Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

AndyTheGrump, Paul Siebert, Justus Maximus, Karl Marx, Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, …

AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert

I note with disappointment and regret that recent developments are leaving me with no other choice but to draw attention to the behavior of the above editors.

The facts of the case are as follows.

(1) On 5 October 2010, at 12:57 (UTC), I included in the article “Communist terrorism” the following passage with a quote by Marx (that apparently no one here had been able to trace since 1996 when it was mentioned by Edvard Radzinsky), under the section “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders”:

“In his article, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna”, ‘’Neue Rheinische Zeitung’’, No. 136, 7 Nov. 1848, Karl Marx wrote: “… there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism.””

To which I provided the following references:

“Karl Marx – Friedrich Engels – Werke, Berlin: Dietz Verlag, Vol. V, 1959, pp. 455-7. http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me05/me_05_455.htm; for English translation see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm”

On 6 October, at 03:54 (UTC), AndyTheGrump (in his own words) “amended Marx to full version.”

On 6 October, at 03:56 (UTC), AndyTheGrump posted the following statement on the talk page:

“I have amended the passage to give the quote in full. As it stood, the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis, arguably distorted the intended meaning.”

What I felt to be particularly discourteous and offensive was the fact that AndyTheGrump made absolutely no attempt to provide any evidence as to (a) what the intended meaning was, (b) why the quote as initially provided by me was “distorting” that meaning, and (c) why he thought it had been my intention to “distort” anything.

(2) On 6 October, at 10:53 (UTC), I included the following passage in the above-mentioned article, under the same section:

“Thus, in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky (1918), Lenin wrote: “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence.””

It was my intention at a later point, when I had the time to do so, to include an observation made by Robert Service in his work A History of Twentieth-Century Russia to the effect that Lenin in his The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky advocated dictatorship and terror, as well as provide the following quote from Engels’ On Authority (which Lenin uses to support his own position on dictatorship and revolutionary violence, including state terror):

““To make things clearer, we will quote Marx and Engels to show what they said on the subject of dictatorship …: “… if the victorious party” (in a revolution) “does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries.””

It was (and still is) my sincere belief that the above quotes would have served to illustrate the views on the matter held by leading Marxists. Nor can there be any doubt that the quotes were relevant to the section entitled “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders.”

On 6 October, at 16:41 (UTC), Paul Siebert (in his own words) “Removed the quote form [sic] “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky””, adding that “Lenin does not use a word “terror” there at all.”

As I pointed out, Lenin must have used the word “terror” in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky at the very least in the Engels quote he is using in that work for the simple reason that (a) Engels’ original text (and English translation) has the word “terror” and (b) the English translation of The Proletarian Revolution and K. Kautsky itself has the word “terror”.

Paul Siebert unreasonably dismissed as “irrelevant” not only the Lenin quote I had included in the article and the Lenin quote I suggested on the talk page, but the entire The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky.

On 6 October, at 16:51 (UTC), without adducing any evidence to substantiate his statements, Paul Siebert posted the following on the talk page:

“This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there. The word “terror” is mentioned twice in the foot notes. Lenin does not use it”.

Without providing any explanation as to what the footnotes were about, Paul Siebert insisted that the Russian original which he is able to read does not have the word “terror” (except, as already stated, “in the footnotes”), but that it has the word strakh which means “fear” and cannot mean “terror.”

Apart from the fact that his own interpretation or translation of the Russian text clearly constitutes original research, Paul Siebert continues to insist that the word strakh does not mean terror despite the fact that it does so:

(a) as is evident from the context;

(b) as is evident from the Oxford Russian Dictionary;

(c) as is evident from the English translation (online version available at www.marxists.org: [1]);

and

(d) as any educated Russian speaker can confirm.

In addition, Lenin’s endorsement of terror has been confirmed by a number of respected historians, e.g., Robert Service in A History of Twentieth-Century Russia, p 108:

“Lenin, as he recovered from his wounds, wrote the booklet The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky, in which he advocated dictatorship and terror”

and Richard Pipes in Communism: A Brief History, p. 39:

“He [Lenin] was quite prepared to resort to unlimited terror to destroy his opponents and cow the rest of the population.”

It is evident from this that the words “This work is hardly relevant to this article, because Lenin tells nothing about terror there” constitute a false statement.

In light of the evidence, Paul Siebert must have been, or subsequently become, aware of the fact that his statement is false.

On 8 October, at 17:06 (UTC), Paul Siebert posted the following statement on the talk page:

“it is worth noting that Bolsheviks didn’t start terror immediately after coming to power, which can be demonstrated by the fact that death penalty was completely abolished by them in 1917.”

The fact is that the Bolshevik government did not abolish the death penalty. It confirmed the abolition thereof enacted on 12 March 1917 by Kerensky’s Provisional government. Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917 and had expressly ordered his followers not to support the Kerensky government (Richard Pipes, The Unknown Lenin, 1996, p. 15). In addition, after coming to power, the Bolshevik government actually restored the death penalty in respect of certain crimes (e.g., Fanny Kaplan was executed on 4 September, 1918) and the CHEKA (the secret police established by Lenin in December 1917, i.e., immediately after Bolshevik takeover of power) was granted discretionary death-penalty powers by Lenin 1921 (Figes, 1998; Volkogonov, 1994). Lenin himself declared that it was “not possible to make a revolution without executions”; ordered the Red Terror campaign in September 1918 (Pipes, p. 56); and “the transformation of the war [WWI] from a conflict between nations to one between classes had been a central plank in the Bolshevik platform long before 1917” (Richard Pipes, Communism, 2001, p. 41).

It follows that it is legitimate to question Paul Siebert’s good faith.

It also follows that it is legitimate to ask (a) why Paul Siebert is making false statements and (b) why he is using such statements as a pretext to exclude relevant material from the article and/or discussion.

It must be noted that both my initial contributions and subsequent observations were in response to the call to help improve the article; were relevant to the section under discussion; and were clearly made in good faith.

By contrast, not only have Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump displayed discourteous and offensive behavior from the very start, but they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist agenda, impose their own biased views on others, and preclude any balanced and objective discussion from taking place.

Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump have repeatedly attempted to conceal or deny historical facts linking prominent Marxists with terrorism, such as, that Marx was known as “The Red Terror Doctor” on account of his endorsement of terror as a policy; that both Marx and his associate Engels made statements in support of terror/terrorism; that Marx wrote, “there is only one means to shorten, simplify and concentrate the murderous death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new, only one means – revolutionary terrorism” (and that this quote in Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism is annotated approvingly by Stalin); that Engels defines revolution in general “as rule imposed by means of the terror that the arms of the victorious party inspire in the reactionaries” (and that this definition is quoted with approval by Lenin in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade K. Kautsky); that they were personally involved in armed insurrections (amounting to terrorism on account of their intention to establish a dictatorship based on terror); that they are discussed in scholarly publications on terrorism (e.g., Peter Calvert, “Theories of Terror in Urban Insurrections”, in the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism), etc.

In summation, it appears that the above-mentioned editors have effectively hijacked the article for their own purposes and are doing as they please with total impunity. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

PS I have requested the editor Snowded to advise me on the procedure for taking the matter to a higher authority but I received no reply. Being new to Wikipedia, I hope this is the correct place for lodging the above complaint. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the request Justus, best to place on my talk page as your article talk pages are very very long and its easy to miss things. If I had seen it I would have advised you against the above--Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See this previous thread from ANI a week ago, where JM's editing was discussed. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message about this request on the user talk pages of AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, thank you for informing me about this discussion. To make it more productive, can we ask Justus Maximus to do the following:

1. To try to separate a content dispute between them and a number of other editors from behavioural issues, because the former is not supposed to be a subject of the current thread.
2. To provide at least one example when they tried to seriously comment on the quotes from the reliable scholarly sources provided by me. This sources contradicted to the edits proposed by them, however, they rejected them under a pretext that these sources were "Marxist apologist".
3. To answer if they consider themselves a novice or experienced editor. This answer is important, because, if they believe they've already became an experienced editors, they are supposed to be responsible for violations of civility norms on WP pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus yet again chooses to label me as 'pro-terrorist'. I consider this a baseless gross personal attack, and ask him to withdraw this immediately. Should he not do so, I intend to seek Wikipedia arbitration over the issue.AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note:AndyTheGrump has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but per WP:LEGAL the statement that someone makes "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;"[2] is a perceived legal threat, and even much more serious one, because propaganda of terrorism, by contrast to libel, is a felony. In connection to that, taking into account that both Andy and Justus can be both considered as new editors, I request Access Denied to re-consider their decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin; I was only commenting. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider the comment you just quoted a legal threat. If they had said "I'm going to report you to law enforcement for spreading terrorist propaganda, maybe, but I see no real accusation of terrorist propaganda, let alone a threat of reporting it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations in propaganda of terrorism are perceived legal threat per WP:LEGAL--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Justus Maximus comment, "...they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda...." is totally unacceptable and he should be blocked for incivility. Otherwise, his comments are long and rambling, and he does not clearly point out what his dispute is other than a content dispute. TFD (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, "strakh" means a "state of fear" or just fear in general, though for the purposes of Marx and Lenin, it is quite clear that they were speaking and advocating a form of terrorism. In this, the original poster is correct. I just wanted to point that out. Silverseren^C 17:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Though, Justus, what Paul meant from this is that your quote “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades [such as Kautsky], of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence” doesn't even have the word terror in it anywhere. And Snowded asked for you to be involved in the talk here. Other than those two edits, you have not been involved in directly editing the article, though I notice there is an expansive amount of discussion on the talk page. Is there really anything that has to do with ANI here? Silverseren^C 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone tell User:Paul Siebert that forum shopping is frowned upon, he has posted here on this thread the Justus is making perceived legal threats (I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked) But he has also posted the same thing Here thinking Access Denied was an admin and he posted the same again Here on Toddst1 talk page. This strikes me as someone shopping around looking for the right result and Paul ought to be told to quit it mark (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that, from what i've seen from the talk page of the article in question, all three, Justus Maximus, Paul Siebert, and AndyTheGrump, have all been editing in a manner that expresses POV editing and/or possessiveness of the article. In terms of this and what Mark has shown above, I believe something definitely needs to be done in terms of these three users together, as they have all exibited editing that is frowned upon or not allowed on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked". Had I wanted him to get blocked, I would be able to report him many times, because his behaviour is highly insulting and violates many WP rules. Regarding possessiveness, I admit that the talk page is a mess and that it is hard for a newcomer to follow the course of the discussion, however, before throwing accusations in "possessiveness", one has to read the discussion in full. I proposed to discuss a way to reconcile what Justus' and my sources say, whereas he simply ignored my arguments calling my sources "Marxist apologist". My proposal to edit a dubious section on the talk page and to re-insert it into the article after a consensus is achieved, a tactics that worked fine for, e.g. WWII article, was simply ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the section were you were Bold and removed it, then yourself, Igny and snowed Snowed edit warred to keep it out? With all three of you hitting 3r along with a couple of ip`s which lead to the article being locked out? mark (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the section which I temporarily moved to the talk page section to re-write and re-introduce into the article. Since this section contained obvious nonsense, it would be incorrect to let it to stay in the article during possibly endless dispute. In addition, I proposed some concrete way to reconcile both points of view and make it neutral. All of that has been ignored by the editors belonging to another party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢: that page is a mess. Large sections of it use the rhetorical style of FOX news pundits (illegitimate associations between unrelated ideas designed to promote a particular anti-communist viewpoint - effectively a form of right-wing Mad Libs), much of it is aimed at attacking Marxist theory by leveraging revolutionary practices, and the general behavior of all involved parties is (shall I say politely) less than optimal. If the page weren't locked I'd simply go after it with garden shears and a trowel; right now I'm just hoping that we can settle the issues with some straw polls. if you all want to go and drop your votes on the straw polls I opened, and if we can get a reasonable consensus that way, it might just put a stop (either way) to some of the shenanigans. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is a promising new editor who we would like to keep—funnily enough I was just admiring an edit of his (this one), which turned up on my watchlist. His "legal threat" was so vague as to be meaningless; plus he's a newbie, presumably not familiar with the labyrinthine ways of Wikipedia. I think it's appallingly bitey to immediately block him indefinitely for saying "I am aware that Wikipedia policy is to discourage recourse to legal measures, but given the grossly offensive nature of this statement, I see that I have little choice." If *I* said that, it would be appropriate to block me, but a newbie? Come on, what's wrong with having a word with him and explaining that talk about legal measures isn't merely discouraged on Wikipedia. Unless there is general objection, I'm going to unblock him in a while, and advise him to withdraw the offending statement. Toddst1, I'm aware that you have already advised him what to do, but I don't think starting with an indefinite block is a good way to get people to listen receptively. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

• Please give your opinion below about my intention to unblock:

An undertaking to retract the legal threat is all that is required for a legal threat block to be lifted. I don't think that consensus is required, since it says that in WP:LEGAL. Get the undertaking first, then press the button. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, obviously, this legal threat was just an inadequate response of a newbie on continuous insults and perceived legal threats from Justus Maximus' side (repeated accusation in such a crime as propaganda of terrorism are the perceived legal threat). Obviously, the Andy's response was highly emotional, however, taking into account that both these editors are novices, and taking into account that Justus Maximus has been warned many time about his unacceptable behaviour, this reaction is understandable (although not excusable). In addition, we all are partially guilty in that, because we where too tolerant to a newbie Justus Maximus. I do not understand why another newbie has to suffer from that our mistake. In my opinion, the block can be lifted immediately after Andy will agree to retract this threat.

Secondly, I propose not to forget that this issue has only tangential relation to this thread, which has been initiated by Justus Maximus and it is de facto a renewal of this previous thread. Therefore, I propose to return to this topic, especially, taking into account that the norms of acceptable behaviour have been explained to Justus Maximus now, and the experienced editor who initially voluntarily decided to coach him/her through a collaborative approach by that moment gave up and does not see any value in continuation of a dialogue with him[3]--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll leave Andy blocked for now, since he rather dances around a really unequivocal withdrawal of the offending statement.[4] I can't blame him for being a grumpy Grump just now, though, and I hope people are watching his page and are prepared to unblock if/when he does withdraw it properly, for instance in line with Toddst1's crisp post. It's late in my timezone, so I won't be watching. But as I said, it would be nice to keep this editor. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I think you should unblock. This is a good new editor and even experienced editors would be driven to distraction by the situation on that talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy should now be unblocked, as he has withdrawn his threat of legal action. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for handling that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Return to Justus Maximus

Shall we return to User:Justus Maximus and that wall of text again.He's still (as in last week's ANI) turning what is basically a dispute about the interpretation placed on historical events by later scholars, into what seems to be a personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as Communist terrorists. Justus must somehow be persuaded that people are allowed to disagree with him, and further that he must not accuse the people who disagree with him of being closet Marxist terrorists. Snowded has been very patient, but I don't think he's got anywhere, Andy has been blocked after an unwise remark about legal action, and is waiting to see what we do. Paul Seibert is I believe correct that in the US at least, advocating or publicising terrorism is a criminal offence, so JM's unreasonable accusation of Andy goes beyond your average ad hominem. I don't see him warned for it, and I think a forceful warning from someone who can follow up an 'if you do this again you will be blocked' threat is the very minimum that must be done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to say that accusing someone of being a terrorism advocate warrants a warning plus a short block, but given the time since the comment the block would end up being not so much preventative as punitive. So, I agree that a "final warning" of sorts where any further personal attacks or general incivility warrant a good 2-3 day block, especially if they are along the lines of accusing people of terrorism related things. I'll deliver a templated final warning, but anyone else should feel free to expand on it (or replace it) with their own composition. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Elen and Ks0stm on forceful warning. Accusing other editors of criminal activity is not acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps [5] from one of those already in this conversation is germane, using the clearly problematic assertion "Firstly, before we continue I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats. Are you going to do that?" on 17 October. As you note, accusing others of criminal activity is not acceptable, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh...that's one of those cases where I choose to solidly assume good faith in his intent and assume low clue in his word choice. I'd go for advising a little less strong word choice/rhetoric with that comment. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

When I posted about this issue I noted that, since Justus Maximus is a newbie, the immediate sanctions against him are premature. I believed -Snowded ^TALK's voluntary mentorship would resolve the situation. However, our tolerance towards this newbie resulted in a block of another newbie (Andy), who faced the situation which, according to his limited WP experience, seemed unresolvable by him, and, as a result, resorted to legal threats.

However, the issue is not only in accusations in criminal activity. Justus Maximus seems to deeply misunderstand the policy: he believes that based solely on his vision of the subject he can accept of reject sources, which he arbitrarily calls "reliable" or "apologist"; he believes that based on the sources available for him he can reject what other sources say; he does not understand that commenting on a contributor is not acceptable; he does not understand that drawing own conclusion based on few quotes from historical documents taken out of historical contest is absolutely incorrect, etc. Someone, who is not considered by him as a personification of the devil (in other words, not I) should explain that to him. Any help is appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps JM would voluntarily go through a set of lessons (Mono's program comes to mind, but I believe it is still under construction, so perhaps one similar to it) with the objective of teaching him such core policies as Reliable Sources, No Original Research, No Personal Attacks, etc, to the point where he could explain what the fundamental meaning of these core policies are? At any rate, for the time being, he should be kept on a very short leash regarding personal attacks and civility (in line with the warning I posted on his talk page). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would really be very helpful if a few other editors would explain OR and SYNTH to Justus, he either does not understand or is not listening. --Snowded ^TALK 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd do that (I'm usually good at such explanations) except I don't think it would have any effect at this point in time. JM is smart enough to be very cagey intellectually and determined enough in his viewpoints that he is unlikely to willingly back down. Honestly, I think the best approach would be to warn him for disruptive editing, and if he keeps it up give him short block to get his attention. he needs to have a reason to settle down and listen, because he's (obviously) having a lot of fun spinning out arguments to support his position at the moment. --Ludwigs2 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

With regret I think you are right, it will take a block to get him to listen --Snowded ^TALK 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think some of the above comments do appear to confirm rather than negate the impression that there is a bias here.

In particular, what the comments appear to ignore is:

(1) that AndyTheGrump engaged in personal attacks on me long before I even addressed any of the editors involved in the discussion.

(2) that Paul Siebert has been employing false statements as a pretext to exclude relevant material from the article and/or discussion.

(3) that editors like Paul Siebert are habitually permitted to use original research in their arguments whereas I am being attacked on the rare occasions I happen to do so (and only when requested by other editors to explain why I believe something to be the case).

(4) that at no point has it been explained how personal attacks by editors such as AndyTheGrump differ/are less offensive than mine.

