy 9.4, rather than the 9.3 that superseded it (see implementation notes and Final decision Remedy 7. An easy enough error to make in such a huge case, but ... is it going to be fixed with separate wording for me in the notification? Tony (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now done. You were free to simply fix it yourself, y'know! ;) AGK 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of that; I wouldn't have dared to alter a case synopsis posted by a clerk, actually—it's not my right. I'll do so on my own talk page, now that you've given the OK. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

Short version - Major content dispute, disruptive editing and at times personal attacks by various editors at Anna Anderson and Talk:Anna Anderson; I need some help.

Long version:

• Main article involved:
  • Anna Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Main editors involved lately:
  • ChatNoir24 (talk · contribs)
  • Aggiebean (talk · contribs)
  • Finneganw (talk · contribs)
  • An IP range (75.21...) who has claimed to be a "Rev. Antonio", among other names, and claims to have invoked WP:RTV in the past, but has an odd understanding of "vanish", as they continue to be quite active.
• Admins involved:
  • Trusilver (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (had tried to serve as a neutral mediator, but appears to have become inactive in the last few weeks, probably due largely to being sick of dealing with this)
  • AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (had tried serving as a neutral mediator, but is sick of dealing with this)

A little over a week ago, an editor came to my talk page asking for admin attention about an edit war that had been going on at the Anna Anderson article. I checked out the article, found a fairly serious content dispute + edit war going on, and fully protected the article for a week, telling the various parties involved to use the talk page to come to a consensus and not to edit war. I took on the role of an informal mediator, attempting to get the various parties to come to compromises on various issues before full protection lapsed, thinking that whatever had happened in the past, (and the article has quite a history) if some compromise could be reached then further disruption and thus further full protection could be avoided. These attempts at informal dispute resolution bore little fruit, as most of the editors involved seem rather entrenched in their views and unwilling to compromise. Additionally, my knowledge of the article's topic and its related issues (including the validity of DNA testing) is very limited. As the period of full protection was about to expire, I asked the editors involved to continue discussing things on the talk page, and to consider any major edit to already be disputed and thus in need of talk page consensus. I also informed them of the various venues for dispute resolution, sock investigations and so on, and told them to go there to report further incidents.

Since page protection lapsed a few days ago, the article itself has been fairly quiet, save for one event when ChatNoir24 (talk · contribs) started making major edits without discussing them again, which were reverted and for which I gave them a final warning in the hopes of another edit war not breaking out. While the article itself has been quiet, the article's talk page (and mine) have not, with various parties continuing to call for the others to be blocked/banned, etc. I fear that another edit war and more general disruption is right around the corner.

The center of much of this seems to involve specific evidence on the identity of the article's subject. Not unlike the dreaded FYROM/Macedonia issue, this subject, while lacking a great amount of interest from the general population, is a complex one and has small circles of diehard believers split into various camps. Thus, the chances of simple dispute resolution having much of an effect are small. In addition to the main content dispute, there is also peripheral disruption by an IP range starting with 75.21... (the specific IPs used can be found at the history of Talk:Anna Anderson) who I believe claimed at one point to be one "RevAntonio", who may or may not have been blocked/banned at some point, and also claims to have invoked a right to vanish, (see Trusilver's logs) yet hasn't vanished.

Basically, I'm not sure what else to do here, and I'm looking for wider community input. The article itself is a mess, so something should be done with it, but as you can see from Talk:Anna Anderson and my talk page, trying to come to a compromise is like pulling teeth. I think at this point an RfC is certainly in order on the content dispute, but I am inexperienced with these and could use some help. The peripheral disruption should also be dealt with, but I'm no longer comfortable using the tools, given the rather low threshold for "involved admin" lately (I also don't know how to do range blocks). I'm thinking at minimum, a range block and/or topic ban for 75.21..., and some sort of parole for the others (Aggiebean, Finneganw, and ChatNoir24). At the very least, I guess I just need some more people looking into this. AlexiusHoratius 04:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is in re the above by Alexius: I am Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez, who used the username RevAntonio (and am now the villainous IP address). I did invoke the Right to Vanish, which was immediately used to blacken my identity here. Trusilver himself had posted a warning that much of my personal information had been revealed at Wikipedia; of course Trusilver did much to damage my identity here, as did aggiebean.

I did return after invoking RTV; it was a gross error in judgment. I will not deny it. My concern is that those other editors are setting me up, as a sock puppet, vandal and threat-monger. I have warned them that I would report them, but now I can do nothing because I am not a regtistered user.

I now answer Alexius' charges against me specifically herein, and plan never to return to Wikipedia. I see Alexius has done some biased homework, but I am no saint, I have been a pain. I grant you all, that is a fact. What I beg of you is to be fair, be thorough, watch for the true sock puppetry (involving username ChatNoir24 and possibly aggiebean/finneganw), and please, don't lay 20% discipline on one editor and 80% on another just because you don't like that other.

My final word of advice is that you pay heed to Trusilver's reluctance to put a permanent range block on my IP range. If that seems fair and balanced, then you will do it--perhaps you will do it no matter what. I have tried to better the pageAnna Anderson, and Alexius has explained to you that those other editors will not allow consensus. You'll see for yourselves. That is all I have to say.75.21.124.148 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not know if it's appropriate that involved editors post here, but since it's been started, I will add my commentary. If I am wrong to post here, please tell me and I won't do it again.First of all, contrary to the claims above, Finneganw and I are not the same person, he was an editor here about 2 years before I even came here, other people know him AA and other articles. Everyone involved in the Romanov online community knows me, though I may use different names on different websites, I never deny I am me, and the creator of the "Anna Anderson Exposed" website. I am a woman from the east coast of the US. Finnegan is a man and lives in a different part of the world than I, and as you will see from the posting and talk logs, a very different time zone.

Rev, 75.whatever, etc. is not a victim and is alone responsible for the view others have of him, and his long history on Anna Anderson and Noahidism bears this out. I know going through the past histories of these pages, and the talk pages of those involved is an unpleasant and monumental task for someone, but if it is done, I have no doubt what Finneganw and I have been trying to say will be proven. As far as him being ChatNoir, I realize that IPs will never show this because he uses different ones, Chat uses IPs the LA area(I know this from my own forum) and Rev from Rockville, IL.(as I have traced the ones he uses here) As a mod on other forums, I know that different IPs do not necessarily exhonorate a person from sockpuppetry due to there now being ways to use IP programs that show a false location. However I can't get over the similarities in their rhetoric, devoted defense of Peter Kurth, the way one appears when the other is blocked or gone, and the general over the top attitude and behavior displayed by both being very much alike.