Until such time as issues like the above have been objectively addressed I cannot but regard such comments as a continuation of personal attacks on me started by AndyTheGrump Justus Maximus (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, if your statements like those regarding the word strakh, Lenin's endorsement of terror, and the Bolshevik abolition of the death-penalty are not intentionally fraudulent, then why won't you admit that they are false and retract them? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it. But it is no excuse for more incivility and more original research. You have certainly crossed the line with serious accusations against other editors and lengthy discourses at Talk:Communist terrorism. It appears you are unwilling to follow the policies that WP imposes. TFD (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is evident from Justus Maximus's last statement that he has no intention of apologising for his grossly offensive personal comments, but instead chooses to continue his misrepresentations and insinuations. I am therefore going to seek a solution through the relevant Wikipedia channels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, of course I am prepared to apologize for any of my remarks (1) should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments" and (2) if you retract, and apologize for, your own personal attacks that, after all, were made first, logically and chronologically speaking.

As a sign of good will, I hereby give you a chance to do so by explaining why you alleged that I had "distorted the meaning" of the Engels quote.

Justus Maximus (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it

Then please apply that principle impartially to all.Justus Maximus (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, can you please provide a link to the supposed 'personal attack' of mine that was "first, logically and chronologically speaking". At that point, we can at least see what I said, and what preceded it.

As for "grossly offensive personal comments", if you are unable to accept that calling someone 'pro-terrorist' is grossly offensive, I can only conclude that you have a strange concept of what the words 'grossly offensive' mean. As has been pointed out several times already, it could reasonably be interpreted as implying illegality on my part. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Which 'Engels quote', JM?

Justus Maximus seems to have taken the opportunity here to repeat allegations about me, without providing any evidence. Can I ask how long I'm expected to wait for his response before citing it as further evidence of his non-compliance with Wikipedia standards? To ensure he has seen this, I'll post a further notification on his talk page, but I see no reason to wait indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, can you please provide a link to the supposed 'personal attack' of mine that was "first, logically and chronologically speaking". At that point, we can at least see what I said, and what preceded it

AndyTheGrump, I meant of course the Marx quote. You ought to know exactly which personal attack I'm referring to unless you didn't read my post, above. If that is the case, please read it first.

Meanwhile, I repeat your statement below:

"the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis arguably distorted the intended meaning" - AndyTheGrump, talk page, 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC). Surely, you recall your own statements don't you?

The way I see it the facts of the matter are as follows:

(1) You claimed on the talk page that Marx’s article containing the statement on revolutionary terrorism (“The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna”) was obscure and you had not been aware of its existence. However, as I pointed out, it couldn’t have been obscure to students of Marx given that it was quoted by Marxists such as Kautsky. Moreover, Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism is a Marxist classic. It follows that (a) as a historian specializing in Marxism you ought to have known where the quote was from, (b) as an editor participating in a discussion on Communist terrorism, you ought to have been familiar with a Marxist work on Terrorism and Communism, and as neither (a) nor (b) appears to be the case, (c) this raises very serious and legitimate doubts about your competence to participate in such a discussion.

(2) By claiming to know what Marx’s intended meaning was, you indulged in original research and took a pro-Marxist stand.

(3) The fact is that Marx is telling a lie in that article. The truth of the matter is that the number of demonstrators killed by the National Guard was between 6 and 18. Here’s what actually happened:

“When the National Guard tried to disperse the protesters, there were clashes, which escalated on 23 August. The Academic Legion, though refusing to join in the repression, was reluctant to side with the insurgents and stood back, a mere spectator to what followed. Lacking the support of the very people whom they regarded as their leaders, the workers stood no chance. Demonstrators were beaten with the flats of sabres, bayoneted and shot. Between 6 and 18 workers were killed, and between 36 and 152 seriously wounded (depending upon whether one believes government or radical counts). When the fighting was over, women from the more prosperous quarters of the city garlanded the National Guards’ bayonets with flowers … The Democratic Club shouted down Marx, who was then visiting Vienna, when he tried to argue that the violence was a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For Engels, 23 August was the moment when the middle class abandoned the cause of the people: ‘thus the unity and strength of the revolutionary force was broken; the class-struggle had come in Vienna, too, to a bloody outbreak, and the counter-revolutionary camarillasaw the day approaching on which it might strike its grand blow’. But Marx found that it was not only the middle class who were deserting the revolution; there was little sympathy for his ideas even when he addressed workers’ meetings. On 7 September, he left Vienna, grumbling at the stubborn refusal of the workers to see that they should be waging a class war against the bourgeoisie” (Mike Rapport, 1848:Year of Revolution, London: Little, Brown, 2008, pp. 230-1).

It follows from the above that Marx’s use of rhetorical flourishes like “massacres” and “cannibalism” was intended to deceive the readers and incite them to armed insurrection on false pretences. It is beyond dispute that the primary intention of the article was to incite to armed insurrection, as correctly observed by the authorities who closed down Marx’s paper on that very ground.

(4) The quote as initially provided by me illustrated Marx’s endorsement of terrorism and was relevant to the section “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders.” By contrast, the “intended meaning” as implied by your statement was irrelevant. It follows that your assertion “the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis, arguably distorted the intended meaning” is uncalled for and lends itself to being interpreted as deliberately offensive.

As already stated, I am prepared to retract any remarks of mine (1) should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments" and (2) if you retract, and apologize for, your own personal attacks that, after all, were made first, logically and chronologically speaking.

So, if you are indeed interested in peaceful cooperation between editors, all you need to do is retract and apologize for your offensive remarks. It's very simple. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold up a second. JM, are you seriously saying that the "Marx quote" is the bit where it was stated your edit "arguably distorted" the meaning of the source? That's not a personal attack, by any stretch of the imagination. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks that way, HandThatFeeds. It's worth noting that the (half)quote we were discussing was in the article even before JM got involved. He (usefully) provided a link to the original source, and correctly added the ellipsis to indicate it was part of a longer sentence. I provided the remainder of the sentence (though there are two different English translations available, and I think I used the wrong one - as I've noted on the article talk page). It is also worth noting that at the time I made this revision, JM made no suggestion that I was being offensive. This attempt of mine to make a perfectly reasonable edit to a contentious quote to provide some context has only later been identified by JM as part of a Marxist plot to censor him. He initially seems to have been unaware of the standards which apply to Wikipedia, and took any attempts to persuade him to conform to them as 'suppression' of his preferred sources. Almost from the start he was accusing others of 'falsehoods'. He has since argued that he doesn't agree with the need for reliable sources if they contradict his 'ethics'. He has chosen yet again to make a personal attack on me on the most ridiculous grounds. He writes that 'as a historian specializing in Marxism you ought to have known where the quote was from' which is surely an indication of his complete detachment from reality: I'm not a historian, and have never claimed to be. Neither have I actually claimed to be a 'specialist in Marxism'. I had merely earlier pointed out that the Marx quote wasn't in any of Marx's major works (it isn't), which is why I'd asked where it was from. Justus Maximus chooses to insinuate that I knew where it was from all along, and then uses this bogus assumption to 'prove' his ludicrous conspiracy theories. The man is clearly incapable of logical thought on issues he has any emotional involvement with, and thus cannot be anything but a liability as a Wikipedia editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The persistent refusal by Justus Maximus to conform to Wikipedia standards

As will be evident from the earlier section started by Justus Maximus here, he has consistently refused to conform to Wikipedia rules regarding civility. In particular, he has repeatedly described another contributor and myself as 'pro-terrorist' - a grossly offensive personal attack. He has also repeatedly been asked to withdraw such statements, and refused. He shows no interest in adhering to other Wikipedia norms either, and has instead argued that his 'ethics' override the need for reliable sources. On his own talk page he suggested that a "Marxist apologist brigade...controls the whole Wikipedia project" here, which seems a clear indication of his attitude towards Wikipedia, and should in itself be sufficient grounds for concluding that he can contribute nothing useful. I therefore suggest that he be banned from further editing until he withdraws his grossly offensive personal attacks and gives an assurance that he will conform to Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, please see my response above. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus, you are just wasting everyone's time, most of all your own. Wikipedia is not the forum to present original ideas and interpretations. I suggest you voluntarily refrain from editing anything to do with communism for some time. Work on other articles and learn how cooperation on Wikipedia works. I you do not do this voluntarily I will have to propose, that a topic ban be placed on you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, I think there is a severe WP:COMPETENCE problem. Apart from the above discussion Justus appears to be editing an old version of AN/I to respond to threads, but does not appear to understand what he is doing? I've tried explaining as best I can but he is having trouble with understanding what I mean by an "old version of the page". Anyone else that can weigh in with help would be appreciated. Talk page thread --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that Justus Maximus has still refused to withdraw his grossly offensive personal remarks about me, in spite of having quite sufficient time to do so, and in spite of making several edits to Wikipedia since my last comments in this section. He has instead insisted that I withdraw 'personal remarks' about him first, though the only example he has (eventually and reluctantly) given any real reference too was clearly not offensive at all (he didn't seem to think so at the time either, see my last posting above). I will not deny that I did indeed later make some personal remarks, but any inspection of the relevant talk page will show that this was only after he had began his malevolent insinuations and aspersions about other editors, and nothing I said can be remotely comparable to his characterisation of another editor and myself as 'pro-terrorist'. He further insists that it be 'established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments"', entirely reversing any reasonable burden of proof. I have shown a great deal of patience since my perhaps hasty reaction the last time he made this slur, but am now in the position where it appears that no sanctions are to be taken against him, and his remarks remain in Wikipedia files. As a new contributor, I could probably cease participating in the project, and walk away with no great harm done (his characterisation is so ludicrous as to be hardly credible), but I hardly think it is conducive to my long-term participation in Wikipedia to have such offensive comments available for all to see, and for Justus Maximus to continue unsanctioned. I don't intend this to seem an ultimatum, but I do have to ask whether other editors would tolerate the same situation, or instead withdraw from the project? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I note that it is not for you to decide which of your remarks are offensive to others, but for those affected by your remaks to do so. Your assertion to the effect that my quote "distorted the intended meaning" was offensive to me as it wrongly implied that it had been my intention to distort something. I did not immediately react to your offensive remark precisely because I wanted to avoid conflict and was hoping that it had been a mistake on your part. Your subsequent behavior demonstrated that it had not been a mistake, in particular when you exhibited a clear pro-Marxist or what I called "apologist" bias. Justus Maximus (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't get to decide what is offensive. Disagreeing with a position you have advanced is NEVER offensive, no matter how controversial. The way it is expressed may or may not be offensive - I have not see Andy say anything that constitutes a personal attack under the WP:NPA policy. I have not seen you being rude, but I have seen you making extremely personal comments about people's political beliefs, to the extent that you appear to be accusing them of something that might be a criminal act in the US. Ascribing offensive motives to people who oppose you is a breach of Wikipedia policy, in your case what you have said is a personal attack. You should not do so again, and should redact the instances where you are accusing people of supporting terrorism, otherwise you do risk being blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I point out at this point that my comment about how the truncation of the quotation from Marx could arguably have distorted its meaning need not even have been directed at Justus Maximus, but at those others who had previously truncated it. Had he bothered to raise his concerns, I would gladly have clarified this. In any case, I suspect this particular supposedly 'offensive' comment is only being raised by JM in order to justify his claim that I was 'offensive' first. I'd argue that even if I had been (I wasn't, at least by intent), this would in no way justify his gross and continuing mischaracterisations of my attitude towards terrorism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might consider that picking at a sore does not generally make it heal? Meanwhile, you assert on the article talk page that the IRA became peace-loving when it became Marxist, and that the "terrorists" were "right wing" which shows something, I suppose. [6] shows a great deal of the problem is that some editos "know" when all they are supposed to do is simply use whatever the sources say, and no more. Collect (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Collect, can you explain exactly how this is relevant to the subject of this section? And by the way, you completely misrepresent what I wrote, as anyone can see from the link you gave. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

you appear to be accusing them of something that might be a criminal act in the US

Absolutely not. My remarks such as "apologists for Marxist terrorism" (14:19 17 October UTC); "attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism" (13:09 17 October UTC); "attempt to justify Marxist terrorism" (08:45 18 October UTC) refer in all cases and without exception to Marxist terrorism in the historical context of the section under discussion, as ought to be obvious from the context. In other words, I was accusing the above editors of supporting, justifying, whitewashing, etc. terrorism as advocated/deployed by Marxists in the past. It follows that my remarks are well beyond the jurisdiction of the US or any other country I know of and cannot be construed as "accusation of a criminal act" by any stretch of the imagination or the law. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You've missed out the one where you accused me (and another) of promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda" at the start of this section. How can someone have an 'agenda' which promotes terrorism in the past? You're only making things worse for yourself, JM. I'd suggest for your own good you should either apologise ant retract your comments, or go edit Conservapedia instead - someone else can then remove your mischaracterisations, and we can all get back to doing something useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

How can someone have an 'agenda' which promotes terrorism in the past?

He can perfectly well do so in the sense of "justify the use of terrorism by Marxists in the past", as already explained and as evident from the context. You appeared to deny the fact that Marx/Engels advocated terrorism, Paul Siebert appeared to justify the terrorist activities of Lenin, etc. All these issues were in the past. It isn't my fault that you refuse to understand. It seems to me it is you who are wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous allegations of "libel", etc. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He's still (as in last week's ANI) turning what is basically a dispute about the interpretation placed on historical events by later scholars, into what seems to be a personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as Communist terrorists

Not quite, I'm afraid. The dispute was primarily about Marx and Lenin's endorsement/practice of terrorism on the evidence of their own writings and other sources. I have in the meantime provided sources such as leading Socialists/Marxists confirming this to be the case. If it seemed like a "crusade", this is due entirely to certain editors' persistent and unreasonable refusal to acknowledge the sources. Justus Maximus (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, how exactly do you reconcile your last statement about your suggestion that I was promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda" with what you wrote earlier: "I note that it is not for you to decide which of your remarks are offensive to others, but for those affected by your rema[r]ks to do so".

As for me denying "the fact that Marx/Engels advocated terrorism". You have yet to provide WP:RS which adequately shows that this is "fact" rather than opinion, though once again this is off-topic, since the issue here is not whether Marx or Engels advocated terrorism, but whether your ludicrous assertion that I am 'pro-terrorist' is permissible on Wikipedia. Please stick to the topic under debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You are playing your usual games again, aren't you? I have never disputed anyone's right to feel offended. My dispute was solely in respect of the suggestion that my remarks fell under US or any other legislation I am aware of. My remarks regarding Marx and Lenin's endorsement/practice of terrorism were intended to illustrate the historical context of the debate which has no bearing on present terrorism or legislation concerning it. So, sorry, but it is difficult to see how your campaign can succeed if you can't even get your facts straight. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus has just posted a request that I "stop threatening" him here. Since it is evident I made no threat there, can I ask that this is also taken into account when considering action against him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus appears to be editing an old version of AN/I to respond to threads, but does not appear to understand what he is doing

Objection: I edited an old version of the page inadvertently, having followed a link to an old version posted by Snowded on my talk page. Being unfamiliar with ANI/Wikipedia procedures I thought that was where I was meant to respond. It does not appear that the problem is recurring now that I see I was following the wrong link. Justus Maximus (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, enough

This page is for requesting administrator action, not for endless bickering. There is one issue here - Justus Maximus, at one point you said that your opponents (who were at that time Andy and Paul Seibert) were promoting "a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda". That statement is out of order, and you have been asked by both parties to withdraw it. You will also find a number of contributors on this thread saying that you should withdraw it. You have stated that what you meant was an agenda in terms of what interpretation of history they support, which statement would not be objectionable under Wikipedia rules. Are you prepared to refactor any statement which Paul or Andy believe is saying that they promote terrorism, so it is either struck or else it is clear that it refers to historical interpretation not to modern activism. If you will do that, then no furhter administrator intervention is required. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the goddess Sophia in her incarnation of (H)elen has finally spoken! I was beginning to fear we were going to be subjected to the childish pranks of certain editors till the end of time. Of course I am prepared to refactor some of my statements should this be thought necessary. However, my concerns regarding the false statements made by Paul Siebert (see above) do remain an issue. We can't have an objective and constructive discussion on an article if editors resort to false statements in support of their personal opinion and original research. Could you please advise me as how/where these issues may be addressed? Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the section title "The persistent refusal by Justus Maximus to conform to Wikipedia standards" is inaccurate and (deliberately?) misleading. I have never refused any such thing. I'm simply asking that the same standards be applied impartially to all, including to editors like Paul Siebert and AndyTheGrump. Justus Maximus (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Justus Maximus did remove "pro-terrorist" above: [7] Kansan (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Let it be noted that I have removed the phrase "pro-terrorist" from the ANI section "AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert". I couldn't find it anywhere on the talk page though. I will take another look later and promise to remove/refactor it by tomorrow. I hope my concerns regarding Paul Siebert's statements can now finally be addressed so we can continue the discussion in an objective and amicable manner. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)

This is an issue that has gone on for months, the most recent events are chronicled at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Brady_scorecard.2C_maps:_saga_continues, where there are also links to previous threads on the same topic. The issue was decided by consensus months ago, and suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming "There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling" to his arguments, despite being given links to more than 30,000 words of discussion, as Mudwater demonstrated. He has been warned, has been treated respectfully and politely by both myself and Digiphi, but continues to push this POV. His arguments have not changed, yet he continues to add this content against consensus. At this time his actions merit "disruptive editing", and I'm asking for a topic ban on this. Rapier (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and had a good look at the article history. It is clear that JPMcGrath is trying to edit against local consensus. His language and approach might be a low level of tendentious editing, but it's mostly a content dispute. I will warn him to cease edit warring at the risk of being blocked. I saw no 3RR violations. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What I am seeing is tedentious editing on both sides of a "no consensus" poll on the talk page.

The response to a "no consensus" is not to go edit war over it on the article itself. It's to go back and try again to find an option that everyone agrees to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding an option that everyone agrees on may not be possible in this case. The discussion has gone on for more than seven months and now exceeds 30,000 words (yes, really). Many of the editors who have participated in the discussion have agreed that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to this article would violate NPOV by pushing a particular political agenda and by providing a soapbox for an advocacy group. Some have also stated that the map does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of the different states' gun laws. Others have suggested that the map might be appropriate for a different article -- for example, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, or Brady Campaign, which currently does include the map -- but not this article, which simply describes the gun laws of the 50 states in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible. At this point somewhat more than half of the editors have agreed on this, with a sizable minority not agreeing and saying that adding the map would be okay. Still others have floated the idea of balancing the map by also including another map that supports an opposing view, but there does not appear to be such a balancing map. Anyway, the article without the maps has achieved a very neutral point of view by simply presenting the facts of the laws, which are the subject of this particular article, without adding opinions of any kind. As I said, many editors have agreed that not adding the map is the best course of action. But editor JPMcGrath has refused to accept this and keeps adding it back. This is indeed contentious editing, as it has the effect of disrupting the article for the apparent purpose of advocating a particular political point of view. Here are links to the various discussions that have already occurred:

• Archived discussions:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on the article talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues

— Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, adding the "Brady scorecard" to a state would be analogous to adding the NRA scorecard on a candidate (or anyone else's scorecard, for that matter) to a candidate's Wikipedia article. Having said that, YESPOV is indeed part of NPOV. The main point, though, is that editors must work in good faith to pursue consensus on how to present contentious topics. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. While this isn't the place to argue content, I'll simply clarify that buried in those arguments is the point made by myself and others that an NRA map would be just as inappropriate. We aren't trying to push one point of view or the other, we're trying to remove all point of view and simply list the laws in an encyclopedic manner. When third-party analysis of raw data get interjected that is when POV problems occur, and as Mudwater stated above, there are already articles discussing the political debate about gun laws. The maps are included there and continuing to add them here despite clear consensus is the problem. Rapier (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a new clear consensus on that point. What I see is several editors who were on one side of the July "Remove all maps or not?" discussion - which an apparently uninvolved admin closed as "No consensus" - continuing the discussion and asserting now that you have consensus, without the participation of most of the other side.

Nothing in the new discussions invalidates the July discussion. No effort was made to revisit it with another clear poll / RFC. It seems like some previously active editors are less active now, but that doesn't invalidate their participation in the last clear poll / RFC type discussion.

ANI is not a replacement for going back to the page and holding another RFC. If those other editors are gone and it's a new consensus that's fine. But this is not the place - and attacking the lead map proponent for disruption is not the right approach - to solve the no consensus problem. Do it right, on the article. Get a consensus. If it's still "No consensus" then accept that. If it goes your way this time, with whoever shows up to bother to participate, then he will need to accept that as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We've had seven months and more than 30,000 words of discussion, including a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and a Request For Mediation. A majority of editors -- including myself -- feel very strongly that adding the Brady Scorecard map is an egregious violation of NPOV, and also distorts the facts, while other editors don't agree and think that adding the map would be okay. It seems to me that if many of the participants agree that the map would be a major NPOV violation, and pushes a one-sided political agenda, that trumps other editors saying that it would enhance the article slightly by providing an attractive graphic of summary information. Also, part of why JPMcGrath's editing is tendentious is that he keeps saying that editors such as myself have not explained why adding the map would violate NPOV, when in fact we've just spent the last seven months explaining it, over and over and from many different perspectives. There's a difference between "you've explained the reasoning behind your opinions at great length and in many different ways, but I still don't agree," and "you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinions," but the difference seems to elude JPMcGrath. So, I find it hard to believe that prolonging the discussion any further would have much benefit at this point. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, that debate is still going on? As I recall, the main issue with that map is that it presupposes certain things and gives a value judgment as to each state's attitude toward gun control. The problem is whether that map presents an unbiased assessment. Since they themselves are its authors, obviously they are going to judge which parameters to be used. Now, if you had a similar map from the point of view of the NRA, those two maps would be interesting for the reader to compare, and see if they "agree" on each states' attitude toward gun control, even though the groups are obviously on opposite sides of the issue. That is, the NRA might consider a restrictive state to be a "bad" state, and the Brady bunch might consider it to be a "good" state - but it's possible they might rank the states the same way, just flip-flopped in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the forum for content dispute, but to clarify the argument is that all maps offer up a POV that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic listing of state laws, not that the "Brady" map alone should be removed. Let's please be clear on the prime mover is, and not allow this to become an issue directed at a single point. Rapier (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that a map like that could be useful, IF it were verifiable and not pushing a viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be useful in the context that Bugs describes, but it's simply not acceptable to keep readding it as it's been done here. There needs to be the wider context that Bugs is talking about if there's any chance for this kind of advocacy ranking to be relevant in a general state article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've un-archived this thread to allow for further discussion, per User talk:JPMcGrath#Warning. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post my response as soon as I can get it together. — JPMcGrath (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Response by JPMcGrath

First, I should point out that several of the statements made by SeanNovack are inaccurate:

• He says that "the issue was decided by consensus months ago", which is untrue. That there has never been a consensus is made clear by the RfC here, and by Mudwater's multiple statements that "about half" of the editors agree with him.
• His "suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming" comment appears to suggest that my attempt to get others to address the justification for their WP:NPOV claim was something new. In fact, I had been trying to get them to address this question from the beginning.
• His suggestion that the fact that there had been "more than 30,000 words of discussion" means that my questions about the justification for removing the maps had been answered is nonsense. That there was a great deal of discussion does not in any way suggest that the discussion contained an answer, and the unwillingness of participants to point to an answer strongly suggests that it is not there.

That said, I spent some time writing a response that went into this conflict in great detail, but then realized that rehashing all of the details of the disagreement would be tedious, not on point, and would ignore the central point of this discussion, which is the accusation of tendentious editing. According to WP:Tendentious editing

Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view."

I have clearly stated that I believe the article badly needs summary material, so that the reader can get a feel for the overall state of gun laws in the United States; as I put it at the outset of this conflict, the article is "all trees and no forest". The maps are intended to ameliorate that problem.

I do not believe that in any way fits the definition of tendentious editing, so I would like my accuser, SeanNovack, to explain what is it in my editing that qualifies as either sustained bias or a a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view? What exactly is the bias or viewpoint?

— JPMcGrath (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that you are the only one that feels that summary information is necessary. Others feel it 'may be helpful', and the rest of us are saying that summary information is inheriently biased by the person doing the summary and has no place in this article that is supposed to be an encyclopedic listing of gun laws by state. The summaries exist in other articles, they simply have no place in this one. Rapier (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor translating an article to another Wikipedia

Resolved

 – Resolved on the Turkish Wikipedia. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Rapsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also tr:User:Rapsar) has translated WP's article La Massana into Turkish Wikipedia here and here. WP's policy on translations is Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate; it says editors who are doing translations of foreign-language articles into English Wikipedia must attribute their source by writing both an edit summary in the translated article on the destination Wikipedia as well as a talk page notice, saying where on the foreign-language Wikipedia they obtained their source material. I think the same principle applies between any wikis. At the moment, trwiki's La Massana has no such attribution in an edit summary on the article or on the talk page.

I asked User:Rapsar to remedy this oversight on Turkish Wikipedia. He replied, "I didn't just translate it. I found some extra sources to write the article. BTW, we don't have any policy like this in tr. Wiki. So, I can't do this."

Although User:Rapsar is one of the most active and experienced editors on Turkish Wikipedia, I think his position is out of line with WP's copyright licensing GFDL and CC-BY-SA. As for Wikimedia Foundation's policy, I think the terms of use require editors on all Wikipedias to acknowledge their sources when doing translations of articles from other Wikipedias. If it is correct that Turkish Wikipedia does not have any relevant policies about translations, it seems there is potential to encourage widespread copyright non-compliance. For all I know this may have been happening for some time in other articles on Turkish Wikipedia, not necessarily translated by User:Rapsar. It needs further research by somebody fluent in Turkish; I am not, so I cannot check. Apart from Turkish, what is the current position on other language Wikipedias?

Are there any administrators here who could provide policy-based advice to User:Rapsar, and are there any Turkish-English bilingual administrators here who may be in a position to help Turkish Wikipedia come into copyright compliance? I have informed User:Rapsar of this thread. I hope this is the right forum to raise this issue; please say if it is not. Thanks. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure what the English Wikipedia can do about this other than advice the proper procedure...what goes on at the Turkish Wikipedia is outside our jurisdiction...however, I will admit in this case the lines are a bit blurrier since it involves cross-wiki activity. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So, are we essentially just toothless dogs who can bark but not bite? What's the point of having a copyright in Wikimedia Foundation's projects? 85.94.184.115 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll let other people weigh in; I'm just not sure as to what to do. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the way other projects are dealing with copyright issues, in particular the attribution requirements for the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, you should take it up with the wikimedia foundation or on meta. We at the English wikipedia are indeed toothless dogs. (Some people here may not be toothless, but that's something they got outside the English wikipedia.) Alternatively, I would suggest a good faith effort to communicate with the Turkish wikipedia (rather then one member if you believe the issue is widespread) in a first instance would be advisable. Most wikipedias do have embassies I believe (tr:Vikipedi:Büyükelçilik appears to be the Turkish one) and there is also Wikipedia:Translation which may help you find people who can help you comminicate if necessary. P.S. Well technically I guess English wikipedia contributors to the article in question may have grounds to sue people who have violated their license which is something they gained from here but that's obviously a dumb road to go down. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Question might be better posed at Meta? Just a thought.    Thorncrag  19:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at the Turkish Wikipedia embassy pointing out this discussion and asking for someone who knows Turkish to bring it up for discussion at the appropriate place on that wiki. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to also bring it up on Meta. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will ask on Meta. Thanks Ks0stm, Nil Einne, Thorncrag for your thoughts. Meanwhile, since there are many admins on WP with experience of copyright issues, I'd appreciate hearing their thoughts too, although some of them tend not to edit much on Sundays. Please leave this thread open. I think it would be useful to have further input here once Meta have had a chance to consider the issue. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for a generic question on copyrights (I don't really know where to ask since it isn't really an issue for us per se but perhaps Wikipedia talk:Copyrights) but if your question is about the whether the Turkish wikipedia practice is okay, I would agree it's not. If they're using content from some under wikipedia with a CC-BY-SA license, even if they're adding additional info, they need to attribute the original source (which will have the edit history) in some way whether a link in the edit summary or in the talk page (precisely what is necessary I don't have enough experience to say). Even when copying within the English wikipedia, you are supposed to link to the original source article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I read you post at Meta page, so came here to ask a qustion. I edite in Russian WP generally, and I use the articles of English WP. please write, what you would like it be written, if the translation was made of English article to other language division of WP. Thank you in advance. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, an attribution to show where the article came from in an edit summary and on the talk page would be fine. I don't think the wording is important, as long as it includes a cross-wiki link to the article in enwiki, e.g. [[:en:source_article]]. I suppose you could use a wording similar to Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate which says editors who are doing a translation of foreign-language article into English Wikipedia must attribute their source by writing both an edit summary in the translated article as well as a talk page notice, saying where on the foreign-language Wikipedia they obtained their source material? 85.94.184.115 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

thread at Meta. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This needs attention. Reuse of Wikipedia content without attribution is a violation of the copyright of our contributors and one that should be easily addressed. Has there been anything from the Turkish Wikipedia embassy? If not, we might speak to tr:Kullanıcı:Elmacenderesi. I've chosen him not entirely at random; he is an admin and checkuser on the Turkish language Wikipedia who also speaks English. I found him on meta:OTRS/personnel. I often use that list to find multilingual admins on other projects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rapsar tells me that this has now been addressed at the Turkish Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide notice

Resolved

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Authorities contacted

Parasect (talk · contribs) posted on his user page that he is committing suicide today. What is the proper procedure for things like this? ~NerdyScienceDude 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC) WP:SUICIDE provides a guideline. Jarkeld (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I have requested that MuZemike (talk · contribs) run a CheckUser so we can contact the proper authorities. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Oh good, it looks like I found the right venue. Thanks. ~NerdyScienceDude 23:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) We have user essays, but no official procedures. I for one think it's high-time we change that, post-haste.    Thorncrag  23:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you guys. The Foundation is looking into it right now and will take responsibility to contact the local authorities Jalexander (talk) -WMF 23:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide Reporting

Resolved

 – Looks like there is little else to discuss at this point. As a P.S., the WMF is currently refining their procedures for situations like this. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to vote to change Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm to official policy? I'm not sure where to post this, but it seems it is the consensus right now, so why not make it policy?--TalkToMe_c^intelati 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with doing that. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those areas that isn't/shouldn't be subject to community consensus; the policy needs to come down from the Foundation, though probably with community collaboration.    Thorncrag  00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I can't state how strongly I support this idea. Wonderful idea. I suspect Godwin will have something to say about it. He should be notified of this. However, there is nothing that states such a policy can only come from the foundation. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 8)No, it should not be policy, only a guideline. We cannot force people to carry out those actions, and we are certainly not going to sanction people for failing to do so. Further, it is ridiculously involved and sets out expectations that are unrealistic. Risker (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing a threat protocol internally right now, and consulting with similar organizations. I think it's likely that we'll emerge with some sort of guidelines, but I'm not comfortable mandating a particular course of action. In the meantime, the FIRST thing that anyone does should probably be to email emergencywikimedia.org, which notifies us. Then, continue with the steps at WP:SUICIDE. That way, we can get involved as soon as we are notified. Thanks for your concern, everyone. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If a person blocked for making a comment like this (for example Parasect, who is apparently a teenager, is now blocked from everywhere including his own talk page, and currently only has the standard ANI notification on his talk page) wishes to inform the WMF that there is no need to pursue discussions with the authorities further, what is the best way for that person to achieve that? And, should that be briefly explained on the person's talk page? Just thinking that, although we should assume suicide threats are genuine, we also should make it simple to avoid taking up more police time than strictly necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

instructions have been updated per your above statement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it policy at this time. First, although the current threat appears to be serious (or at least, to be a sincere cry for help), the majority of such threats are from attention-seeking teens: an official policy requiring us to give them attention might lead to an increase in threats, which might cause us to miss the real ones. Second, we traditionally don't require action from users or admins. And third, because this is an area likely to lead to real-world moral and legal consequences, I think that any policies regarding it should only be made with ample help from Mr. Godwin and the Foundation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A policy that says report the incident to [emergency staff contact] should by no means be deemed controversial and it absolves users of any other obligations. It's then up to staff to decide what to do, as it should.    Thorncrag  00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong agreement with Risker and FisherQueen. No to policy at this time; many of these "threats" are merely trolling -- an anon scribbling on your talk page, "I'm going to kill myself" is not anything anyone should be obligated to report to authorities. This particular case is different because it's an editor with a history here. Beware hasty actions that have the aroma of a moral panic, which this one does. Individuals may report these things in accordance with their individual judgement. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I shall shortly be gone from here, for one reason or another. I'd prefer it if the fuss was minimised. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Er... Rod, could you clarify whether you're planning to log off for the evening, to retire from Wikipedia, or to commit suicide? This comment is a bit unclear for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's report Rod. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm let's see. A teenager and established editor who makes a suicide threat is almost immediately blocked (including from his own talk page), doesn't even receive the courtesy of the standard talk page template for such things, and is reported to the police. An admin and established editor makes a rather more vague threat but of a similar nature, and it's a subject for levity. If my name started with M, I'd make some cynical but pithy comments about this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* another Malleus reference? Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was my first! Ever! I'll stick with "he who must not be named" in future, I suppose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If it would be appropriate, would someone from the foundation please let us know how this situation turned out in the end? I think it would help alleviate some editors concerns if we know what the end result is, as I think we're all hoping for this to be resolved for the better. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, should we really drop an AN/I notice on possible suicide user talk? For one, as has been pointed out already, if the user is just a troll it would seem to only serve their jollies, and for two, I see no reason to risk mis-interpretation of the message that the user is in trouble, particularly if they really are in a suicidal mind frame.    Thorncrag  03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the appropriate place to raise it, although emergency@ might've been even better - which is now in the guidelines (it wasn't before). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is blocking him policy? And if so/not, is it appropriate? I for one would be more for him being able to talk on his page... even if it meant watching what responses are posted. As long as he is talking... (and sometimes, that's all people need - and it give the chance to point him in the right direction - on that note, from scanning his userpage and realizing he's in the US, I posted the NSPH number). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy saying to do so. There is an essay saying that it has sometimes been done. It's not an easy situation for anyone. I personally would also support allowing him to post on his own talk page. Yes I'm sure there are potential drawbacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ks0stm, there are very few circumstances in which the police would report back the outcome to us, and even fewer under which I'd be free to share it here, unfortunately. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As we are discussing this I will reiterate the same advice I have given in the past (both on and off WP). Whilst we in LE are always happy to recieve notification of suicide threats such as this please do not simply report it as an emergency by default. These will always be acted upon as an emergency, tying up policy time and effort and risking taking away from other emergencies. They will wake up the ISP's and get log records and dispatch a patrol car :) Factor in how often this happens on the internet and you will not be surprised how often such responses occur. One common fall out is the poster/troll can be in trouble for wasting police time etc. Obviously; if the message seems urgent and clear then the right response is to call the police ASAP. But if the message is ambiguous, unclear or contains no immediate urgency then please report it as a routine matter. I realise that is something of a difficult distinction to make here, especially as non-experts, and so we should always err on the side of caution. But many incidents look a lot like trolling, so a little discretion will always be appreciated. Ultimately: we are not, and should not be, responsible for the actions of others. EDIT: although, to clarify, in this case contacting as an emergency was the right response. I'm only saying the above because of the vastly more vague suicide threats I've seen reported in the last few days :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not meaning to rain on the parade, but it seems WP:TOV was once up for policy/guideline and was rejected by the community. Just FYI. Basket of Puppies 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been up for policy multiple times, and failed. The reason that it's an essay is that there were two prior attempts to do a "real policy" that failed horribly badly; I wrote the essay to cover what admins were doing in best practice, and then various people have fought over making it a policy on and off since then.

There isn't and probably never will be unanimous agreement on it. There really doesn't need to be; if some other person doesn't want to get involved and objects to this way of doing things, that's fine; anyone who sees the situation and choses to do what most admins (and the Foundation) feel is a best practice, here it is.