ChatNoir (whether or not he and Rev/75.IP are the same person or not) has been an issue on many message boards over the years on the AA topic and has gotten many discussions locked up for his repetitious and unmoving pro AA rhetoric that is oblivious to now proven reality. His outright refusal to accept the now proven scientific and historical fact that Anderson was not Anastasia have caused much disruption in the article and the talk pages here on wikipedia. He firmly holds to the belief that she was Anastasia anyway, people who were against her were paid off and that even today there is major though unspecified conspiracy to cover up her 'true' identity, and that those of us who want to say she wasn't Anastasia are 'afraid' of the 'facts.' Yes, I have called his position delusional, I don't deny that, because it is exactly the right word to describe it. Due to his unwavering support for a disproven claimant, he is the wrong person to be editing the article. It needs to be accurate and truth based, free of fantasy and allusions to possibilities that she 'may' have been Anastasia after all, which he tries to add. We have an obligation to readers who come here looking for information. They deserve the truth, not games and the hangups of a small group of people who cannot let go. Finneganw and I have repeatedly tried to write a factual article but he continues to change things to his POV using now discredited sources and has even vandalized our writings by adding POV quotes in the middle of our sourced sentences trying to pass them off as being the same source when they are not. His POV vandalism and inaccurate information are what is ruining this article, and what needs to be stopped.

I am fully prepared to due whatever I need to do to help resolve this, however I will never consent to appeasing editors and their POV that is completely proven wrong. The editor Finneganw, who has worked on this article long before I got here, and I have facts and sources to back up everything we are trying to do and reality is on our side. This should be enough, and it is the best thing for the article.Aggiebean (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of conflict resolution is needed with this article, preferably by an administrator who is at least somewhat familiar with the subject matter. The discussion has occasionally lapsed into insults and accusations flung furiously back and forth. I disagree with Aggiebean on whether the book by Peter Kurth about Anna Anderson should be included in the article and have outlined my position on the article's talk page and on editors' talk pages. I'm tired and exasperated by the ongoing conflict, but I'm also interested in the outcome. I'd like to see this article eventually sourced line by line, using a standardized citation method, and become a starred article. I think the subject matter deserves it. But it needs a fresh pair of eyes. Aggiebean and Finnegan are two separate people as far as I know. ChatNoir has been accused of being Peter Kurth himself, but Kurth posted under his own name a few years ago on that site, so I'd guess they're two separate people. I don't think identity of the posters matters provided they cite whatever goes into the article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bookworm has been a very prolific editor here, and I do not have any issues with his/her behavior and he/she has caused no irrational disruption like the others. However I personally feel from what I have seen that Bookworm feels sorry for Kurth and would like to include some of his POV in the article as an appeasement or a 'small victory' because he lost the big one on the identity issue (though he does not accept those results) I don't feel this is the best thing for the article. I don't believe that making Kurth and a few of his diehard supporters happy is worth sacrificing the integrity or accuracy of the article. Much of his book is based on discredited writings of supporters now proven wrong, and none of those things should be used in the article or stated as a fact. This is not about who 'wins' or 'loses', who does or doesn't like whom, as some claim, this is about real facts and truth being presented in an article meant to be informational for large numbers of people, including children and students. Concern for someone feeling sad about the realities presented in the article should not take precedence over truth, fact and accuracy. I also disagree that we should present both sides and 'let the reader make up his mind.' You wouldn't do this with any other historical or scientific article, would you? That may have been okay while it was still a mystery, but now that the mystery is solved and we have a right and a wrong answer, the article needs to reflect that information. There should be no obligation to the other viewpoint now that it is officially disproven, and for this reason, the article should not have to be 'balanced' with a 'side' that no longer has a case.

As far as Kurth being Chat, I was told by several people as soon as the name 'Chat' started to become active in AA circles that he was Kurth, but I didn't know for sure until I found out the hard way for myself. After speaking on discussion forums and in private messages numerous times with both over several years, and reading the old wiki and old online chat and talk pages I had nothing to do with from years ago on which Kurth posted under his own name, I am thoroughly convinced Chat is indeed Kurth. I am not alone in this view. Reviewing the posts made here by Kurth in the past(Before my arrival), and how when he was gone "Chat" immediately arrived and took up the identical banner, rhetoric and attitude, and the way Chat endlessly defends Kurth and his 'eminent' book, and removes sources in the article by other authors and replaces them with "Kurth" only make me more inclined to believe Chat is Kurth. Whether or not Chat is Rev I do not know, but I am convinced Chat is Kurth. I doubt his identity will ever be resolved due to lack of mathching IPs, but it doesn't even matter. Regardless of who he is, his disruputive editing is the issue here.Aggiebean (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Kurth or feel sorry for him. Feelings don't have any bearing on whether to include a work in the article or not. I simply disagree with Aggiebean and Finnegan about the proper use of his work in the article. It's a biography of Anna Anderson, probably the most complete biography thus far, and the article is about Anderson. I've explained how I feel it should be used in other postings and why I think it should be one of the books referenced in the article. I see that another post on the talk page of the article from a disinterested editor notes the unprofessional tone of the article and use of words such as "ludicrous" and "of course." This is also one of my major problems with the article as it stands. The language used in the article must be entirely neutral. Pejorative terms cannot be used to describe Anderson, her supporters, her opponents, or others referenced. It must be objective and well-referenced and give a "just the facts" accounting of Anderson's life and times. Right now it does not. For any administrators viewing these postings, I'm sure it's evident that it's a complex and acrimonious dispute and it has degenerated into name-calling, accusations and occasionally hysteria. I'm not sure how to resolve it, but we could use some help here. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to write very little here. My main concern is there have been a small group of fanatical Anderson supporters who have been trying to push over a number of years proven historical and scientific misinformation on the page. They always use the same discredited source by Peter Kurth. That piece of work has been proven to be grossly inaccurate and based on discredited references. It is not neutral to use such a text. It is not a biography at all. That is a fallacy invented by Bookworm who has sadly, for whatever reason, constantly supported its use when editing in spite of many other credible sources which have been authenticated as being highly accurate. In fact Bookworm has been engaged in removing sources which disprove Kurth. Kurth's work is in fact a very unsubtle attempt to push a POV agenda that Anderson was Anastasia. That view has been totally discredited. In fact any information that displays any criticism of Anderson is either deliberately left out in Kurth's book or those who worked her out and actually knew the real Anastasia have their views incorrectly represented or their characters totally attacked. The only 'biography' or 'autobiography' of Anderson is one written not by her but her supporters entitled, 'I, Anastasia'. Bookworm refuses to accept this and blindly pushes Kurth. I have only ever been interested in accuracy in this article. Sadly Anderson supporters choose to derail the process constantly. Bookworm has never played a neutral role in editing. In fact the constant defence is that readers can work out the situation themselves. It is difficult to imagine how that is possible when inaccurate information is presented pretending to be fact. Another recent Anderson supporter 'editor' went by the name of Ferrymansdaughter. Like ChatNoir24, this editor has created massive problems elsewhere distorting factual information. Sadly the role of RevAntonio is all too well documented.

Consensus is not able to be reached with editors who refuse to accept proven historical and scientific fact. I hope that administrators can see that it is not difficult to sort this situation out as wikipedia has always prided itself on presenting accurate verifiable articles. Sadly Anderson supporters are incapable of providing such information. I believe the article should be considerably shortened. In fact I believe all the information below the 'contents' page should be removed. The article is of little interest to wikipedia readers apart from Anderson supporters who wish to deliberately present an extreme POV inaccurate article. Finneganw 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I am NOT Peter Kurth. But I do admire his meticulously researched book about Anna Anderson. It simply cannot be ignored in this article. It chronicles the life of Anna Anderson from the Landwehr Kanal to Charlottesville. It tells about people who rejected her and acknowledged her. It gives us reports from doctors and scientists, and it quotes personal letters and testimonies from supporters and opponents. No matter what the outcome was, the information remains the same. Nothing has been discredited or is no longer valid. I have several times asked the contributers here to point out exactly what is discredited, and so far, they have been unable to come up with a single thing. Only accusations like "it could not have happened" etc. Some have mentioned "I, Anastasia" as her "biography". This book draws heavily from Frau Rathlef and Gleb Botkin, the two people who are being vilified as "discredited" sources for Kurth's book. I have difficulties understanding why they suddenly are acceptable in this book. For this article to succeed, all hearsay should be erased. The meeting at the Mommsen clinic should be Frau Rathlef's version which also agrees with Grand Duchess Olga's own letters to the invalid after the visit. Olga's later denial must then be presented as well. Unprofessional comments like "the dubious Botkin" etc should not be allowed. Telling the story about Anna Anderson the way it happened, has nothing to do with supporting her or opposing her. It simply describes her life as it took place. ChatNoir24 (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat, nobody is saying "I, Anastasia" is a better book than Kurth's. Finnegan just brought it up to say it was supposedly her autobiography, though it is fiction. It is not acceptable.It borrows shamelessly from available sources for 'memories' and parts of it are paraphrased directly from the 1920 book "The Last Days of the Romanovs" which features depositions of people who were with the family in their last months and had a lot of information. The book and others, such as Anna Vryubova's, became gold mines of info that AA and her supporters passed off as 'memories.' No one is advocating using "I, Anastasia" in the article, and if you'll remember, when you used it as a source once we deleted it. Speaking of biographies, don't forget that AA herself considered Lovell to be her officially chosen biographer, though his book is even more biased and full of fictional episodes than Kurth's. The issue is, AA can't have a 'biography' because her 'life story' in those books is on the premise she was Anastasia, and she wasn't. I totally disagree with you, Chat, that presenting her 'side'is not the same as supporting her, and anyone who's read your edits and commentary will have no doubt where you stand. The reason I say some things 'could not have happened' is because we now have the fact that she wasn't Anastasia to prove this. Things like Rathlef helping her 'remember' are not true, because she could not have remembered a life that was not really hers. It was all faked, either by AA's acting or Rathlef's writing, or both. No, Rathlef's version of Olga's meeting was not what happened, and there is proof in the Vorres book, Olga's letter to Irene and interview in the Danish paper. She did not accept AA but Rathlef claimed she did and that was the beginning of her rep being attacked by AA supporters. So in telling the 'story' we cannot and should not tell such things as having actually occurred when they did not. So you see the information does NOT remain the same, because knowing she wasn't really Anastasia proves that much of the story did not really happen as told, and that they should not be presented as fact in the article.Aggiebean (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As for "I, Anastasia", I think Finneganw should answer for her/himself. And since you have not read the book, I think you should refrain from reviewing it. And I also think you should refrain from telling people where I stand. I know that much better myself, thank you!