Responding up a bit to Errant / tmorton166; Your point is well taken, but keep in mind that Wikipedians (even administrators) have no special training in determining how credible threats of suicide are. We've been told unanimously by law enforcement and psychiatrists that if any individual person feels that it's credible at all, reporting it and having the LE and professionals figure it out is appropriate. When people report, they need to do so accurately conveying what was written, so that we don't cause a mistaken response. But we aren't experts.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This point: When people report, they need to do so accurately conveying what was written is not, I think, currently mentioned in the essay, and is worth adding. There was a recent incident recently where someone had made an edit that to me seemed obviously just a lamentation about the problem of teen suicide and a past tense reference to a past victim; but it was reported to the authorities anyway. It may be appropriate to report such things because, as you say, we are not the experts in deciding what needs action and what doesn't. However, if that approach is taken, then it's essential that what is reported to authorities, is the exact text posted by the person, not an opinion about what we think it means. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll note here, since an update was requested above; the user in question is back on Wikipedia and therefore (implicitly) alive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User has been unblocked and plans on seeking counseling. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, jeez, no, don't propose Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm as a policy. You'd have the "Wikipedia is value-neutral, and we can't say that it's better to be 'alive' than to be 'dead'" crowd. You'd have the "A person is perfectly free to take his own life if he chooses", the "This is an encyclopedia, not a helpline, and it's none of our business", the "This shows cultural bias; in many cultures, taking one's own life is seen as a perfectly valid form of self-expression". You'd have the slippery-slopers: "Oppose, next we will be required to report threats of non-fatal self-mutilation - what if a person threatens to smoke a cigarette, that's deadly too". The "By proper care and attention you mean consigning them to the crypto-fascist police/psychiatrist system when what they really need is...". I'm sure there's arguments I haven't thought of. And then the trolls on top of that. I am not at all certain that you could get a majority, let alone consensus, to adopt this as a policy. Herostratus (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont think that's what most (or any?) of us want. But a delineated method of how admins should handle such things (block talk page/dont block talk page... etc) or delineating places that editors who want to can point a user to for help, and a place where editors who want to can report such things for an admin to review would be nice. Along with a few other things listed above. I for one would jump in and offer what help I can, even if (which it probably would be since I am no expert) it meant only posting a helpline number and ensuring it was reported to the appropriate WikiPeople to follow up with authorities. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) - bit of a mess

Following User:Racepacket's recent move of The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) to Cornell literary societies and subsequent editing, User:Cmagha has cut and pasted the original version of that article to The Irving Literary Society and in the process removed all the edit history as well as creating an unattributed content fork. Also, Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1 was not moved when Talk: The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) was moved to Talk:Cornell literary societies and is now stranded, although I've added a link to it at the newly titled talk page.

I then contacted Cirt because he was the administrator who handled the original restoration of the article after this deletion review, if nothing else to merge the page history of Cornell literary societies to the fork The Irving Literary Society. Although, that's only one aspect of this tangle. However, he suggested [8] that the issue should probably be dealt with here. I will notify User:Racepacket and User:Cmagha of this discussion as well as the talk pages of the relevant articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that almost all of the sources deal with a group of four of the student literary societies that existed at Cornell from 1868 to 1888. The sources cited indicate that the Irving (a coeducational literary society that included members from a variety of fraternities) held its last known meeting on May 23, 1887. A current undergraduate fraternity claims (without sources) that the Irving was "absorbed" into that male-only fraternity and that its membership has continued over the years as being co-extensive with the fraternity. They have incorporated a link to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) into their website used for rushing and member recruitment. I cannot find any secondary sources to support this claim or the continuation of The Irving as a registered student organization.

To fix up the article to reflect what the sources say (e.g., a discussion of a number of co-equal literary societies) I moved it to Cornell literary societies and changed the phrases "The Iriving and its peers" to "the literary societies". I have also found a number of WP:SYN, WP:OR and mischaracterization of sources problems, which I am trying to fix. As for the latest step, which is User:Cmagha restarted the Irving-centered article at The Irving Literary Society, there are problem because WP:ORG provides "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." So, absent a sourced connection to the Irving, the present-day local fraternity would not justify a separate article. I suggest that we place a notice on WikiProject Cornell, and mobilize an effort to improve the Cornell literary societies article and perhaps start an AFD on the latest content fork. I only became aware of this problem yesterday, and was not aware of Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. A would appreciate any technical help in correcting any mistakes made in the move. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I heard from two of the other editors after the title was changed; was somewhat confusing. There is room for both concepts, Racepacket's idea of a general article, and one on the Irving. The Irving article has been through review twice, the original AfD and then the petition to restore under deletion review. What has been harder to understand is the perceived animosity (language such as 'outrageous') and the persistance of the opposition to the article, despite some excellent help along the way. As Racepacket indentifies questions re: factual citations, the editors will address.--Cmagha (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how deletion review is not perfect. At a glance the article looks well crafted, and I think it was for this reason it passed an AFD review. The editors didn't actually take the time to read the sources for the article carefully and compare them with the wiki article. The article should never have been allowed to be recreated. It's chalk full of original research, misconstrued sources, peacockery, and inflated claims that have no supportig evidence. The main editor who contributed to the article has a clear conflict of interest and has repeatedly reverted and or ignored the advice of multiple experienced wikipedians who have tried to point out wiki policy regaurding original research, verifiabilty, etc. Those of us who supported deletion in the first two AFDs got tired of arguing and didn't participate in the deletion review process. If anything the re-created article is worse than the ones that got deleted before. Sigh.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ouch. I didn't learn how to revert until someone asked me to help with vandalism about a month ago, so that looks a little dubious, above. When compared to the original, this article does look spiffy, in part because of the great, if not somewhat tonal, coaching.--Cmagha (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't blame the deletion review process per se. As poor as the "revised" article was (and still is in its current fork), it probably did have sufficient sources to minimally establish notability, at least for the mid-19th century Irving Literary Society at Cornell. Notability is the only remit of deletion discussions and reviews. They are not concerned with content and style issues unless there are BLP or copyright concerns. Content and style issues and COI concerns need to be addressed through ordinary editing. But whether there is eventually one article or two, the current title of the fork The Irving Literary Society is not suitable and should be moved back to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). As was pointed out at AfD: The Irving Literary Society, there are multiple distinct Irving Literary Societies in the US, several of which are more notable than this one, have a longer history, and are still in existence. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved and relinked the article Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. I have tagged the article The Irving Literary Society. However, "don't bite the newbies" can only go so far. I am a bit troubled by the apparent meatpuppet relationship between Cmagha and at least Coldplay3332. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• So this is resolved? We can just concentrate on improving both articles, Cornell literary societies and the Irving Literary Society? By the way, Coldplay3332 and Cmagha are very different people. No meat; no sock.--Cmagha (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• No it's not resolved. The original request to administrators here has nothing to do with content disputes, it was simply:

  1. that someone repair the wholesale cut and paste you made from another article or advise on how to make proper attribution in this case

  2. that the fork The Irving Literary Society be moved back to its original title, The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University), over the redirect. Only an administrator can do that.

  Voceditenore (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have supplied the required attribution per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• As previously reported at ANI, it is again raining sockpuppets/meatpuppets on this issue. The accounts that appear to be now involved are: User:Cmagha, User:Wehatweet, User:Coldplay3332 and User:Lebowski 666. There are still behavioral issues involving tendentious editing, misuse of sources, POV, synthesis and COI of a chronic nature. Racepacket (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ONE WEEK FREEZE requested on deleting US election/candidate articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – There is strong support for the notion that existing policies and guidelines are adequate to deal with articles surrounding candidates for U.S. elections. In other words, there is significant opposition towards treating these articles differently vis a vis the deletion process. There are some who support the proposal of the OP in the original thread, but consensus seems clear that this is not going to be implemented. Furthermore, there is no support (near universal opposition) towards sanctioning those involved in tagging such candidates articles for deletion, in cases where the tags are applied in good faith towards articles which may not likely meet the notability standards. There's not any other discussion here which involves administrators, as it is devolving into unhelpful sniping. The rest will be collapsed for readibility of the rest of this page. --Jayron32 06:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