And please stop this nonsense with "it is not true". Either prove that the presented story is incorrect, or stop your inane comments. As for Olga, I will answer that in her own words, written to the patient in Berlin: "You are not alone anymore, and we shall not abandon you." "I am thinking of you and remember the times we were together and you stuffed me with coffee, tea and cocoa." And that nobody can deny. It proves that Frau Rathlef's version is the correct one. Here is also a snippet of Bella Cohen's interview with Olga and Shura: The girl asked if the Grand Duchess and Sascha remembered the circular staircase that led up to the quarters of the Grand Duchesses from the room of their mother. Do you remember how we used to stand on that staircase and say good morning to her?” she asked. “And on Monday mornings mother would let us come down to her room and watch the hairdresser do her hair. We children used to sit on little stools at her feet.” She turned to the Grand Duchess Olga: “I remember an old invalid lady-in-waiting – Bal – Bal,” the hand went up to her head, “oh, if I could only remember – Balyanova!” There was such an invalid lady-in-waiting, but very few outside the intimate court circle knew of her presence. “A woman used to come to my mother and solicit funds for an orphan asylum. Did you know her?” “What was her name?” The Grand Duchess asked. “Belgard,” the girl answered. The Grand Duchess Olga has said that a woman by that name did come to the Czarina for such funds, but that the fact was little known. “So you remember, Zhura, I had two parrots?” the girl asked, and Zhura nodded, for that was true, too, though the outside world can hardly have known of it. And finally we have Olga's written confirmation that Frau Rathlef's depiction of the conversations at the Mommsen clinic were "quite correct." ChatNoir24 (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ChatNoir24 you have had everything explained in detail a great many times previously and still you continue giving grossly inaccurate information from highly discredited sources. It is high time it all stopped. It is so blatantly obvious from your last entry that you still believe Anderson was Anastasia even though it has all been completely disproven. None of what you write is verifiable as required by wikipedia for any article. Finneganw 06:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more than time that all of the above stopped as the administrators can work it all out. Finneganw 06:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if the admins don't step in soon, Chat will rant on forever and continue to list the extraneous details and quotes of his disproven version of the story as he has done so many times. He will turn this page into yet another long winded tirade of repetition that ruined the talk page and has gotten many, many a message board thread locked by admins and mods who got fed up with its circular and never changing nature. This is an example of why we never get anywhere on this topic.Aggiebean (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid that the reason we don't get anywhere, is that the two of you are much more interested in attacking other posters than contributing something useful. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't the posters we are 'attacking' it's their very, very wrong position and how it hurts the article. We have contributed much that was useful, until it was deleted, vandalized and/or hidden under a bunch of pro AA propaganda now discredited, example of which being your above post. I await the intervention of the mods/admins/mediators.Aggiebean (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So we are not attacking the posters, are we now. What about spreading the rumors that I am Peter Kurth, that I have several aliases, that I have sock puppets, and other lies? And don't you talk about wrong positions with your hearsay and unproven information, just because it suits you. Anna Anderson's life was duly chronicled in Kurth's, Frau Rathlef's and Gleb Botkin's books, and just because the DNA from a putative sample of her intestines showed no relations to the Romanovs, is no reason to sweep it all under the carpet. Now go clean up your language. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Which editor added terms like "ludicrous" and "of course" and other POV terminology? To get this ball moving, can we agree that someone should go in and remove pejorative or POV terms like that which have absolutely no place in an article? We can hash out the content as we go. This whole back and forth, tittle-tattle battle has GOT to stop. What a spectacle this has turned into. I wouldn't blame an administrator deciding he/she wants no part of straightening it out, though I hope someone will be brave enough because it badly needs doing. Everyone needs to chill out here. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write ludicrous and don't know where it is in the article. I think I saw an 'of course' where Chat wrote about Gilliard burning his papers. The first thing we need to do is to stop Rev75 from filling in everything with rants, as he has just done again on the AA page. Then someone needs to get through to Chat that there is some information that cannot be told as fact anymore, such as her 'r-r-remembering' things as claimed by Rathlef. I really feel you, Finneganw and I can eventually produce a good article, but as long as it's open for free editing the vandalism and edit wars will NEVER be over. Since it's the policy of wikipedia to allow anyone to edit, I don't know if this topic will survive here as they may get so fed up they delete and forbid it. I also support Finneganw's idea of eliminating most of the article, especially the gory details and tit for tat quote matching. I am surprised no one here at the admin board has done anything yet, I expected the axe to fall on us immediately, but the action here seems to have moved onto other things. I beg one of the admins to do something about this now or just put us all out of our misery by deleting the whole topic. It can't go on like this.Aggiebean (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course the topic can go on. All needed, is to block you and Finneganw from editing and putting in your hearsay and incorrect information. The memories written down by Rathlef do not have to play a big role in this article, most of them were improvable, and some were corroborated by Olga and Gilliard before their change of position. What should be included, is her being found in 1920 and sent to Dalldorf. Spoke Russian to the nurses. Came out as Anastasia in 1921. Rejected as a fraud by Buxhoeveden. Stayed with various Russian monarchists. Taken in by Grünberg, and gave an outline of her "story". Rejected by aunt Irene. In and out of hospitals with tuberculosis. Visited by Volkov, tacidly accepted as AN. Answered his questions and gave him a few of her own. Visited by Gilliard. Recognized as AN. Visited by Olga, Shura and Gilliard. None of them could say she was not Anastasia. Letters from Olga. Then they rejected her 3 months later. Appealed to Ernest von Hesse, but rejected without him seeing her. Alleged trip to Russia supposedly a sore point. Stay at Oberstdorf. Meeting with Tatiana Botkin, who identified her as Anastasia. Stay at Seeon. Visited by Felix Yussupov who rejected her, and Gleb Botkin, who accepted her as AN. Visit by Captain Dassel, again accepted as AN. Schanzkowska story breaks. Identified by Doris Wingender, paid witness, working in tandem with a paid newspaper editor and a bank detective. Confrontation with Felix, rejected as FS. Visit with Andrew in Paris, again accepted as AN. Trip to New York, acceptance by Xenia Leeds. Spoke fluent English upon arrival. Nervous breakdown, sent to Four Winds Sanatorium. Sent back to Germany. New confrontation with Schankowskis, still no confirmation as being FS.

Court case in Germany. Scientists confirming likeness with AN, not with FS. 3 graphologists confirming handwriting identical with AN's. Schankowska witness presented doctored photo and ended up running away from courtroom. Lost court case and all appeals. Moved to America and married Manahan. Furtmayr found new evidence with PIK method and claimed ears to be the same. Later confirmed by Vanezis. Died in Charlottesville, cremated and buried at Seeon. DNA test on intestines did not match Prince Philip. DNA test on Franzisca's grand nephew close match. This is a very, very short outline, but I don't think we have to embroider it with endless quotes from this one and that one. Just get the facts straight, the end will always be the same.ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Chat much of what you list there is either disproven or should not be in the article. What you call 'facts' are now very questionable. Nothing should be put in the article as a fact when there is every chance it didn't really happen and if you do I'm going to have to add the real story and we'll be right back where we started from. I am not going to lengthen this page like the others by playing your tit for tat game here. This is not what it is for and it's not a place for you to drag out details and go on and on and in circles like you do on message boards. This is a place for moderation from admins and hopefully we will hear from them soon.Aggiebean (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And as usual, you cannot dispute anything, just harp on your mantra "there is every chance it didn't really happen". Do your cherrypicking over on your own website, not here. And if you want to dispute something, give us some valid proof for your dispute, not the same old "it did not happen." As for you "adding the real story", that is the joke du jour. We certainly have enough examples of that in the current article. ChatNoir24 (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A small "I told you so"...

See, admins, these folk aggiebean/finneganw... and it seems all others... cannot follow your directions even for a simple thing like placing a proper heading for a post here. 1st, I'd like to ask AGAIN that finneganw stop insisting on some sort of smart-bomb attack on me. I know finn and aggie have a huge problem with my critiques, but not with any actual thing that I've posted, since we have already agreed on the remedial measures for the article. I have agreed with aggiebean about basic content, but not her lopsided POV and terrible writing style. I have agreed with finneganw about the length etc., but not the total and blind exclusion of Kurth's fraudulent book. Bookworm it seems has been turned against me, and that is what aggie and finn love to do more than anything. To conclude my RANT [can't write anything that isn't a rant according to finn]: I AGREE WITH 'EM ALL FUNDAMENTALLY.75.21.124.148 (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

and by the way...

Should you see fit to range-ban my IPs, because finneganw is so charming and persuasive about me in particular, well, that is your Pandora's Box to open or not. I don't care about this. I do care about the lack of integrity, courage, honesty and transparency at Wikipedia. Lord Knows why, it is an out-house, not an encyclopedia. Lying bullies like users Lisa, aggiebean and finneganw make it that way. Pity.75.21.124.148 (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Faverdale

Resolved.

Faverdale has been vandalized with the same text about 10 times in two weeks from about 5 sources. The first source was warned clearly. --Ettrig (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page with a duration of one month. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Self reversion of edits by topic-banned editors

Resolved

 – Current policy dictates that topic- or page-banned editors should make no edits at those pages. No need for further discussion on this Fritzpoll (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es

Aradic-es continues to edit war with me on various articles while falsely referring to my edits as vandalism [9][10][11]. He responds at the talk page or edit summary in an uncivil tone with one his bogus arguments such as "well , people use English- not language itself!" or "bla bla bla... Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Wikipedia does not obey not any constituition!!" or "officially is Croats from BiH-end of discussion!". Due to this I get a third opinion (as I know this will head down hill) which he responds to by ignoring and continuing to edit war and bait despite the discussion. Sometimes he goes so far as to copy & paste text trying to redo a move he created without a consensus [12] or blatantly removes information he does not like such as [13] [14]. I lack the patience to deal with this user’s stubbornness and realize that I could have handled the situation better. I wish for admin intervention as I hope to spend the time in more productive ways. PRODUCER (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm OK let me here present some of the PRODUCER' modus operandi:

• every my edit he reverts, calling my edit "nationalist nonsense" [15] "POV pushing" [16]
• at these articles [17][18] he started the edit war although I have shown the symbols are used.
• he ignores all my sources and simply reverts . See history of Bosniak language article [19]
• even in obvoius cases like this witht reliable acceptable source he keeps his POV pushing [20]
• hardly ever uses talk page-usually after couple reverts

(to be continued)...--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

A lot of the articles I've seen so far have comments about how something is "too long" or that some data is "trivial". Am I to understand that articles are supposed to only have that information about the subject that are useful to understanding that subject? Like, if it doesn't do that, it doesn't need to be in, which I think keeps the article concise, brief and tight. I cannot seem to find any Wikipedia rule about that, though. - Contributions/24.12.64.34 (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT for a start. –xeno^talk 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Inside WP:NOT you should look specifically at WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

And if you want to get serious on improving your writing, try Wikipedia:How to write great articles and go to WP:FA, pick an article about a topic that interest you, and read with attention to see how the information is distributed, how much space is dedicated to each aspect and fact, and how the information from the sources is summarized --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done some of that. I'm on a public terminal most of the time, and have added things here and there. Once, when I was arguing about some bit of information that seemed unecessary (it didn't seem to have any instrinsic value), the other editrs said 'show me the policy about how we keep stuff out if it doesn't have instrinsic value to the article'. As I don't know everything, I let it go. What should I have done? - 24.12.64.34 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreate and AFD.

Resolved.

Hello,

Just looking for somebody to follow up on this. The plan is to reinstate the article and then send it directly to AFD. The article is salted so I can't do it without an admin. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop forum-shopping, please. You made the same request yesterday at WP:RFPP, which I declined on the basis that you should wait for the DRV to close first and see whether the closing admin agrees with you. Nothing's changed, and there's still no rush. Bencherlite^Talk 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the only DRV left on the page, and we are waiting for it to be closed. I left an {{adminhelp}} tag on my talk page and the admin told me to come here. I really don't see why any of our admins can't follow WP:BOLD and just close the DRV for us.--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please close that DRV? It's now 10 days old. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

...is backlogged. --Folantin (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly better - could use a few eyes on some of the more complex cases. Shell ^babelfish 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed to close two discussions

Wikipedia:VPR#The .5Bedit.5D link for sections and Wikipedia talk:Upload#Free images and Commons should be closed. Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

THE COMBOFIX ARTICLE IS IN TROUBLE

WE GOTS TO SAVEZ IT. SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Additional information needed If you'd like us to help you, you need to elaborate on the problem. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I made this account to SAVE DA ARTIVLE!!!!!!!! SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComboFix (2nd nomination). Let the discussion proceed in the normal way. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I blocked this user as a sock of PSPbothmanlol. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This user created a new page CooomboFix, c&p the content of ComboFix to it and was editwarring with others who had turned it into a redirect to keep the c&p version. This was clearly disruptive behaviour and I've protected the redirect too for two weeks by which time the AfD ought be over. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

CooomboFix now deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Concerns with "abuse log"

I just looked at my contributions list and it now has an "abuse log", not present a few days ago. Is this new?

This is very tactless. I've engaged in no abuse yet I now have a criminal record. I merely created my own sandbox for article work and this is called abuse.

Perhaps it should be renamed "filtering log" or "filter log". Wikipedia has some areas, procedures, or people that are very hostile. That's not nice.

Requests:

1. Rename abuse log to something less nasty.

2. Possibly start a rule book. There are too many unwritten rules or rules that are scattered. I am willing to help organise such a rule book. No writting is needed, just some links to existing pages.

User F203 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For the morbidly curious, here's the abuse log. Nothing exciting.