---

closed discussion collapsed for readibility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is a week and a day before the U.S. elections, and suddenly a lot of candidate articles are being deleted (examples: Scott M. Sipprelle and Douglas Herbert). This is not the time for this. The world will not end if we wait a week, but we will get lots of unwanted news coverage if this continues prior to the election, seriously harming the reputation of Wikipedia. I have no quarrel if someone deletes an article which was slapped together in the past week or so by a rabid partisan and has no non-partisan voter information links, etc. I do have a problem with articles which have been around for months, show quite a number of people spending time and effort, and weren't discussed for notability until now. I wish I had caught some of them earlier myself (such as the Herbert article), but I didn't, so for now I added some links and did some formatting - and will be more than happy to nominate it for merging after the election is over. But imo it wouldn't be right to rush to judgement now, and certainly not to nominate all the 'challenger' articles now just so I could delete them in a week, the day before the election, as seems to be the 'new plan'. Think of Wikipedia's reputation. Several of us have been marking articles for merging, we have participated in discussions, but some articles were missed, and some articles didn't reach a clear consensus so we're waiting until after the elections. 'We the serious workers' have been trying to assume good faith. I can't say the same for these "johnny-came-latelies". (And yes, partisanship can be seen in deleting likely-to-win candidate articles for one party, and only "no-real-hopers" from another. Thanks for asking.) Flatterworld (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Am I missing something? Douglas Herbert hasn't been deleted. It hasn't even been sent to AFD Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It had (very appropriately) been turned into a redirect to the article on the district, since this is a pretty pathetic excuse for a claim for notability; but another editor reverted the redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Yes just noticed [9]. Sorry I missed that Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It should be simple: articles that meet the GNG and WP:POLITICIAN are kept, and articles that don't are removed. I think Tarc's approach on Douglas Herbert above was pretty good: redir for now, and if people happen to win the office then they would be notable and could have an article (which could just be retrieved from the history). How many articles on candidates for the UK Parliamentary Elections did we allow to persist earlier this year? An alternative to how Tarc was approaching it is that questionable notable candidates for offices can be put up for AFD, you know. I bet the questionably notable candidates for offices attempting to use Wikipedia to further their campaign would love that. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Indeed. We've consistently treated such candidates in many elections for many nations, states, provinces and localities the same way. In this specific case, I am not seeing much notability, yet. Resolute 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) And at this point what is accomplished by sending one of these candidates to AFD when we don't know what the status will be when the AFD is over? Candidates sent over last week, no problem. If they are already at AFD, no problem. But let's hold off on any new noms because by the time the AFD is over the AFD will be over and we'll have a better sense of what is going on.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)Strong Support I agree. At this point in time, sending articles to AFD will be counterproductive. Whether the candidate currently meets N or not, all we are going to do is end up with a number of AFD's and long debates over notability---which in most cases will not really be determinable until next Tuesday anyway. EG An article gets nominated for AFD tomorrow. The AFD runs it's course. We have a lot of people checking out Doug's page at the last minute to find out who the candidate is. They see the AFD tag and join in the discussion. Suddenly we have a score of politically motivated individuals chiming in on a debate concerning notability. If the AFD ends in favor of keeping the candidate, but they fail to win what happens? Do we keep the failed candidate because we ran an AFD the week before the election and the people who joined in the conversation were interested in the debate? Or if the AFD ends in favor of deleting the candidate, but they do win the position, thus becoming notable---do we delete the article because the AFD said to delete? In other words, by the time the AFD comes to resolution, we will have a clearer picture of who really meets our notability guidelines. In the mean time, I agree with Flatterworld, if we send a lot of articles to AFD because they haven't won yet, we might get a lot of coverage. Any time debating these candidates right now would be wasted and would likely be riddled with people coming to the AFD pages from outside of WP. Let's just put a moritorium on them until after the election at which point we can better and more accurately assess who is worth keeping and who we have to get rid of. Plus, at this point in time, the person(s) who are likely to nominate these articles are going to be the ones who have interest in the elections---eg more motivated by politics than by WP policies/guidelines.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTEMoving ot Neutral I still think this is a good idea, but I just went through the last 3 days of current AFD's and 3 days worth of AFD's just prior to the 2008 election cycle. I was convinced that there would be some obvious examples showing how this had been abused, but I didn't see it being abused. Is it a concern? Yes. Am I willig to revisit it? Definitely, if you can show me how it was abused in 2008 and is being abused right now. So eventhough I can see the benefit of of the proposal, I'm not sure if I am convinced of the need.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)NOTE 2: Moving back to support.Tarc has decided to make this into an issue and has decided to be pointy about these cases. In any AFD the guidance should be for the closing administrator. The closing administrator shuold not be acting to delete these cases until next Monday or Tuesday at the earliest---at which point, having this discussion becomes a moot point. Any guidance provided needs to be based upon the final resolution of the election. Any !vote taken prior to that is guesswork as to what the situation will be at that time.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it were, we would have a lot more articles on people's sister's cousin's friend's Myspace bands. Syrthiss (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)You are exactly right, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which is why we SHOULDN'T be deleting anything until after the election. At this point running an AFD is wasted time and energy. In the time that it takes us to run an AFD we will have a more conclusive answer as to whether or not somebody is or isn't notable.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC) oppose I understand where the requester is coming from, but this is inherently non-workable. Does this mean, for example, that every city council candidate, every non-starter candidate (though I like that Rent is Too Damn High party guy!) can set up a page on wikipedia and not have it deleted until after next Tuesday? Obviously we don't want a flood of non-notable candidates setting up pages on wikipedia and being retained unexamined. Finally, if we do this for the US, why not for other countries? Elections in Burma are coming up as well with thousands of candidates, minor and major, who should be covered by this generalized one week exemption. To be brief, this is an unworkable bad idea. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I would go along with a caveat, that this would only apply to people who are running for positions that are generally deemed notable (Governor, US Congressmen, and US House of Rep.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) That still lets in a host of minor candidates (like the Rent is Too Damn High party's Jimmy McMillan who is amongst seven candidates running for Governor of New York). Also, what about Burma?--RegentsPark (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The fact that you can mention the Rent is too damn high party and people know what you are talking about clearly indicates Jimmy's notoriety and the fact that he's become an internet sensation. As for Burma, we are only talking about positions wherein notability would generally be perceived if they won (Congressmen,Governor,Representative.) If we are talking about a Burmese position that generally conveys notability, then fine... but I don't think the Burmese get as rabid about editing wikipedia.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) JM may or may not be notable but that's precisely what AfD is there for. Meanwhile there are four other candidates, and I saw them all on the debate, but even I can't remember their names. Bottom line, there are lots of countries and lots of elections with loads of minor candidates who are there just for the heck of it. I think this is a slippery slope that is best not ventured onto. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC) RegentsPark, I was clear that I was talking about articles which have been around for months, NOT those recently created. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Support per Balloonman. We can do all the cleanup needed next week. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose Many don't even pass the requirements of WP:BLP. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST, and being on Wikipedia should never be used as an attempt to actually gain some kind of notability. I still have a userspace draft around of someone who was notable on their own and then ran for city council, lost, and the article was deleted ... there are too many wannabe's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC) oppose subjects should pass notability. There are far too many no name, no chance of winning whatsoever articles out there. If they are notable they stay. If no they don't seems reasonable. We should not have a moratorium on removing fringe people who have no notability. The problem with most politician articles is noone cares until the week before the election so the only time to remove them without them having an unneeded article forever is now. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for every third-party write-in candidate for city dog catcher and similar elected offices. Candidates that meet Wikipedia's usual criteria for inclusion should be kept while those that fail these standards should not be saved just because they might someday become notable. --Allen3 talk 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Support And ask that sudden spates of negative information be avoided in any such BLPs. The deadline on WP is long enough for this. Collect (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, as redirector. - I'll explain my rationalization here. Following participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Barr (Kentucky) last week, I decided to sift through United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 – complete list to see what else was there. What I found was a lot of people with Wikipedia articles who do not meet the threshold of either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, so I redirected them to the appropriate district race article and section. I left alone anyone with a hint of notability...i.e. state senators, mayors, city council, leading businessman, etc... Everything I redirected was the article of a person who had done nothing else but be nominated by their party to run for office; Rep, Dem, and Green were unspared. Even some of those who were only candidates but seemed to have demonstrated sufficient notability (i.e. Stephene Moore I left alone. Purposefully leaving these notability failures in place for a week under some kind of silly "freeze" proposal is tantamount to free electioneering IMO. Non-notable is non-notable, whether a week or a year before an election. Nothing was deleted, so if any of these people actually win, that simply gets undone; nothing is lost. I'd rather not waste AfD time on certain redirect results, so the desired outcome her would be for Flatterworld (and InaMaka now that I look at some contribs here), two warring factions of an ideological debate if I ever saw some, to restore the redirects. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) At the time the Stephene Moore article was created, she was considered the likely winner. I'm not part of some 'warring faction' here, and obviously you haven't checked out my contributions to figure that out. Flatterworld (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Oppose per BWilkins: if the fact that they're running for a notable positions means they suddenly hit the news in a week, then an article can be written at that point. But any subject which does not meet our notability guidelines now can and should be deleted, and any article simply attempting to use wikipedia to gain notability or advertise their polical campaign should be speedily deleted as G11. Note that I have not looked at the articles specifically so I'm not making any specific recommendations for AfD or speedy deletion in any particular case, but I strongly oppose a blanket against-policy "freeze" of taking these articles to AfD; the articles should be assessed against policy in the same way as any other article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose As per BWilkins and Giftiger wunsch - being a candidate no one ever heard of shouldn't guarantee an article, certainly shouldn't let people use us for publicity. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Support and Clarification: I am talking about official candidates, on the general election ballot, for U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator. Many of these are involved in "Tossup" races, so our readers are indeed interested in learning about them - particularly in following the links to Project Vote Smart, Open Secrets, Follow the Money, the FEC, etc. Furthermore, I am talking about articles which have been around for months and no one was interested in deleting them. There are articles which were discussed/merged/deleted earlier, when tempers were a bit cooler. As I said earlier Douglas Herbert is an example of an article I wish I had caught earlier. Scott M. Sipprelle is another article I restored today, and I suggest you consider that. He's not a "no-hoper" (unlike Herbert), and there's definitely growing page views. Assuming we exist to provide information, and assuming there's some wisdom in crowds as to what they're interested in, I simply see no reason to delete all these articles right before the election.. Flatterworld (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Note the above comment is also by the nominator, so when/if it comes time to tally, don't double-count. It has nothing to do with no-hopers or shoe-ins, it has to do with the project's accepted standards for notability, and just being a candidate doesn't cut it on its own. An encyclopedia is not a campaign guide. Also, if you look at the complete list, the majority of challengers don't even have pages. I'd wager that the majority of what does exist for these non-notable figures were started by staffers or close-to-the-source partisans. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) But a candidate as you mention in a toss-up race would qualify because of significant coverage, yes? JodyB talk 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose WP:Politician does a fine job of handling these articles. Any candidate with significant coverage in reliable sources stays. No need to make some big change here. JodyB talk 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Again, see [Scott M. Sipprelle]] which I restored today. Flatterworld (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment -- Here is another example: The next to last version of an article about Ed Potosnak, who is a Congressional candidate in the district next to that of Douglas Herbert. This article was turned into a redirect three days ago, but nobody has reverted it, so it's still a redirect, to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010#District 7. I agree with the originator of this thread that the week before an election is not the time to be disappearing and/or reappearing articles about candidates, especially major-party candidates for a national-level legislature. In fact, I would make it a longer period than that. So I am neither supporting nor opposing the "one week freeze" since I don't think it goes far enough. I would go for a retroactive freeze going back to (say) the beginning of October, which I assume would be even less popular with those who oppose the current proposal. Then I think there needs to be a discussion about WP:POLITICIAN and whether it is too restrictive, but that can wait until after the election. Neutron (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) No, it does a lousy job when there are hundreds of articles and only a week before the election. As I said, see Scott M. Sipprelle which I resotred today. Flatterworld (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) That article should stay because it has significant coverage in reliable sources. JodyB talk 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Excellent example - you should have checked the discussion on it as there was clearly no consensus to delete and Tarc simply acted on his own. That's the partisanship I'm talking about, and why we need a freeze. Flatterworld (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) When in the linked example you start using phrases like 'it is an insult', and calling people partisan I start to think that you may be getting too heavily involved in this discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Syrthiss, you misread that. That was a separate comment about each District in the election article itself. I checked the official candidate list form the Secretary of State and found lots of candidate which weren't listed as candidates in the District section. Nothing to do with Potosnak. Please stop jumping to wild conclusions bsed on a quick skimming of a Talk page. Flatterworld (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I misread nothing. In the link you give discussion here (I agree with no connection to Potosnak), you say that to leave names out "is an insult". Syrthiss (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ecx3)Until next week any discussion on these candidates is meaningless. Plus, if you are going strictly off of coverage, then any failed Senatorial/Governor/Representative from one of the major parties would be notable and this whole thing would be meaningless. Until next week, all people will argue is that there is a ton of coverage, but ignore the guidance about failed candidates.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It might be too early to close right now, but this does seem like a discussion which won't go very far unless something changes in what it is that is being asked/proposed here.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. We should not be an election campaign notice-board. Let the normal rules apply. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Support Per Flatterworld.--InaMaka (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Support While I understand the concern that Wikipedia can be used for political promotion by non-notable candidates, a week out from an election the risk of ill-intentioned deleting outweighs it. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC) So, we send the world a signal that Wikipedia is not for promotion except for a week before any election, when it is open house for candidates' campaign posters? JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) See WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Any disruptive nomination will be speedily kept. You're not proposing watching out for disruptive nominations, however, you're proposing allowing non-notable individuals to use wikipedia to further their political campaign and make them immune from community discussion. That cannot be allowed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: Does anyone else find it concerning that the last two support !votes have come from users who have been left a note by Flatterworld which isn't exactly neutral? "The deletes are being done by people I don't recognize being involved in any actual article work." [sic] GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Well, Flatterworld did also post that same message to OrangeMike who appears to oppose above (supporting the redirect) at the same time. Syrthiss (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I noticed that, but it doesn't alleviate my concerns that the message was campaigning, being a non-neutral message. It should have been a simple notification, not attempting to colour the discussion by suggesting that those in favour of deletion are somehow less entitled to their opinion. The user also should have informed those who proposed deletion or created the redirects, or it is also votestacking, addressing only those who the user feels may agree (the fact that Orangemike disagreed doesn't change that, I don't see Tarc being notified, for example). Actually Tarc was notified, but with an entirely different message (and a rather less civil one). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc was the first person of the four people notified. Granted neutrally worded is the preferred manner, but he did notify people on both sides of the spectrum and did so promptly and in limited scale.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Giftiger, I left messages for the only two Wikipedians who have been involved with lots of election and candidate articles on an ongoing basis this time around, including earlier discussions of when to delete, merge, etc. OrangeMike I remembered as being quite involved in 2008. You really should try viewing the contributions of each of us before you go into ooh!ooh! mode. (btw - I didn't appreciate Tarc's attitude, particularly after all the contributions I've made in this area. Anyone who calls me 'sport' in such a contemptuous fashion deserves whaevert they get, imo. 'Assume Good Faith' is not a suicide pact.) Flatterworld (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Well, I can't say that I cared much for unilateral reversion of the redirects without thought or comment, so "Touché, Pussy Cat!. :) Tarc (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN exist for a reason. Notable candidates stay and non-notable candidates go (or get redirected to the appropriate election artic) per WP:Wikipedia is not a source for election candidate biographies. As I've stated quite a few times in related Afds, I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. If a non-notable candidate receives coverage in the context of the election, then per WP:BLP1E a redirect should be made to the election article. Location (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, if we're putting in bolded stuff here. I fail to see how this is different from any other form of crystal ballery. If the candidate later becomes notable, we can always put the article back iff such a thing happens. If not, why give such articles special treatment? Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose.' The candidates that people are actually interested in will be covered by the media and they're notable. The others, no great loss. That's the point of WP:GNG.  Sandstein  05:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Support, with some clarification - Many of these articles that are being proposed for deletion have existed for months. Why would all of the sudden a whole slew of articles for challenger candidates from major parties be considered non-notable now? Why not shortly after they were created? That is why I believe these AfDs are in bad faith. However, I do think that a moratorium on AfDs should be specific to federal legislative or gubernatorial races where the candidate is either in a major party that's on the ballot or is a prominent third party challenger (i.e. Tom Tancredo for the sake of argument in the Colorado gubernatorial election, 2010). As I said in one of the AfDs, it's not like these are articles for the city dogcatcher. --NINTENDUDE64 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose These candidates are, most of them, simply not historically notable in any sense. Putting a moratorium for the duration of the election amounts to legitimizing propganda and spam, which is what a lot of these bios amount to. Moreover, thisdiscussion should definitely not be happening at ANI, which is a board many editors avoid like the plague. WT:AFD or an RfC is the natural place to discuss any proposed freeze on AfDs. RayTalk 05:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Bad precedent to keep non-notables with regard to upcoming notability. It would open a floodgate of no-good articles. When a person who is not otherwise notable gets elected, they can have a bio article here. Before that time? No. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Doesn't this raise a BLP concern? I'm breaking this out into a separate area because I think Collect has made an extremely salient point that might get overlooked by people looking at this primarily from an AFD/Notability criteria. This is the final week before one of the most heated elections in American History. Venture onto any candidates page or issue and you'll see a ton of heated debates. I've been called to moderate a few over the past few weeks and it is never fun. As the final week approaches us, we will be confronted with people nominating candidates for deletion based upon notability issues. This can be done in an attempt to discredit said individuals. As such, the nom itself would become a BLP concern. Even if the nom isn't, then there may be allegations/statements made on the candidates AFD pages that are not supported and cross the line becoming a BLP violation. No we are not a campaign notice board, but there is no harm done to wikipedia in allowing these articles to exist for one week more (the length of time it would take to get an AFD through anyways) to find out who really does and does not meet the expectations of POLITICIAN. Any !vote now doesn't really matter, what happens in a week (when the AFD would end) will really play a huge role in whether or not an article is kept or deleted.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I of course agree, but some of those 'Merge' notices (including some I posted myself) were made with the consensus of the workers at the time that they wouldn't be acted upon until after the election. We deleted and merged the obvious ones (such as a no-hoper candidate/staff doing a quick cut and paste from their campaign site, no outside refs other than those quoting the campaign site) but the rest we decided to give the benefit of the doubt for the time being. My crystal ball is on the blink, unfortunately. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC) "No harm" ? Really? Also, I will note again that I paid zero attention to party affiliation. As far as I can recall, (R), (D), and even a (G) all met the ax. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Er Tarc, you missed the entire point. Nominating them MAY DO harm, leaving them without an AFD tag avoids the BLP issue. And last time I checked noharm was an opinion on an essay, whereas no harm is one of our key policies. Guess which one wins?------Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Lemme get this straight. Your argument is that readers coming here to look up info on the candidate would be negatively prejudiced by a big "This article is subject to deletion" banner, therefore we should forgo the AfD process? Like "hey, this clown can't even keep a Wiki article? Hah, I'm not voting for him then!" To that I would say bullshit. And honestly, I question the basic voting competence of anyone who comes to an "anyone can edit" to find honest information on a political candidate. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Nominating an article for deletion based on the fact that it doesn't meet our policies is not a WP:BLP problem, and claiming such is a horrendous failure to assume good faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc, deleting a Republican 'contender' and a Democratic 'no hoper' is hardly the same thing. I restored both, and will now check the others. I also note you're not the only one doing these deletes, which is why I posted the freeze request. Flatterworld (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It doesn't have to be nominated with the intent of causing harm. In some cases it will be, but the reality is that the effect might be.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Well, that's utter nonsense I'm afraid. Any article may be nominated for deletion if the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria, and it's not a BLP violation to nominate such an article. If you can demonstrate that specific articles meet our criteria, then they will be kept. If they don't meet the criteria, they'll be deleted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Doesn't the fact the article exists pose another massive potential BLP problem. In that people could edit them negatively/positively. So for that reason we should summarily delete all of these articles to avoid any such problems. Ok, that was sarcasm, but I think there is strong rationale for imposing strong delete requirements on non-notable politicians in the run up to an election, it's easily the biggest example of "recentism" causing a groundswell of NN articles. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Actually, no. The software flags a lot of vandalism-type edits which are then corrected. Flatterworld (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't see the BLP concern here. As noted, our notability criteria is what it is. Either an individual meets it, or they don't. If they don't, their article can be put up at AFD, redirected, PRODed, etc. I see no value in changing our process because of what can only be characterized as highly speculatory fears of some kind of undefined harm resulting from us following our own policies. Resolute 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Who creates these? Analysis; Scott M. Sipprelle > Demintz13 (talk · contribs) Douglas Herbert > Wikipeople101 (talk · contribs) Scott Eckersley > MO Ro mney (talk · contribs) (with a likely WP:COI from a Jeckersley (talk · contribs) Jim Meffert > Ribaldknave (talk · contribs) and contribs from Wildgopher47 (talk · contribs) John Flerlage > Crudblue (talk · contribs) What we have here are one-and-dones using the project for political advocacy. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, and who is likely to nominate them for deletion? People using the project for political advocacy. And when it goes to AFD who is going to participate? AFD regulars? Wikipedia regulars? In many cases yes, but for the next week we are likely to get a strong dose of political advocacy intejected in there. It would be easier and clearer just to wait.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (NOTE:Redacted with italicized info added.) Baloonman, I seriously suggest you start assuming good faith rather than accusing the entire community of acting upon political motivations, because such accusations simply make it clear that you have a conflict of interest here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Besides the Tea Party article where I've been asked to moderate, you'll find that I haven't participated in any political articles/afds/etc---I find them tedious and laborious--especially at this point in time where we have tons of people crawling out of the wood work to participate on these articles. I think we would be much much better served waiting a week until we know who won and who lost. But I will concede that this comment might have been taken too broadly, as many people might not be motivated from that perspective.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The fact is, the only arguments which are worth anything in an AfD discussion are arguments which demonstrate that the article fails to meet wikipedia policy or guidelines, such as WP:GNG and the like. As always, any arguments to delete an article on a notable subject without a policy-based rationale, will simply be ignored. Disruptive nominations will be closed as speedy keep. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) So for the next week, we will get "Delete, candidate is only a candidate, has not won the position, therefore does not meet WP:POLITICIAN." Which, come next Tuesday is outdated because the candidate did win and is now the Representative/Senator/Governor of a state? Waiting a week, the time it would take the AFD to run anyways, will give everybody a much better picture of who really meets our Notability guidelines and who doesn't.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we can't predict whether they'll win their elections or not. At the moment, many of the candidates are not notable. That means at the moment, the articles should not exist. If they are elected and thus meet the notability criteria afterwards, the articles can be freely recreated. I would suggest that any of these articles which are deleted at AfD, should be userfied so that they may be easily updated and returned to mainspace if they do overcome the issues raised at AfD, otherwise they can be discarded. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It's because we can't predict that it is a waste of time to have these discussions. Any AFD started after tomorrow, the election will be over before the AFD is over. Any discussion that occurs BEFORE the election results is largely predicated upon the final outcome of said election. That being said, I did move to neutral above because I'm not convinced this is a problem needing an answer or an answer looking for a problem. In other words, I think sending articles to AFD this week is a waste of time, but I don't think we need to legislate not sending them to AFD.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC) If they win, then the articles get un...wait for it...redirected. No history lost, and editing goes on. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC) While you snicker and smirk at our readers who were trying to find informationa bout the candidates BEFORE the election. Brilliant. Flatterworld (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks to the actions of Tarc, ininstating support of the ban. It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one of his Pointy AFDs should do so from the perspective of not whether or not the article meets notability today, but rather will it when the time comes to delete it?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but that is extremely misguided guidance you're providing, then. Anyone who weighs in on the discussion should do so with reasons that are grounded in actual editing policies and guidelines, not gazing into Professor Trelawney's crystal ball to predict election results. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The earliest they can be deleted per policy is Monday night. The night before the elections. Any guidance provided re deletion/keeps will be premature/heated/and a waste of effort.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) It's not Wikipedia's job to serve as a platform for non-notable candidates in an election. People looking for information can go to the websites of those candidates and local papers, advocacy sites, etc. As to AFD being a waste of time, if there are five candidates in one election, all of whom are presently NN, only one would become notable next week. Four of those articles would still be deleted or redirected, and in the case of the winner, any admin with half a brain would simply close their AfD as mooted, since every "delete - nn" argument would be obsolete. Resolute 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) And Resolute, what administrator with half a brain would delete an article the night before the election knowing that the candidate might win the next day? What kind of press would that garner wikipedia? I can see the headlines now: "Wikipedia Deleted the articles of 20 newly elected politicians due to notability the night before the election." At a certain point, common sense has to come into play. The only smart thing that an admin could do next Monday or Tuesday would be to relist the article.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC) All 20 of which would be restored before the newspapers hit the stands. Of course, it is unlikely that anyone but The Register would care too much about that, and the obvious rebuttal is "they weren't any more notable than any other candidate before they were elected". Resolute 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Balloon, ca you pelase drop "they will be deleted" canard? They were, and hopefully will be again, R-E-D-I-R-E-C-T-E-D. That means that the casual reader that some are so terribly concerned for here will not meet a dead end, will not wind up in an "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS TEH SUXX0RZ!" press article on election night. As far as they are concerned, their "search" will simply take them to a congressional district section of their state's elections. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Tarc, you know very well that as far as our readers are concerned, your version of a Merge (which has only been a redirect in the articles you've hit so far) means the material is deleted because they won't see it. Or are you telling us to believe that our typical reader will know enough to scroll up to the top of the election article (because the redirect is to the District section), click on the redirect, then click on History, then look for the earlier 'long' version of the article, then click on that, and finally read it for the information you're claiming has not been deleted - as opposed to our readers assuming there never was an article, just a redirect from the get-go. And of course that's not even possible if they're using the mobile version of Wikipedia. You seem to be rather delusional about our readers. As far as our readers are concerned, you deleted the article. And they will not be able to rely on Wikipedia to learn about the candidate before they vote. And you think that's hilarious. Flatterworld (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Whelp, that's that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby I take the above straw poll as non consensus leaning towards oppose, for a "freeze", so off we go with a few trial balloons. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Dear Tarc: Flatterworld has made very good points and it is only a few days from the election. I noticed that you have taken it upon yourself--without any input from other editors or even rudimentary attempt to reach concensus--merge complete articles out of existence. Please see: Michel Faulkner. Under no circumstance does the discussion above give you the ability to be the judge, jury, and executioner of some of these candidate articles. The discussion process alone will take up the remainder of the time between now and Election Day. Please keep that in mind when you head out to release a "few trial balloons".--InaMaka (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, because inviting community discussion as to whether an article should be deleted, per long-established, regular process, is the same as being "judge, jury, and executioner". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) And I would take this to be a case of being extremely WP:Pointy---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC) No, it is a case of having to deal with several obstinate editors who wish to circumvent notability guidelines for the sake of an election, or (in Flatterworld's admission) for the sake of how the media may view the Wikipedia getting rid of candidate's articles before an election. I'd rather not take the time to create an AfD for every article that this crew has reversed a redirect on; I'd optimistically like to see a bit of snowfall on the two created so far, then come back here with that showing of consensus and handle the rest without the need of AfDs. Hence the "trial balloon" term. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Anybody who snowball deletes them will be doing so against polcy. The earliest these can be deleted, will be Monday night the night before the election. If we have a mass deletion the evening before the election, then I too would be thinking about what the media might say. No admin in their right mind would delete one of these articles the night before. Thus, again, I call it pointy.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Invoking snow, where appropriate, is not against policy. If there are no valid keeps, I could see these wrapping up in a day or two. I have to think if I'd gotten on the ball with this a week or so ago then all this wouldn't have generated so much noise. But y'know, shit happens, and here we are on 10-25-10. I find the "but we're only 8 days away" argument to be quite poor. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC) sorry to but in but, the day we/you/I give a rat's azz what the media might say or write is a sorry one in deed, imho. Stick to policy/guidelines. Forget about the day before election business. There will always be something happening event/election wise....anyways, carry on :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Invoking WP:SNOW is fine where the deletion is non-controversial. The discussion here should show that any such deletion, in this topic area and at this time, would be controversial, and thus SNOW does not apply. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC) If anything it will snow keep... and you might as well pull Scott's nom now and concede that he is notable.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) COMMENT. Tarc has also requested an AfD for Steve Raby, so I added him to the list above. Flatterworld (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC) This is a major problem This poses a major problem, as several excellent points have already been raised. However, one point which I think is forgotten is that if we let every single candidate (official or otherwise) have an article we risk having articles for non-notable candidates (as in, no third-party coverage) which gives them undue weight, AND those articles are very exposed to BLP violations whereas they won't likely be watched well. It's a double-edged sword. The community really needs to decide how to handle this from a process standpoint and evenly enforce whatever process is adopted by consensus. This is very much like Schrödinger's cat: a candidate cannot be both notable and non-notable at the same time. I would argue that for several reasons, an candidate being on the ballot is not enough notability to warrant an article.    Thorncrag  20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, and define and distinguish why A7 wouldn't be invoked either.    Thorncrag  20:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) If you think A7 is an option, then you should probably review the CSD criteria. CSD is explicitly set for a lower threshold than N. All it requires is a credible claim to significance---anybody who is running for Senator/Representative/Governor clearly is making a credible claim to significance. So, even if an article clearly fails to meet N/POLITICIAN, that does not mean it is eligible for CSD.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)I would have no problem with limiting this proposal to the major parties for Senator/Representative/Governor. We've already had one person start AFD's to make a WP:POINT... if he had chosen to let somebody else do so (or even wait a few days) this would have probably blown over, but he made a conscious decision to do so and post that decision here (the epitome of POINT.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I disagree. Whether running for office is a credible claim is a philosophical question, not a question of Wikipedia policy. Personally, I question if it is. But that's not up to me to decide (or you, respectfully).    Thorncrag  20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Once again Balloon, it would be in your best interests to stop lying and misrepresenting my actions here. I have no "point" to make; I wish to see ANY article held up to our established notability guidelines. Whether it is a politician, a famous person's son, or a toy makes no difference to me; show that it is notable, otherwise it should be canned. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Thorncrag, your first point is NOT what we're arguing. The argument for the freeze is only for deleting articles this close to the election which have been around for quite awhile already. imo it shows serious disrespect and contempt for some volunteers here who, I presume, have been working on these articles in good faith. Now it looks for all the world as if some thought it would be hilarious to let them seek out all this third-party coverage, format footnotes, do all that work - just so someone like Tarc could pull the rug out from under them a week before the election. Jerking our volunteers around is not in the Wikipedia mission statement. The campaigns have been going on for over a year in some cases, and it's disengenous for anyone to now suddenly claim that hundreds of articles have to be 'justified' right this second. Or in Tarc's case, simply deleted and redirected and letting the rest of us' 'figure it out' if we happened to stumble across them. Normal people post a 'Request for Merge' on both the from and to articles, and wait until consensus is reached. Look at the history of these articles, and anyone could have requested a Merge months ago and had it properly discussed. As we did for many articles. As for the consensus on treatment in general, we have one: once someone wins a primary election (yes, that counts as an election!) they're 'notable enough' that we would wait until after the election to merge any article someone might create for them providing it otherwise met the standards for an article. If the article needed work, it would be tagged as such and improved. Most arguing is about candidates prior to the primaries, such as: "Joe Blow created a website, claiming he's running, but his only endorsement is his mother." And yes, those arguments are fairly short. That's not what we're talking about here.Flatterworld (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I was not advocating any of the points asserted in this dispute, only stating that I felt that notability for candidates is an issue that is worthy of discussion, even if it was brought to the forefront of our collective minds by less than straightforward means. I was trying to re-focus the discussion away from the dispute and more into discussion on this guideline or policy.    Thorncrag  21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Flatter, I think you are confusing Thorncrag and Tarc.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC) While I understand that this will all be more or less moot in a week, I don't believe we should have some sort of emergency injunction against AFDing these articles. Let's all just calm down and not do anything drastic in either direction, shall we? Some of these also-rans may still have received enough attention to be considered notable, and some of them not. Waiting a week to start parsing the wheat from the chaff seems reasonable, but there is no need to codify it. If there is a particular editor that is making numerous bad faith nominations we can revert and/or block them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)Um, once again, there is no bad faith on my part, and you'd be hard-pressed to make such a charge stick, but hey, knock yourself out. I tried to take care of some of these by simple redirects, which were declined. Other editors before me tried PRODs, which were declined. Bringing these to AfD is simply the next logical step; what cannot be handled editorially now needs to be handled formally. I could have jumped straight to AfDs with these a week ago and avoided this "OMG ELECTIONS NEXT WEEK!!!" horseshit, but I assumed (incorrectly, given the caterwauling that has ensued) that redirecting and preserving the history in case the persons ever became notable would have been an uncontroversial middle step. Tarc (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Beeblebrox, I think you totally underestimate the amount of time it would take to check all the articles out every day. And now I've found a sort of 'reverse issue'. I just updated United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2010#District 5, wikifying Mick Mulvaney's name. So look at his article - as in, who worked on it after the article included that he was running for US Rep. User:Orangemike (see above). He made plenty of edits, but it never, ever occurred to him to link to the actual election article? Or include any of the usual non-partisan voter links (for which there's a handy-dandy template created years ago to save me the work of entering each separately)? Really? All we have here is the equivalent of 'spider food' - anyone googling the guy's name would go here, and only here. The links on the election page? They'd never find them. And User:Jerzeykydd worked on that article as well - he's blocked until after the election for reverting edits to add third-party candidates to election article infoboxes, but my argument with him was about his creation of tons of articles for Republican candidates, NONE of which had the usual non-partisan voter information, just a five-second cut-and-paste from the campaign website. (I fixed a lot of them, until I realized he could create them a lot faster than I could fix them.) He added the '2010 run for U.S. Congress' section in the body of the article about the election (it was already in the lede) and - how odd! - there's a blank line where the 'See also' link template would normally go. Circumstantial 'evidence' for sure, but he's another 'experienced Wikipedian' who's well aware of the election articles. Do we have people playing games here? Definitely. I'm just pointing them out. Flatterworld (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC) It's kinda hard to follow this train of thought. Are you accusing Orangemike of being a sock of this Jerzeykydd? Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) No, I think he's accusing Orangemike of having political bias. Either way, it's a pretty strong assumption of bad faith, and Flatter really needs to reign it in. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Proposed Injunction against Tarc til After the Elections Yesterday a proposal was made to freeze AFD nominations on political candidates. While I initially supported the proposal, I withdrew my support from the original proposal because I didn't see the need. There were some comments that if somebody were to start sending a slew of bad noms to AFD that we could deal with that, Beeblebrox wrote "If there is a particular editor that is making numerous bad faith nominations we can revert and/or block them." Shortly after I changed my position, Tarc makes the announcement that he takes[the above straw poll as non consensus leaning towards oppose, for a "freeze", so off we go with a few trial balloons.] So WHILE his actions are actively being discussed here he decides to make a WP:POINT by starting some AFD's on the subject. It should be noted that there was no clear consensus at the time (beyond my stating that upon reviewing the history that I didn't see the need for a general injunction. Tarc immediately nominated two articles for AFD. The first being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert where the current !vote remains 8 keeps, 3 deletes, and 1 redirect. Nintendude, who as far as I can tell had no prior involvement in this discussion called the nom "obvious Bad Faith. While Brewercrew said that Wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our BLP policy. Unless they are unequivically unnotable (not this person), these afd's should be speedily closed per our BLP policy. The second being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination) where the current !vote is 8 keeps, 0 deletes, and 1 redirect. Again it is called a bad faith nom by Nintendude and JodyB. In this AFD GiftigerWuncsh defends Tarc Can we stop questioning the faith of the user who proposed this with a very clear, policy-based explanation, and instead focus on refuting their points, also based on policy? A "bad faith" nomination is one which is made solely as vandalism or to cause disruption. Giftiger also commented on Tarc's page about the claims of bad faith. The Third AFD being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby which currently stands at 8 keeps, 0 deletes, and one redirect. This time Giftiger writes, "(criterion 2.5) rationale clearly indicates that the nominator has failed to make any attempt to check for sources, since a very brief perusal of the links in the header here shows numerous reliable, third-party sources in newspaper articles. An identical rationale has been used for multiple other AfDs, and such a rationale very clearly does not apply here." InaMaka later wrote, "Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point." user:Giftiger wunsch went on to strike his comment on Tarc's page wherein he initially stated, "frankly I'm getting fed up of the various accusations of bad faith being thrown around, especially in relation to your AfD nominations." Giftigier also wrote on tarc's page, "I do think it has become clear in this instance that the subject meets the general notability guideline and should be kept; therefore I'd ask that you withdraw the nomination and allow the AfD to be closed." I joined in saying that if such were to happen that I wouldn't pursue a general ban on AFD's ANI as I saw no need outside of Tarc's actions. Tarc responded with "Mr. Balloon, I do not value your opinion in the slightest. Withdraw yourself from my talk page. Now." So I left him with a final note warning him that, "if you do choose to bring other articles to AFD, then I will definitely consider it WP:POINT at which point, I will have no problem with taking this to ANI." His response was to delete the warning (no problem there, with the edit summary "What part of 'do not post here' confuses you? Will a colorful acronym help?" After being warned that his edits were disruptive and that I would take him to ANI if he continued, he opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Potosnak. Guess, we will now have to show how Potasnak meets the GNG (but I can't do that til later). In summary, Tarc opened the AFD's DURING the discussion here with his post above basically saying, "I'm going to force the issue." People who are seeing the discussion disagree with him, even one of his bigger defenders has (apparently) started to see his noms as bad faith. And after getting a warning, he decided to do so again. In 4 years of Editing, this is probably the first time I've brought somebody to ANI!---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Facepalm There was no consensus, leaning towards an outright oppose, for the "FREEZE" proposal. Since this coterie of editors (Flatterworld, InaMaka) were unwilling to reverse their reversions of articles that I redirected, the next logical step was simply AfD; what could not be handled editorially now had to wind its way through the red tape. I am not here to make a "point", and I have kindly told this user, in no uncertain terms, why that is the case. In these nominations, I did not single out a particular political party or a geographical region, I am not employed by any campaign or any candidate. I have looked at dozens and dozens of challengers candidate articles over the last few weeks, and if there was even the slightest bit of notability beforehand...e.g. state congress, mayors, city council, I left it as is as it was an easy WP:GNG pass. Those I redirected, and subsequently had to nom for AfD, were of people who I feel fail both the WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I am quite on the deletionist side of things around here, and am fully aware that the bar I set for notability may not be quite as high as others do (i.e. I discount coverage of the candidate in local media as routine and not an example of the depth/breadth of coverage that WP:N needs). But guess what? That's why we have discussions. Ballon and Flatterworld and everyone else are free to weigh in at the AfDs. But honestly I am getting pretty sick and fucking tired of refuting this same "OMG POINT" accusation. It is demonstrably false, as I have no goal here other than to see Wikipedia articles held to notability standards, regardless of being a year or a day or a week from election time. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC) While Tarc's stated goal may be as he says, the actions are different and suggests that he wishes to make a point. As you can see from the AFD's so far, he is largely alone in his thinking. I called on him to withdraw the nom of Sipprelle and wish he would do so now. These are not appropriate. The "facepalm" image doesn't suggest much of an interest in discussion either. JodyB talk 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC) No, the facepalm is to express extreme frustration with people lobbing accusations at me that are 100% false. You included, now. I have stated quite clearly that I have nominated articles that in my assessment are failures of the notability guidelines. There is no grander "point" to be made, so please, drop the tinfoil hats. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) The time has come to ignore all rules and do what's best for Wikipedia. I can't believe somebody nominated Stephene Moore for deletion and that it was taken seriously, even by an administrator. People looking up major candidates such as Moore (and yes, it's a nationally watched race) for campaign research are one of the reasons why we're here; to produce a useful resource, and frankly, few things are more useful than that. Can we at least exercise more restraint here in chomping at the bit? Kansan (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC) WHOAH, hold up here...don't tie the Stephene Moore mess to me. That was a few weeks before all this, and if you'll take note of that AfD, I called to keep it. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I had not been aware of the Stephene Moore AfD previously, but looking at it now and in light of all these other AfD's, it does seem curious, Tarc. There you said that Mrs. Moore herself (not just the race itself) was notable because she is running for her husband's seat, and received coverage far and wide because of it. But don't you get tripped up on "notability is not inherited"? (A principle I don't think is always true, witness the hundreds of articles we have on people (some of whom are infants) whose sole claim to fame is that they are somewhere in the line of succession to the British crown, but that's a subject for another day.) Every candidate for Congress gets news coverage, and every candidate for Congress is running for someone's seat, usually an incumbent member of Congress. Now if she were running against her husband, that would be different in kind, not merely degree, from all these other races. But as it is, there just isn't enough of a difference. Please note that I am not joining in the call for an "injunction" against you, but I don't think your actions have been very helpful, either. Personally I think this is more evidence that the entire deletion/discussion process should be completely revamped, but that's also a subject for another day. Neutron (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I called to keep that article given the extensive media coverage that the woman had received in regards to running for her husband's seat. I think it'd be a stretch to apply "not inherited" to that, and I am usually the one trying to make those sorts of stretches. :) Tarc (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC) As Balloonman pointed out, I accidentally posted in the wrong subsection and was not trying to accuse Tarc of being connected to the Stephene Moore incident. Kansan (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I think Kansan's comment was intended to go in the general discussion above, not in this specific subsection.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I've asked Kansan to move the comment if it was intended for the parent section an not this one.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC) It was, but because it's been responded to and spawned a side discussion, I had better leave it at this point in time. I apologize for the mess. Kansan (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Support injunction. I am not sure exactly what Tarc does here on Wikipedia, but its certainly not encyclopedia-building. An analysis of his contribution history reveals drama-mongering, unpleasantness, among other problematic behavior. Most recently he tagged an article I expanded for speedy deletion with a nasty edit summary [10] on false grounds.[11] Not satisfied he started an afd discussion, which resoundly resulted in a consensus to keep.[12] The article then earned a DYK.[13] While my run-in with Tarc is not connected per se with this issue, it is yet another example of Tarc's disruptive nature here at Wikipedia. There was nothing gained by his tagging Nava Applebaum for speedy and then nominating for deletion except to waste the time of the editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia. All these afd's are the same. None of them are getting deleted and they are just wasting editors' time both here and at afd discussions. Tarc will most probably respond by attacking me, which of course will cloud the fact that Tarc, who is here since 2005 is nothing but disruption.[14]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC) The Appelbaum thing was a pretty disgusting affair, and quite the good example of why I touch the topic area very infrequently these days. There is no question at all that an article about a girl who died in an explosion is completely not in line with notability policy. As with much of the I-P topic area, partisanship ruled the day. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Frankly, if anyone but Balloonman was proposing this, I would have characterized it as a vindictive attempt to silence/censor someone with whom they are in disagreement. However, I do believe this is proposed in the same good faith that I believe Tarc nominated the articles at AFD under. Very few political candidates are notable, and there is no reason why America's mid-term election candidates should be treated any differently than any other locale's elections. The AFDs were fair game, and will resolve themselves as is natural in our system. There is no need for sanctions of any kind. Resolute 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the compliment. I will say that I did not pose this for OrangeMike who has also nominated articles for AFD because I have no questions about OM, but rather for Tarc alone because of his flippant attitude. If he had waited until the ANI discussion above had resolved naturally, I would not have had any issues. The fact that he came in on an issue that he was involved in, declared victory, and immediately declared that he was sending up "balloons" is why people question this activity. His actions curtailed the discussion here because he wanted the people at AFD to decide---which is the definition of WP:point. He's had numerous people tell him to stop, including a former supporter, but he continues on and has indicated that he intends to continue. And then he attacks those who critize him.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Tarcs actions seem in good faith to me, if you live in Kansas (or another American state) and your local papers are commenting on a election then a candidate may appear notable but in the wider picture, political candidates are not noteworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Kansas? Are you dissing Kansas?! Flatterworld (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC) comment ive only seen tarc a few times but he always seems interested in being rude and disruptive. it looks like he was violating the WP:POINT policy here. my interactions with him have always been unplesant such as for example here[15] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise). even if he has genuine good goals at wikipedia he goes out of his way to insult and be rude to fellow users. this current problem looks like he is just doing everything he does here to annoy people. i cant assume good faith when someone is so rude to me. Aisha9152 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Despite monitoring political biography Afs for a few weeks now, I have only became familiar with him in the last 24 hours. I have had no interactions with him to assume that this the slew of Afd nominations were made in bad faith. Although I completely agree with his reasoning, I think it was unwise to make those nominations prior to clear consensus in this ANI. Doing so has caused a reactionary response of "keep" in all of those nominations which will make it more difficult to delete or redirect what I perceive to be non-notable political biographies in the future. Location (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose, even the supposed "disruptive" AfD brought up in the proposal here has gained support from other editors (even if it may ultimately end a keep, though that's not certain either, as AfD is not a vote), so I don't see how it's obviously disruptive. We can sanction people for making obviously bad AfDs (nominating George W. Bush or hydrogen), but I don't see how this is sanctionable behavior. It's exactly what AfD is designed to do—bring an article where it's in legitimate question whether it passes the content policies before the community for a discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Strongly oppose. Severe case of bad faith by the proposer of this injunction. Corvus cornixtalk 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC) someone could say this assumptions bad faith too but im not going to because i dont want to get involved. Aisha9152 (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose any sanction. You may disagree with Tarc's actions, but they seem to me a not unreasonable attempt to hold on to our agreed notability standards. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Support. His disruptive actions have wasted more than enough time of other volunteers already. Flatterworld (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Strongly oppose I've had some very unpleasant run-ins with Tarc in the past, but his actions here are completely consistent with Wikipedia's agreed deletion processes and notability standards. You don't get to try to change the rules, and, when that looks like it's failing, try to sanction people who are following the rules for being "disruptive." RayTalk 05:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Definite oppose. Having just reviewed the entire thread for the first time, Tarc's nominations here are indeed the next step in our processes. All I see is a number of editors, including the initiator of this proposal, specifically targetting one editor (Tarc). as Balloonman has admitted he made this proposal because of Tarc's alleged "flippant attitude", I'd suggest this proposal was not made in good faith and is conduct unbecoming of an admin. StrPby (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry Str, flippant attitudes is exactly what defines making a wp:point. The motive is to stop a person from making numerous AFD's less than a week before the election. What purpose is served in sending them to AFD this week? Why not wait a week? If you were any of these candidates, would you want an AFD tag on your page questioning your notability a week before the election? I'm sorry, but that is the epitome of what our BLP policy is all about.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