17:01, 14 June 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 176, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox/Liz. Actions taken: none; Filter description: user space link added in article space (details) (examine)
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: none; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)
19:46, 2 May 2009: User F203 (talk | contribs) triggered filter 98, performing the action "edit" on User F 203/sandbox. Actions taken: Warn; Filter description: Creating very short new article (details) (examine)

User F203 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• How about "Abuse filter log"? And maybe a message on the log screen to explain what it is? Dcoetzee 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The abuse filter did its job in alerting that something wrong was going on. From your talk page, I presume you know that you created the article User F 203/sandbox/Liz when you presumable meant to create a user subpage of User:F203/sandbox/Liz. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current naming sucks. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If we do add a message to this page, I suggest something like the following: "The abuse filter is a tool that automatically flags suspicious edits for review. Sometimes valid edits are accidentally included." Dcoetzee 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's new. It's useful for those dealing with the abuse filter. That may be renamed to something like 'filter log', yes, or only visible by default to admins, with option to enable for users, as it's not of much use for the vast majority. But I still don't get why Special:Log/abusefilter is installed but doesn't work, we could avoid having this at all with that working (just one more click). Cenarium (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, only just noticed that on my contribs page. I have triggered the abuse filter a few times, and even filed a false positive report, but I can see how "abuse log" could be taken the wrong way - even knowing what it was I was embarrassed to see that it logged me "replacing content with obscenities" (on Michelle McManus articles, for anyone curious as to why I'd be replacing content with obscenities). This part worries me: anyone seeing my abuse log might take it out of context and assume I've been up to no good, when in fact I have a perfectly good explanation. Could the abuse log be made so that it's only visible to admins and the user concerned, maybe, or - better still - could items be removed from the log if they're reported as false positives?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 01:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed, too. To me, it sounds like "long term abuse" as opposed to setting off WP:ABFIL. MuZemike 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The name does seem problematic, as is the opaqueness of the information. I think I understand what triggered two of the three entries in my new abuse log, but after examining it quite thoroughly I still don't understand the third: "user space link added in article space" which is apparently link 176, which was triggered by an edit to Union Square (New York City) in which I moved images around. I think if the information is going to be openly available to everyone, then it needs to be much clearer and labelled something other than "Abuse log", since what is being logged is not necessarily abuse, but the triggering of a filter which indicates the possibility of abuse. On the other hand, if it were perhaps made to be visible only to admins and the user involved, then what it's called is less important (although I'd still say that "Abuse log" is a poor choice; "Filter log" would have been better). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I replaced it with "abuse filter log" on two special pages I could determine and {{userlinks}}. Someone who knows how the $2 in MediaWiki:contribsub2 is generated may want to change that as well. Regards SoWhy 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for Heaven's sake, guys—it's a piece of software. "Tactless"—it's obvious what it means, and I don't think anybody should get offended. Can we not get on with improving the encyclopedia, or is it absolutely necessary to continue griping about really minor and cosmetic issues? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Yes, it's a piece of software. A piece of software we all use far too much.  ;) Until it's sentient and makes decisions for itself, however, we have some say in how it is presented. And, while I think User:User F203 needn't be quite so disappointed in the wording, it can and probably should be phrased a bit more clearly. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly easy fix. Just edit MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs to say "abuse filter log" or whatever. While you're at it, you might also want to change MediaWiki:Abusefilter-edit-action-flag, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-linkoncontribs-text, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-search, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-loglink, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-topnav-log and MediaWiki:Abuselog (which appear as a consequence description on (say) Special:AbuseFilter/80, the tooltip for the abuse log link on Special:Contributions, the box description on Special:Abuselog, the navbar at the top of Special:Abusefilter and don't know respectively). MER-C 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying those messages. I just went ahead and replaced "abuse log" with "abuse filter log" on those. If someone working on the filter objects, they can delete/revert those again but unless anyone does, I do not think that anyone will mind that I did so. Regards SoWhy 11:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that depending on route, it's 52-55 miles from Penistone to Scunthorpe? I didn't think it was that far, but there you go. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TFD

... is developing a bit of a backlog. Anyone else who might be interested in helping to clear it would be appreciated. :) JPG-GR (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This page is not for reporting Administrator backlogs.--gordonrox24 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's very common to post admin backlogs here as a large number of admins keep an eye on this page so they can be aware of things that need to be noticed (hence the title of the page). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the place to report backlogs. In truth, my feeling is that a lot of the stuff here (complaints about specific users, etc.) should be an AN/I. This should be more of a general... um... "noticeboard" to notify admins of important policy changes, backlogs, ArbCom rulings, requests to close old discussions, etc. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Technically one shouldn't post notes about backlog here, owing to the instructions at the top of the page to just use the template, but people do it often anyway. –xeno^talk 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You have a point, but that cat doesn't seem to get looked at quite as much, so if there's a major backlog this will attract attention faster. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Appeal from Wikiproject User Rehab

"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success." Ernest Shackleton

Well, okay, it's not quite that bad ;-)

Current needs:

• Mentors who are experienced at dealing with difficult cases.
• Admins who are willing to give advice and help.
• ArbCom members.....ditto

We would very much appreciate the participation of more mentors, admins, and ArbCom members, especially since this project intends to be dealing with banned editors. This may often require extra careful forms of mentoring. We aren't interested in being gamed, as has been attempted by some banned users and socks. So far it's been relatively easy stuff to deal with, but we could risk that sneaky banned users will attempt to get back into Wikipedia through this process. We would like to AGF with everyone, but we know that AGF can only be stretched so far, and that editors with these types of serious problems may include those who will pretend anything in order to "get back in". Are you interested in getting involved, even just as observers who can give occasional advice, in a new project that is working in uncharted territory? Your help, experience and wisdom will be appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just looking at project title in the header, I thought this was going to be for users who spend way too much time editing and are in denial, á la "Rehab". Bummer! I was going to sign up for help ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User Rehab was proposed at WikiProject Council/Proposals, where there were 14 editors opposing with only 9 supporters, see here. I fail to understand why this project went ahead. In the words of Computerjoe on 2 June: "Wikipedia operates on consensus. For a project like this to be created without consensus is quite amazing. The community's opinions should have been gathered." --Kleinzach 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The MfD ended with no consensus, and since projects are started by a consensus of those who wish to start them, it went ahead. It was even approved to change the wording of the Wikiproject text to make it clear that anyone may start a project when they wish. Opposers who WP:IDON'TLIKEIT have no right to stop a project that isn't violating any policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See: Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab. (I personally wasn't aware of the MfD). --Kleinzach 02:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposers have no right, eh? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't get tied up too much wrt WP Council discussion, or bicker and argue about who killed who. Running an idea past the WP Council isn't a requirement. –xeno^talk 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved.

WP:AIV is now backlogged, thanks to me reporting a bunch of IP's from a guy possibly using an open proxy to vandalize AN/I. Sorry in advance for flooding the place... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 06:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No longer backlogged. Cirt (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Immediate Deletion Needed!

Resolved

 – By Bencherlite, Thank You! ISTHnR Knock Knock | Who's There? 11:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally created an incorrect portal. I was testing and I didn't realized it had saved, please see my contributions and look for the deletion notices. Thank You and Sorry! I may have used incorrect tags for deletion. Please delete any subpages for the portal also, again sorry! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unusual block request

This request at the Help Desk might merit admin investigation. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That account only has one edit. I don't think it's terribly important.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I couldn't tell whether it had other deleted edits, so thought I'd punt it to you guys just in case. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be checking this with others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've figured out what it means by compromised. I've logged into the account and changed the password. Not that it really matters because no one's used the account in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I see the account's now been blocked anyway. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Janos BOROS

Could someone please move, and if needed protect, this article and AfD. The AfD is on the fence a bit but if the article survives it would be helpful to have the AfD under the correct name when we ever may look for it. It's under Janos BOROS with the AfD to match and I think both should be moved to the Janos Boros naming convention. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Special:MovePage/Janos BOROS shows that it was already moved to the proper capitalization back on June 10, tho I agree that Janos BOROS is still the extant page (Janos Boros is atm a redir to the BOROS version. Am I misreading something? Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that it was moved then reverted. I wasn't able to moved it when I tried and didn't want to muck anything further. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I moved it to Boros and changed all the other bits (I think) in the AFD. Since I had to copy it out to a text editor to do the global find and replace, I may have screwed up some of the accented characters so my apologies to people in advance (tho I didn't see any faults). Syrthiss (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely this user will co-opt Janos BOROS again, could you protect that with a link to the AFD by way of explanation? -- Banjeboi 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have BOROS watched, I'll see if they do it again and nuke accordingly at that time. Syrthiss (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! -- Banjeboi 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Something's going on here

Over the last few days, I've expressed legitimate concerns over the article List of nu metal bands which have resulted in attacks and misguided accusations. When several editors, including an administrator, attempted to block my attempts of working out a resolve, I nominated the list and its poorly-written sister article nu metal for deletion on the basis that it is clearly a neologism, and that no attempt has been made to work the main article into a serious discussion, and the "list" is very poorly-verified. This resulted in one editor continuing to make false accusations and the administrator threatening to block me if I didn't "step in line" and stop trying to improve these articles and limit the content to what is fully verified. I don't believe that these kinds of actions would be considered justified responses to good faith edits. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

List of nu metal bands had just been kept at AfD two weeks prior. [21] reverting the AfD seems like the right call there as it would have most certainly been proceedurally kept per WP:Snow, and nu metal, which would be the "parent" article would certainly not been deleted if the list of article, the "child" article, was kept. The most that would have happenned is the two being merged. Even that seems unlikely. This seems more like a clean-up issue of a list and WP:List may help. The WP:Lede of the article could spell out better what the inclusion criteria would be. There isn't a rush to fix it but you can certainly work to improve it. Also a note about the items listed there. If the sources for each band state "____ band is a nu metal band" the Wikipedia article for that band does not also have to state that. It would be nice but that's something to work out on each article's talkpage. If it's a subject that interests you I suggest working on the nu metal article and develop the history of the genre. On that main article not every band would be included; just the most notable ones that shaped the history of the genre in some way. -- Banjeboi 15:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly has been attacking you, Ibaranoff? You say I'm a liar, and that people like me are what is wrong with Wikipedia, yet you claim you have been attacked? By whom, and some diffs to support this claim please. What are you trying to accomplish, first consensus did not agree with you, then you nominate the article for deletion after not getting your way, and now this thread? What is next? I would not complain about Gwen if I were you, she could have blocked you and been well within her rights to do so. As an indef-blocked user you promised not to engage in this type of behavior. You did well for a few months, don't throw it all away now. Landon1980 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

While you didn't directly insult me, you appear to show condescension in your tone towards me. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Care to back that up with some diffs? Please highlight exactly what you took to be condescending, and why.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion backlog

CAT:CSD has a backlog of nearly 160 items currently, and it looks like it hasn't been touched in about 18 hours. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I seem to be having trouble deleting anything at the moment. Just tried to delete Ronald Malík three times without any luck. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. Just appears to have been a little server lag. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking/delete forms

Why have they been changed? They used to be left-justified, and now they are right-justified. I think the change happened about two days ago. Just curious. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#Central buttons; it's the same issue, presumably from the MediaWiki upgrade. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Doppelganger

Im a doppelganer of CalcbikeUSBPriapPs2. Actually, im the same person. I need the Doppelganer template. please User:CBU's pages and put doppelganer template. im havin a doppel ganr cos my sig is so big it needs to be ridirected to my page from another user :) thanks! CBU (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Problem with unauthorized bot-use, requesting mass rollback if possible

It looks like someone somehow hijacked Anybot and generated a few thousand articles with it (overwriting many existing articles). These articles are very problematic and basically unwanted by the community (see discussion here). The owner of the bot has asked if there is any technical way to roll back all the articles (although I would suggest only those that have not been edited since). Unfortunately, I don't have the time or knowledge to deal with this issue, so I'm bringing it here for some brave soul to tackle. Good luck. Also see discussion here. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for action on Anna Anderson page

I would like to request that urgent action be taken to resolve the Anna Anderson debacle.

I would agree with both Bookworm and Aggiebean that all of this has to most definitely stop. I have come to the conclusion that everything should be removed on the page from the Contents section down with the exception of references and links to other sites. Only the current summary should remain. Anderson is a very insignificant page for wikipedia. Wikipedia is certainly not the place for unverifiable garbage to be openly touted.