User Triton Rocker

Could someone please deal with Triton Rocker (talk · contribs) who's third edit after coming off a one month ban was to make a personal attack on my editshere in direct validation of a civility ban that has been imposed on him at British Isles Probation Log. Just in-case Triton Rocker says he didn't understand the scope of the ban here is the actual words left at his talk page by Cailil (talk · contribs) You are being placed under a behavioral editing restriction. This account may be blocked if it is used to make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil,personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton really doesn't like me so I'll leave this for another admin to decide, but the fact that this was their third edit after coming off a month long block combined with the rest of their block log leads me to favor an indefinite block. Maybe point them at the standard offer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• IMHO, I saw Bjmullan request that TR retract his statement earlier. Having viewed the post and Bjmullan's own phrasing above: "...was to make a personal attack on my edits". Clearly, it's directed at the edits, not the editor, as per WP:CIVIL. Sure, TR was careful to put a paragraph spacing between his own statement regarding bad faith and the generic and non-directed "...It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise...". By Bjmullan's own statement, it was an attack on edits, not an editor. An over-reaction IMHO, and although a bit of warning is possibly due, there's nothing actionable here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker was not only commenting on my edit at British Sky Broadcasting but accused me of provocative editing in general without producing any incident to back up his claim. A clear case of not assuming good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be sheer sophistry to argue that In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him. is a comment on edits, not the editor. I am not a great fan of bureaucratic definitions of civility, but a direct accusation of bad faith is about as personal as it gets.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan's edit was to change "Britain" to "UK and the Republic of Ireland" in more than one place after another editor had chnage dthe infobox to "British Isles". One source uses "Britain" only. The other uses Britain pretty much except for page with map (hunted down) showing the location of it's offices in UK and the Republic of Ireland. Subsequently there was a bit of an edit war between named editors and IPs. Isn't this what WP:BISE was supposed to resolve? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's so much activity on his talk page and block log it's a bit of a maze, but I thought at some point there was an agreement that he would stay away from this whole "British Isles" conflict. In any event "I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him" certainly is an accusation directed at an editor. Any time a user accuses another of acting in bad faith they need to be damned sure that is what really is going on, and should always provide diffs to substantiate such a claim. Especially if they have a notice on their talk page proclaiming that there is "too much snooping and snitching on the Wikipedia" and a section header they added so that everything below it is identified as "harassment." We don't need this kind of battlefield mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm waiting to see what his fourth edit is. And btw, there's no way to read "provocative and bad faith edit" as something other than a comment on an editor -- especially since ABF was specifically called out in the notice of his civility probation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am writing this for individuals who are new to this dispute and unaware of the issues involved. For those individuals who are already up to speed, please excuse some repetition as I make my introduction.

"Good Faith" has been established at WT:BISE that none of the contestants enter into edit wars, adding or removing the term "British Isles", without first consulting the community.

Mr Mullan, a support of the contingent who have for some time been habitually seeking to replace the term "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland", did so here; [16]

• The 'edit' was not in good faith. Why?

The topic is about satellite broadcasting to the British Isles. It was agreed by the community that the terms "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland" do not include the Isle of Man nor Channel Islands which exist in the geographic area British Isles. They do not. A simple Google search taking seconds shows that the company broadcasts to the the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Common sense tell us that any signal going to the UK and Ireland would have to include at least the Isle of Man and more than often the Channel Islands. Therefore, Mr Mullan either knowingly or negligently introduced an error into the Wikipedia to support the ongoing campaign.

Mr Mullan is very aware of the issue of dispute and previous discussion. It is very difficult to read the editing introducing the error as but a provocation or a testing of the waters to see how far he can go. Courtesy would have been to brought it to WT:BISE but in this case there is no possible contention British Sky Broadcasting broadcasts to all of the British Isles.

* Why is our time being wasted there and here? It is just more LAME DRAMA.

My comment regarding my previous experience was not uncivil. It is either true or false. I could provide many example if anyone cares. Mr Mullan has an obsession with with me because of this British/Irish issue, follows my editing into other areas where he has had no interest, reverts my work and habitually reports me. This is just one more example.

I consider this a provocation where, e.g. the summaries are prejudicial and do not reflect the reality of my works. One such case would be the topic on Queen Elizabeth II, e.g. [17][18].

I would like to make it clear for newcomers to this dispute that I do not have a political or nationalistically motivated POV. My POV is that politics should be kept out of area which are not political and that the Wikipedia is not the place to decide international geonaming. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR Blocked

Well Sarek, now you've seen that fourth edit. I have imposed a one year block. There is not the slightest indication that this editor is ever going to get the picture. Looie496 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that Triton Rocker has been given a block. However he accused me of following him around and used Elizabeth II as an example of where I followed him. For the record, I first edited at the article on 14 January 2010, Triton Rocker made his first edit nearly eight months later on 22 September 2010. His third edit at the article was to remove a large section of the last paragraph from the lede. Surely he must have realised that on such a high profile article that the lede would have been discussed and agreed on the talk page? Triton Rocker continued his usual MO of making edits without first getting consent, personal attacks and not assuming good faith. I quote him from the talk page: Miesianiacal, I appreciate the "Monarchy of Canada" is one of your things and you want to make a big issue of the Canadian-ness of Elizabeth II. Putting your personal interest aside,..., Considering the similarity of your interests to MIESIANIACAL, regarding the 'Monarchist League of Canada' et al [5], can I ask you both not to use this topic for your own political soapbox?. And finally here is the edit summary from DrKiernan (talk · contribs) after reverting one of Triton Rocker edits; unexplained, contentious, potentially misleading....Bjmullan (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Logged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A year's block? lmao, I see this "civility parole" has been taken to the extreme as was to be expected. Simply incredible. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's incredible that he couldn't restrain himself in the face of multiple warnings. Support 1-year block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No BW it's become quite clear that TR doesn't take Wikipedia's behavioural policy seriously. He can count himself lucky we're still using blocks of definite duraion. All TR needed to do was be civil and AGF. Endorse 1-year block--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good block.  Sandstein  13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well played Bjmullen. AGF: the gift that keeps on giving. Triton sounded like a sensible bloke actually, Bjmullen certainly never had anything substantive to counter on any content point of his, so in a way I'm happy he has been released from the depressing need to learn the game himself to be allowed to participate in such complex and debate worthy issues like, does a satellite signal obey geographic or political boundaries, and whether we need references for such daftness. Go and do something usefull with your life Triton, come back maybe when the Irish issue has had it's own arbcom case, and people are put under real civility restrictions, which enforce the whole policy, not just the easy bits that any old gamer can pick up and use so easily as a weapon, and which actually foster real mutual respect, not the fake kind, and allows real, relevant and clueful content argumentation to come first, not last, in these tedious face-offs. Still, what's next on the BISE agenda today. 'Does the British Isles have a coast?'. Well, that sounds like a perfectly normal question to ask, *AGF mode ON*..... MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR should've stayed away from the BI stuff, until his sanction expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban instead of block?

I don't have a problem with a one year block, considering he just doesn't get it despite repeated warnings and blocks. However surely a better solution would be to just ban him from the British Isles area entirely, and interaction bans for any editors he's been in conflict with over the issue? This would allow him to get back to other areas of editing where he's apparently been productive. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering his campaign against "snitches", I suspect that he's going to have problems wherever he edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it's a good point. The reason I didn't propose a full topic ban last time was becuase TR already has Black Kite's limited ban (topic banned from editing) in place and I thought the civility parole would resolve his interaction issues - it clearly hasn't had that effect. That said TR did have a history of editing constructively at motor bike topics and I'd hope that when he comes back he returnes to constructive editing, thus banning him from what seems to be a hot-button topic for him might work - I'm open to discussing it anyway--Cailil ^talk 13:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This result seems odd. Apparently "commenting on editors rather than edits" is a blockable violation of a civility parole, and therefore a violation of WP:CIV? OK, if that's the operating rule, it should be applied everywhere, to everyone; that could make ANI a little complicated; some comments in this multipart thread appear to me to be comments on an editor. It seems to me, for instance, somewhat difficult to categorize speculation about future actions of an editor as "commenting on edits", since the edits haven't happened. So, could someone explain precisely why [19] is such a terribly uncivil edit? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I don't find the comment overly un-civil. However, a striking-out of it wouldn't hurt either. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

While standing alone it wouldn't have been blockable, Cailil's civility parole specifically called out assuming bad faith. Since TR explicitly made an accusation of bad faith editing in the diff above, it was a clear violation of the parole.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation, Sarek. The "civility parole" invoked CP01 of WP:GS/BI, which does not refer to assuming bad faith, and so doesn't directly authorize any sanction specifically calling out "assuming bad faith". Or are you arguing that "no assuming bad faith" is authorized implicitly in WP:NPA or WP:CIV, which are mentioned in CP01? Furthermore, the application of the "civility parole" [20] mentioned a "consensus" at ANI, and the link goes to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Expansion_of_sanctions_at_WP:GS.2FBI, where I don't see the specific wording of the specific civility parole for Triton discussed. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording of his notification was quite clear. If he didn't like it, he should have appealed it -- and screaming about a "kangaroo court" is not an appeal -- instead of violating it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Any phrasing of any appeal could have been construed as a violation of AGF... Gimmetoo (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The user's talk page ("If you wish to harass me, please do so below.") in combination with the history is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality Wikipedia is better off without. However, the longest previous block was 1 month; it's possible that something less than a year would be better, like 3 months - assuming that there is any hope of the user reforming. (And if there isn't, we might as well indef now as wait for more trouble.) Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Call me an old softy, but I believe TR should be only topic-banned for a year. AFAIK, his behaviour on other topics is cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion with NcmV at the implementation thread that kind of ban is problematic. However, as I said in the civility parole notice I'm happy to review it after 6 consecutive months of 'clean' editing on wikipedia (not just a 6 month holiday). That goes for the ban too - I'd be happy to review it or let it be reviewed by the community after 6 consecutive months of constructive editing. The ball is firmly in TR's court all he needs to do is accept and abide by policy in spirit and to letter - if he does that then the restrictions will be lifted--Cailil ^talk 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker came off his one month block @ 14:55 by blanking his user page. One hour and eight minutes later on on his third edit he attacked me. He never retracted nor did he accept that his edit was wrong. I believe that trying to get Triton Rocker to abide by any rules here would be very difficult. I fully support the one year block. Just for information (particular to Triton Rocker and MickMacNee) my name on Wikipedia is Bjmullan and not Bjmullen, Mullan or Mr Mullan. I would thank you to respect that. Bjmullan (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about respect. In response to this 'attack', you threatened Triton in not one but two places, you went to his talk page saying incivil and baiting things like "When will you ever learn?", and you filed this ANI report, all before he had even made another edit, let alone had a chance to accede to your demands to redact the comment and flaggelate himself. You should frankly count yourself lucky that the adminning of this topic area is so transparently one sided. Wait a few minutes, and I'll probably get a months block for mispelling your user name, even though it was clearly just a mistake. Any admin interested in your insinuation it was anything other? I didn't think so. Or maybe you can petition for me to be put under a spelling probation eh. I'll start saving my pennies to fight the case you will clearly inevitably bring for mental anguish. You do anything and everything except actually defending your content edits, so if you're looking for respect, don't look in my direction, I am not one of these people who believes AGF is indefinite and one-sided. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

On good faith, and being taken for total mugs

OK then, if people think that we should all AGF to a man in this topic, let's take a wander to the BISE page and examine the latest report shall we? It concerns the novel Storm Warning. Nobody really knows anything about the article or the book, but that's not really important. User HighKing, whose last god knows how many edits have been in or around BISE (I stopped after 500, SPA much?), has clearly gone looking for an article that uses the term, and has found one he thinks he can get the term removed from. It's usage there is not inaccurate, and it has yet to be established why the original editor used it (nobody is even bothering to ask), but HighKing has helpfully suggested how it can be removed, anyway, and asked if anyone has any arguments for or against this, in the wonky way that has somehow been established for BISE, even though supposedly, polling is evil. There are of course, no compelling arguments either way, but for some reason, we are not allowed to question HighKing's reasons for making this, and other, suggestions, without ever coming up with a guideline to mandate such a systematic programme of literary changes. So, would an admin like to suggest what the good faith response to this situation actually is, without breaking the holy AGF? Unless or until admins get real, and call a spade a spade, and deal with it as a whole, then the only thing that will pass for enforcement in this area is this sort of gaming nonsense, while the pedia gets systematically cleaned to adhere to a certain POV, i.e., that 'British Isles' no longer exists as a term, and any and all usage of it at Wikipedia has to conform to completely ridiculous sourcing requirements similar to that applied to 'terrorist', or 'palestinian', infact, even worse half the time. This is time wasting POV pushing nonsense, and it is no suprise people like Triton, who are not prepared to play the game, are so easily eliminated from it in this way. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick you were already warned this month for your behavour at WP:BISE xfd[21]. This is an enforcement thread of an editor under editing restriction. Your issues with BISE and other users are a seperate matter. If you have an evidenced and substantive issue with another user then put it to the community in a concise and neutral way, so that within the parameters laid down in the Troubles RfAr or the BI topic probation we can deal with it, or open and RFC, or try mediation - there are multiple avenues of disute resolution to try. However, wikipedia is not a soapbox and your above edit is in breach of that and of WP:BATTLE. Take a step back and reconsider your approach, and seriously if you have evidence of people misbehaving show me I'm happy to look at it--Cailil ^talk 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention that Mfd. That was in effect a mini-Rfc on BISE. And the majority opinion of uninvolved editors who bothered to comment?. Their consensus was that it was an illegitmate cabal-like venue which is responsible for POV pushing. What a shocker, a complete surprise, you could have knocked me down with a feather. What was also not a surpise, was that this outcome was completely, totally, and utterly ignored. Just like it is repeatedly ignored here. Just like it would be repeatedly ignored after a full Rfc. Mediation? Would not even be accepted, let alone approached in good faith. Prior arb case? Out of scope (infact, it is the reason HighKing moved into this dispute full time). No, the only people who can do anything about this, short of another arb case, is you lot, and pretending that this latest incident is somehow completely seperate and unrelated to the behaviour I outlined above, is really not the way to go. There is no actual rule that I'm aware of, that you are supposed to restrict yourselves to investigating just the content of the initial report, not least if there is an underlying cause, which there so clearly is. If you want to prevent such reports coming every few months, until the end of time, then for crying out loud, stop ignoring these things. Nobody is ever going to take this through an Rfc just to be ignored, and it is arguably far too late for that anyway, the root causes date back years, and it is far too beneficial for the gamers to keep the status quo for them to ever take any notice of such a thing. On that score, from where I'm standing, Bjmullan's threats, demands and general incivility towards Triton fell foul of every single paragraph of BATTLE. And that was from a grand total of five or so edits. It all worked out pretty well for him though eh? He is the guy laughing his ass off right now at having eliminated an opponent from BISE, because he is now free to carry on and resume the TE style discussion which it looks like another poor and unsuspecting example of that extremely rare beast, a relatively neutral and uninvolved at BISE editor, Quantpole, is about to experience. Maybe he will lose his rag eventually too, find out that nobody in the admin corps even cares why, then say something daft and get himself put under probation, and then suffer the same fate as Triton. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Gamers? Jeepers, ya get involved with BISE & you're labeled for life. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick you aren't going to get another warning. Stop soapboxing. Stop treating wikipedia like a battleground. And stop attacking other users. Your above edits in this thread[22][23][24] and on TR's talk page[25] are in violation of these policies.
If you have evidence of disruption by other users present diffs, show patterns of behaviour in diffs and leave out the editorial please - we can all can make up our own minds whether the diffs constitute disruption or not.
Again if you want to present evidence of something go ahead but do so in concise and neutral way with diffs. If you are unwilling to do so, and unwilling to attempt dispute resolution you should not make edits that disrupt enforcement threads related to it--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am about as unwilling and unable to deal with this issue, as everybody else was unwilling and unable to deal with POV pushing on Climate Change, or on Isreal-Palestine, or on Macedonia, etc etc etc. You want diffs? Well, i gave you enough info to be going on with, but if you want specifics, what about this from Bjmullan just now, Perhaps you could explain why you think using UK + I is wrong. That was after the person he is speaking to had already stated how he thought it was wrong. This is just the latest example of precisely the sort of incivil and tendentious editing that is the reason editors like Triton are so easily gamed off of that page and into a year's block. You will note that this is Bjmullan talking to the editor who is also relatively new to BISE, and merely trying to give his opinion. So, now you have a diff, what now? Am I still soapboaxing or disrupting this thread with an entirely unrelated issue? Should I still fuck off to the looney bin I apparently rode in from and castigate myself for not having written all this up in an Rfc before mentioning it, or is someone actually going to step up here? And before anyone says 'not blockable', I am only after just the slightest indication that admins will even acknowledge that this one particular edit, which took 5 seconds to find, is an example of incivil/TE behaviour (i.e. in this case, do not deliberately ignore other people's already stated opinions). I won't bore you with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern needed to get a block if not stopped, I just want to see if there is any market at all among the admin corps for enforcement of this kind of problematic behaviour, to give all of us who are heartily sick of it, just some indication that NPA/AGF are not the only things that matter here, and that the whole of CIVIL is relevant under this civility parole regime, not just the easy bits. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Agree. Unfortunately, when, like TR, you are already under restrictions you are easy meat if you can't keep a cool head. Bjmullens edit was not good but TR knew he shouldn't be getting involved in edit wars. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Mick it is very necessary to "bore [us] with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern" - otherwise we have nothing to go on. We don't do content disputes here on ANi, and if you want to raise an actual issue you need to show context, edit patterns, evidence of misconduct, relevant policies/decisions etc.
As regards the edit you mentioned yes Bjmullan's remark was unnecessary as was Quantpole's use of "disappointing". The conversation is a bit circuitous and the remarks mentioned (by both) are unconstructive. It is a borderline abuse of talk-space by both, but one that could be solved by striking. It is something the patrolling admin (TFOWR) will probably look into ASAP and if he misses it I'll poke him to remind him about it.
I warned you Mick to stop soapboxing and that we don't need the editorial. Stop screeding in wikipedia talk-space or you will be blocked for abusing it yourself--Cailil ^talk 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what Calil, the only Rfc I'm ever likely to file, is over your apparent wish to give more of a shit about people 'disrupting' non-article space noticeboards, than doing anything about a report of actual POV pushing in actual articles. Which thanks to your game-winning block of Triton, continues unabated. Not that you give a flying fuck of course, for obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's spot on, Mick. All the admins involved here seem far more concerned with talk page etiquette than with the POV pushing, some blatant, some subtle, that continues unabated at the BISE page and elsewhere in connection with the British Isles issue. It sickens me to see what's going on. Triton received a totally uncalled for block and sanctions against him were imposed almost unilaterally when he wasn't even allowed to defend himself, and on it goes. The current block of one year is surely a joke! Triton's remarks that caused it were entirely acceptable under the circumstances when, faced with an editor who disregarded the rules at BISE, he had no option but to complain. I cannot comprehend how supposedly intelligent people, like the involved admins would have us believe they are, fall for this BISE shit hook, line and sinker. I can only assume they have little or no experience of comparable matters in the real world. It's so obvious what's going on here that a baboon would be able to fathom it out, and if that baboon had the wherewithal would impose topic bans on a small number of certain other individuals who are the real root cause of the problems here. The likes of Triton and a few others are merely reacting to a scandalous situation which is being ignored by the few people (admins) capable of doing something about it. LemonMonday Talk 17:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton was not banned from discussing the topic, and that's what Triton was doing. Triton's edit seems reasonable and quite civil. I support removing the block entirely. I also support removing any civility parole from Triton at this time. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

To make my position clear, I also support removal of the block and the civility parole for Triton Rocker. They are counterproductive in the current environment, and were both imposed in a situation of gross unfairness. LemonMonday Talk 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Request yes-no finding re disruptive editing

Is PiCo disruptive? And what to do if so?