If admin believe it necessary, I would support the removal of the entire page from wikipedia if this is seen to be the only solution to the current debacle. I will put in a request for speedy deletion soon. Finneganw 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, yeah, I guess I'd agree to go ahead and delete everything except the lead paragraphs, with some tweaking of the language to insure neutrality, and to protect the page so only established users can edit it. Any additions should not be made without achieving consensus on the talk page. I still favor a good accounting of Anderson's life, with her time in Germany, America, marriage to Manahan, etc., but for the time being it's probably best to go back to bare bones and discuss how to rebuild the article on the talk page. I don't think deleting it entirely is necessary. Anderson is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but it's true that she's of interest to a pretty rarified crowd. We appear to be the four or five in the world who have the most interest. In any event, the bad behavior (insults, accusations, etc.) MUST stop. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anna_Anderson above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Declined AfC submissions needs clearing

This category contains over six thousand articles deemed "unsuitable" for the article namespace. I am unconvinced by the reasons at the AFC talk page for keeping these around. One editor suggests that deleting these old pages "would add to the burden on administrators". However, these pages can easily be deleted by a bot or by some PROD-like process. Nakon 00:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember, these pages are just as scrapeable as the rest of WP. If they're crap (as a great many of them are), why keep them? DS (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But, at the same time, why delete them? There isn't a good reason to do either, so I'd say we don't need to use the system resources. Some might be useful for possible future article creation, though, so do be careful if you decide to delete them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of them are maybe possibly good, yes. Others are idiotic scribbles and self-obsessed babbling. DS (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly an appropriate topic for discussion, but Nakon, using G6 as a reasont to delete these pages is completely inappropriate. In the thread you point to on WT:AFC, there are three administrators who declined to delete the archives at all. While I agree that many of these can be deleted without any issues arising, they are kept for a reason, and that is so the submitters can continue to work on them, and also see what was wrong with their submissions. They do not show up on most search engines, and they are not linked from anywhere except the category pages themselves. So while I don't disagree that some are deletable, I can't see a reason for a mass deletion for which there is clearly disagreement and where the pages cause no harm to the project. Please stop. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The opinions to not delete these pages came from the idea that it would cause more work for administrators. This is not the case and keeping these pages that are months and years old does not make any sense. I am not proposing that these be deleted immediately or withing a few days upon rejection but rather after an extended period of time (1-3 months). Nakon 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with making the proposal, and I'm sure one could be worked out that satisfied everyone. The only issue I have is the deletion of hundreds of archives without first making that proposal. I'm thankful that you've paused. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For those that are unfamiliar with the project, here are examples of pages that require deletion: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and that's just a very small part of the pages beginning with "A". Nakon 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The pages should not be deleted, the policy has been to retain these pages. Many of the proposed articles in tehre are actually superior to others in article space, because higher standards are used to accept. The idea is not to accept and article that then will be speedy deleted. But you will find many proposed articles that only have a problem with missing references. The pages that could be deleted would be the same ones that we blank, such as copyright violations and attack pages possibly after a month so that the submitter can work out why their proposal led to no article. Otherwise I would urge not to delete stuff from the AfC project, and let the administrators who are part of the project do the needed deletions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the pages shouldn't be deleted because of past "policy" doesn't provide a reason for keeping them around. Please review the examples I provided above and tell me how you think that these should be kept because they are "superior" to article space. Attack pages should be immediately deleted per CSD G10, regardless of where they are in the project. Nakon 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the category contains a tangled mess of pages that should be deleted. However, we must take into consideration the fact that there are many submissions there that should be kept, at least temporarily. Well, my admin friends, who is going to volunteer to manually delete over 5,000 pages? We couldn't go ahead and nuke all of them; they should all be checked, at least minimally, before deletion. I suggest changing the method by which submissions are declined at AfC. Here's a proposed solution: submissions could stay in the category for three months (at most) after they are declined before being deleted. Of course, this would pertain to submissions with actual content. Declined submissions that are copyvios, or declined submissions that have been cleared using {{Afc cleared}}, can and should be deleted at an earlier date. The process would be maintained by a bot (I'd be happy to run it, as I already run three other AfC-related bot tasks), which would check the category at regular intervals, and tag submissions that have been declined for over three months with a special tag (PROD, as mentioned above, perhaps?), or if possible, simply delete them. It would immediately tag articles in the category that have been declined as copyvios, jokes, or anything with the template {{Afc cleared}} on it. Those numbers are arbitrary, of course. Maybe something like six months for normal submissions, and one month for the special cases outlined above? Regardless of the numbers, does anyone support this? The Earwig (Talk | Editor review) 03:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There are not too many pages to delete. I was able to nuke a good handful of these old pages without the use of a bot. Throw a handful of admin wikignomes at the backlog and it'll get done eventually. As long as pages that are not up to article standards are removed after a reasonable period of time (IMO no more than three months, but that's debatable), I don't see an issue with either of your suggestions. Nakon 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with Earwig to keep the submissions for six months, or longer (a year, maybe). I watchlist all submissions I decline, and I do see editors continue to work on them even months after being declined. As for articles that meet speedy deletion criteria, I have seen submissions that started as empty, copyright violations, A7's, and spam turn into something that could be accepted, or at least not be deleted by CSD from the mainspace. Now, I have nothing against deleting attack pages or copyright violations early (I delete the more serious violations immediately), but there's actually nothing there to harm the project. When blanked, the bad edits are hidden in the page history, and are as harmless as bad revisions of an article, which the same, no one cares about except in the more serious cases. But regardless, I think deleting all of them would be rather pointless. We have marginal, hypothetical value to these pages, and equally hypothetical harm, which is why I've always supported leaving them right where they are. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of blanking versus deleting? Nakon 05:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The blanking makes sure that the offending material will not be visible to the casual visitor, or scraped off by the Wikipedia mirrors, or seen in search engines, but there is some feedback for the contributor so they can see that their page was declined. If they want to they can then fix it. For copyvio's they are often actually COI situation so the copy may not really be a violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

For submissions that are only deficient in sourcing, (d|v) I believe we should keep them indefinitely. Other people are welcome to fix them up too by adding references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Schutz's tool

May I please have some help here? I need to head off for the evening, but there is still a medium-sized backlog over at Schutz's tool. Could an admin or two please clean out the backlog in my stead? Thank you very much! → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Need to find the name of a WP tool...

Can anyone help me with the name and location of the tool I described here? I saw it used a couple of weeks ago in the case of someone with a long history of uploading copyvio content and I believe that it may be useful in dealing with the current AnyBot situation. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe ask at WP:VPT or Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Banjeboi 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do, thanks. The reason I ask here is that someone recently linked to a page generated by said tool here (or was it ANI?)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this it ? Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I'll download it and take a look. Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)