• On 21 Sep, PiCo inserts one edit set to Joshua full of sourced assertions.
• I check and immediately identify via detailed edit summaries my position that every new sentence on Israel history misrepresented its source. Seems straightforward.
• I begin discussion, determine that all sentences were copied from an Israel history, and take discussion there.
• For over 1 month, PiCo does not permit even one full sentence of my initial edits, which I consider very basic WP:V fixes, to be added to the article, but permits only very minor sidecar changes. My only original changes PiCo accepted without continuing to undo (comparison) are to add 1 clause, change 1 clause, change 1 source (details).
• Simultaneously, PiCo makes sweeping changes (also visible in that diff) to everything from the Persian period on, without any discussion. I do not interest myself in those massive changes because discussing the first edit set has taken so long, but it indicates a double standard.
• PiCo is occasionally supported but usually alone in discussing with me. I try TALK, DISENGAGE, MEDCAB (no takers), WARN, ANEW for warring. PiCo is first recommended to take a month off the topic, then told if DR (RFC) is followed all is forgiven. RFC drags on with those clause concessions I mentioned, and it stalls with nobody else joining. I try 3O, no dice. I try NORN, no takers. So no third-party mediation is happening but no advance is being made. And this is omitting a lot.
• Specific evidence of disruption during this attempt to conform one edit set to its sources: Near-zero progress toward my improvements (comparison diff above). Border-skirting near-warring behavior (ANEW diff), which has not stopped but still skirts. Evasion by undoing later rather than immediately (same diff, second edit from top). Lack of collaboration passim. Not using "unsigned" and "interrupted" (search talk for those I added), and not flowing comments readably. Asking me to get his sources for him (e.g. search Finkelstein), breaking WP:BURDEN. And probably some things mentioned in my steam-blowing, such as ownership that tends to drive away editors per WP:DE.
• Evidence of bad faith: The near-zero progress with 200K recent talk (including mine, granted). Obliviousness and unhearingness (second-to-last graf). Repeatedly ignoring itemized issue lists and starting his own, which has the appearance of intending to divert discussion into a "handled" category (NORN diff). Undoing challenge tags as if that closes a discussion when he ought to know it didn't (third-to-last graf in prior diff, and passim). Repeated, apparently studied disregard of the same questions and explanations (also DE; too many diffs to list). These are just a start. On his first edit on this page, he forgets what he already said about his own sources elsewhere; then he dissembles later as if he hadn't.
• And that's not to mention the actual content dispute passim (that last diff is a good start), over why PiCo thinks WP is not misrepresenting the sources ("misrepresents reliable sources" is straight WP:DE); nor my question about what other damage PiCo has done assuming a disruption finding; nor several related issues not arising from PiCo's defending this one Sep 21 edit, such as PiCo's relevant block log.

Please help. JJB 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear everyone: JJB is a sincere editor who is genuinely puzzled and frustrated that his edits are not being accepted. Part of the problem - perhaps a lot of it - comes from the very small number of editors involved, which means that he's interacting mostly with me, and he has no confidence in my good faith. So coming here is undoubably a good idea.

Now, his points: John complains that this all started when I made a set of edits to the article on Joshua, replacing what was already there with a longer, better organised, and better sourced version. (JJ calls this an "edit set"). JJ checked the edits and decided that they weren't supported by the sources. He then crossed over to the History of ancient Israel and Judah article, which is where the text came from, and started reverting all these statements - because, he thinks, they're not supported by the sources. All 20 or so of them.

At this point the trouble starts. My own view is that the sources do support the statements in the article. So I revert John's deletions/edits. But John can't accept my explanations - he's still convinced that it's all lies, or misrepresentations, or whatever. And because we have very few active editors on this topic (it doesn't have a lot of sex appeal, I must admit), we have this impasse.

How to get out of it? John's most recent post on the article talk page says, "besides BRD, BURDEN, and NOR, I've now tried AGF, ABF, DISCUSSION, DISENGAGE, WARN, 3O, RFC, MEDCAB, ANEW, and NORN, and you maintain an air of circumspectness (usually) and nobody else shows up and nothing happens. I have never seen such a tremendous wall built to fortify such an inherently flawed single edit set. Now, what options remain?" Good question. He really has tried all the options. But let's try something: one of the forums he tried was NORN. It's meant to deal with original research, but I don't object to that. I think we can do there what John wants. He has about a dozen sentences that he wants a source-check on. I'm suggesting that we put them up on that thread on NORN, one at a time (12 at once is probably a bit of a turn-off) and invite other editors to judge whether they statements are or are not supported by the sources. (By the way, what exactly is "circumspectness"?). PiCo (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The above and PiCo's NORN interference demonstrate my points well as to disruption. *PiCo's air of circumspectness (e.g., professed innocence) is clearly expressed, but its actual effect is to deflect this board from my real request, a review of PiCo's editing for disruption, and to distract to another request, the NORN board, as if solving that one solves this one. (It doesn't: the following points are further examples of the disruption, not of the sourcing problems.) *Further, on NORN, he switches my question (detail) twice to avoid answering it as stated, behavior I anticipated by describing it above. This second deflection has the effect of further downgrading the NORN issue to distract from the OR concepts (listed elsewhere ad nauseam) that appear in his sentences but not provably in his sources. *Just a moment ago in the "Tagging" section of the article talk he was trying to do all my concerns at once (again), and now he is trying to do them one-by-one (again), which would have no rhyme or reason to the alternation except that it correlates neatly with whichever method might put off the consensus-building longer. (*While I have that diff up, I'll mention its repeated appeal to me to read a few pages back here, a chapter there, to find the needle that isn't in the haystack, contrary to WP:BURDEN; and not even defending Smith p. 27 but still insisting on keeping it, contrary to WP:V at large.)

*PiCo's (may I say) breeziness in both these edits appears to be friendly and enfolding toward me, but it is all the more difficult to accept in good faith due to the (constant) undercurrent of failure to answer questions, as stated above. *He acts as if we're just getting started (at NORN changing my point 7 to point 1) as if he has no responsibility for the stalling for the past 5 weeks in doing what he seems so blithe to do now. (*Even the clause concessions that he made came only immediately after my warring report and ceased shortly after.) *After changing my question to an obvious strawman, he pulls a clause of Lemche out of context as if the strawman question is answered, voila. *He then further directs the conversation with "Answers on a postcard" as if he hasn't provided at least 40% of the 200K talk. *He makes a finding above of "lies" or whatever, when the word I generally used was "verification failures", and I only recently also started using "misrepresentations"; he cannot diff me using the word "lies" in this sense.

If PiCo would quietly let NORN proceed, it might finally answer my concerns of five weeks ago. But my concern right now for this board is a finding of disruption, or not, and appropriate advice. JJB 09:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you John. Of course, some people might think that the editor who tags 20 consecutive sentences in a single paragraph and refuses to think that he might be mistaken about even one of them is the disruptive one.... PiCo (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see no merit in this request. I see a lot of wordiness and little substance; the only concrete problems I can see in the history of the last few days are on JJB's side: abusing mass tagging with baseless "failed verification" tags, and messing up the talk page by interjecting his own comments among those of others in rather confusing ways. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, which is why I removed some of JJB's excessive tags. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor can I see any merit in this. Sorry, JJB, but I spent about an hour looking at this, and I also can see no disruption from PiCo. Your own conduct seemed problematic to me at several points through the conflict, however. I haven't touched any of the articles mentioned, nor commented on any of the related talk pages, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Then *PiCo describes 12 tags on my established list as "20 tags" above, while apparently knowing that it's 12 tags; then *PiCo projects his own talk-page cluttering onto me. *PiCo, as already noted, is the one who repeatedly creates interjective comments without proper templating, which I have always tried to enfold in a readable way. And as Ohiostandard may allude, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Dylan Flaherty have prior interaction with me.

Ohio, the primary disruption lies in the fact that an unsustainable couple paragraphs are being maintained without essentially any give or willingness to build consensus. I have seized at whatever bones of compromise have been offered on occasion, to make peace on (say) points 1-6; but this very slow process does not appear to me to be free of disruption from others. I rather thought that if 200K of discussion only amount to three minor concessions, as I diffed, there is something wrong, and if it's me I'm wide open to being told, if the charge is not emotionally loaded. Ohio, I would definitely appreciate a list of the "several points" you observed, preferably at my subtalk. As for the comments above, I can see that my timing is wrong for this board, so I will watch myself closely and adjust strategies (again), especially if someone has specific charges. (ADD: I have made a concession on point 7 and switched from my 12-not-20 tags to one tag at a time, in accord with the seriatim discussion, though I disagree with the approach.) But I would appreciate a second uninvolved editor chiming in. JJB 16:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks

Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

• Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
• Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
• As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: [26] on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: [27] (20 October) and [28] (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.

Responses to some points presented above:

1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
5. The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.

It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship.[43] This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable [44][45] and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.[46]

Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists.[47] The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew [48] and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946.[49] Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred.[50] As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.[51]

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages.[ [76] Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)[77]) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.[78][79]

Communicat is often less than civil.[80] He has been blocked twice for lack of civility [81] and the statement that earned him his first block is still there on his user page without any retraction or apology.[82] Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.

The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.

The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.

As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Wikipedia, is this article by Winer.

Overall, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.

Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.

Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at [83] and [84]. --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I am one of about 6 editors who has provided evidence that Communicat has added information that was not supported by the sources Communicat cited. Neither you nor Communicat have proven any of us wrong, or you would be able to provide differences supporting your claim. Of course, you should know that if you read the links I posted, just like you should know Communicat's last attempt at using Winer as a source occurred nearly two months after the date you list. I have never argued "that Wikipedia should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view" and am frankly baffled that you have claimed that I have done so. I don't even know what "a Northern point-of-view" is in terms of WWII. Finnish perhaps? Edward321 (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues here are already discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum ^@) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Free space?

Moved from WT:PHYS, as a courtesy

It appears that the link in Free space for footnote 31 has been altered to refer to an incorrect web page. The correct link is Correa and Correa, bottom of page 36. I'd be delighted to fix this myself, but I am forbidden to do such things. Brews ohare (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This matter escapes my abilities: the google scholar search here produces links that allow access to the document, but copying the link once you arrive doesn't take you back to this source but to the Anit-Wikipedia web site. Brews ohare (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be best to remove this link altogether. If I copy this link into the browser: http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/AToS/AS3-I.2.pdf I get the paper; but a link like this: source redirects to the Anti-Wikipedia site . Brews ohare (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that you are also banned from this page (WT:PHYS) as well (see motion 6). I don't know what you don't understand or is what unclear about what all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed consist of, but out of all places on Wikipedia, this one is certainly covered in the ban. I'm gonna do you a favour and move this request to WP:AN/I, where it should have been made in the first place, instead of bringing you to WP:AE. Wheter someone else brings you there however, is another question. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User problems notwithstanding, there is a problem with the link which I cannot fix. Copy and paste the link is fine but clicking gives you another link which is the anti-wiki site. JodyB _talk 14:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a really sneaky embedded change. I don't know if it can be fixed, since it seems to actually be a part of the link. It's clearly purposeful in its placement there. I'd say that alternatives should be sought for, since I don't think this can be undone. Silverseren^C 15:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like a redirect at the site end; as best I can make out the site recognises Wikipedia as a referrer and redirects a click to the Anti-WP page. Copy/paste avoids that issue. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have pulled it out completely JodyB _talk 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That script in fact serves the anti-Wikipedia page when any resource on www.aetherometry.com is requested with a wikipedia.org HTTP referrer. The link in question is not the only use of that site in article space at current. I'd suggest that this unprofessional behavior inherently compromises that site's ability to serve as a reliable source (assuming it was to begin with), but I'll hold back from going on a link-stripping hunt until there's some consensus to do so. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I definitely don't have any respect for the Aurora Biophysics Research Institute now, not that I knew about them before this. Silverseren^C 15:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Google has 86 links although most are not in mainspace. JodyB _talk 15:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and added it to the blacklist. My reasons are that is not what users expect nor what is portrayed in the link. It's not malware but it could be viewed as spammy. I would love someone to double check my work and in the event I deleted the main page please restore it! JodyB _talk 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• aetherometry.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Added {{LinkSummary}} for easier analysis on the use of the link. --- Barek (talk) - 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just put in a WebCite request at http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aetherometry.com%2Fpublications%2Fdirect%2FAToS%2FAS3-I.2.pdf&date=2010-10-26 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is moot - at least for now - as the article has been redirected to Vacuum. I think there is some editing history/conflicts/issues there so I will leave to the ones more knowledgeable. JodyB _talk 16:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The site was also used as a ref on Orgone, using the link: http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/expose.php

I think that was the only other article-space use of the site. So an alternate should be found there as well. --- Barek (talk) - 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Webcite links probably isn't the best method of replacement either. Most, if not all, of ABRI's publications are through "Akronos Publishing," which appears to be wholly in-house, and their work does not appear to be cited outside of a veritable academic walled garden dedicated to anti-relativity physics. The RS board may disagree with me, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that ABRI, Akronos Publishing, or aetherometry.com (or any of the other domain names hosted by the same organization) constitutes a reliable source. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general note, Aetherometry.com, and it's publications in general is a bunch of aether-embracing / "orgone energy" quackery . I'll search through the database and remove all links to it since it fails WP:RS all across the board. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they might not be taken as a WP:RS on, say, mainstream articles concerning physics or biology; but up to this incident I'd have been happy using that site as a source when discussing fringe beliefs.

It caused me some confusion at first; I was unable to replicate the redirection on either my work or personal PCs but that was in chrome. The redirect "worked" once I dug up IE and Firefox though. (I don't have any particularly interesting config / plugins / extensions on any of the three browsers; perhaps Chrome has some quirk in handling document.referrer or whatever). bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Chrome, that's correct. Chrome's ... funny about passing referrer data. As for the reliability of the ABRI stuff within the fringe topic, even then I'm not sure. It has a lot of visibility, but that's in part because it has its own in-house publisher. With virtually no one else directly commenting on what they produce, I'm not sure even the limited threshhold for WP:FRINGE is met. But I'll leave that to others. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Siamesehare, repeated copyright issues, and repeated creation of non-notable articles, templates, etc...

Resolved

 – User warned. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone talk a look at User talk:Siamesehare and see what the best course of action is? The half a zillion warnings doesn't seem to deter him/her. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well - it seems, he/she is having trouble understanding the fair-use policies, i would suggest someone leaves a non-automated message on his/her talk page and see if he/she responds. I think Siamesehare is not responding to the messages just because they are automated. If the user continues to upload images inappropriately after the non-automated message is left on his/her talkpage, then i suggest a block, because this user is in lack of communication and fails to abide by our fair-use policies. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem on BLP noticeboard

• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)
• Griswaldo (talk · contribs)
• The Founders Intent (talk · contribs)

Ronz (talk · contribs) and user QuackGuru (talk · contribs) have unfortunately teamed up to stonewall a debate on the BLP noticeboard here. The debate has been going on at length for a few days, with Ronz as the sole figure claiming that there is some BLP issue. He has presented no evidence that there is any BLP issue involved, despite being asked repeatedly to do so. Yesterday I made a final request for him to explain why this was a BLP issue [85]. he refused to do so, quibbling over other details with other editors [86], [87]. I reminded him again here [88] that he needed to give an explanation, yet he was still non-responsive and tried to mark the issue as 'stuck' [89]. Consequently I closed the issue 'resolved as unfounded' [90]. there was then a quick series of reverts: Ronz [91], Griswaldo [92], Ronz again [93], Me [94], Ronz again [95], Griswaldo (who removed the archive entirely) [96], and I restored it here [97]), and then finally QuackGuru stepped in here. [98]. His involvement is because he and Ronz have been spamming my talk page (something like 50 or 60 posts between the two of them over the last couple of days- check the history), and have been discussing me independently [99].

As far as I can see, Ronz is engaged in desperately tendentious editing, edit warring, user page harassment, and possibly wp:canvassing, all to cover the fact that he cannot make even a mildly convincing case that there is a BLP issue about Barrett. As other editors have reminded him, he is a bit sensitive on the issue of Barrett, and I can accept that, but he's gone a bit off the deep end with it this time.

I'm also a bit tired of the way he plays political games. He is repeatedly saying things like "It was worth a try looking for ways to work with you"[100], or "If you're not willing to discuss the matter" [101], or "Can we work out some compromise" [102], or "shall we get a third party to work with us both" [103], as though he were actually interested in achieving a compromise. But each time I try to work with him he back-peddles: here I ask him what he'd like for a compromise [104], but he says he doesn't have anything in mind [105]; here I suggest that we take the issue to wikiquette as a third party [106], but he refuses [107]. This is such an obvious effort to create the impression of being reasonable while actually being completely unreasonable - essentially another stonewalling tactic like his refusal to explain the BLP issue above. it's very disconcerting, and I don't quite know what to do about an editor who is so obviously comfortable trying to game the system.

I'll go notify him and quackguru now, and leave the discussion up to you guys. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm probably the biggest BLP Hawk on this site, but I can see no issue here. In order to assess the reliability of a source, one needs to discuss the credibility of the person making the claims. Everything here looks like fair comment and justified discussion. I think stuff like this should probably be aggressively archived once a conclusion is reached, and pages ought to be {noindex}, but even that's probably being over-cautious. Nothing here is libellous in my quick checking, and nothing is gratuitous. (Of course, I may be missing something.)--Scott Mac 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion on BLPN dispute below --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Two FYIs:

1. Ronz has apparently decided to boycott this ANI discussion and respond to commenting editors on their talk pages (e.g. [108], and see his explanation here). I anticipated this, but I don't suppose it makes much difference.
2. It seems likely that the WQA listed below will be closed and merged in here, to avoid separate discussions. I'll remove the link below if that happens. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronz

(merged related discussion from WQA per suggestions there)

Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to think that he can act unilaterally in ways that are, in my view, disruptive to the project.

I encountered Ronz when I engaged an RS/N request regarding Weston A. Price and a source being used in that entry by fringe health critic Stephen Barrett - see here. The consensus in this discussion, as well as a similar discussion at the FT/N, has been that Barrett, while a notable critic of contemporary fringe science/health theories is not a reliable source on Weston Price, or the historical context in question. User:Ronz appears not to accept this and has been acting disruptively in relation to those whose comments appear to him to be at all critical of Stephen Barrett. In fact he appears so "sensitive" to criticism of Stephen Barrett, that others regularly comment on it when they encounter his behavior - [109], [110]. Over the last few days Ronz has being acting disruptively in this area, at times under the claim of WP:BLP and of protecting Barrett from "libel" and "defamation".

• Removing talk page comments he doesn't like, then collapsing them after being reverted and edit warring to keep them collapsed, and then finally after being reverted again putting his own subject headings over the comments.
• Issuing BLP warnings to editors who in good faith are trying to evaluate the reliability of Barrett as a source - Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, BruceGrubb, and Griswaldo
• Unilaterally deleting talk page comments, claiming that they are BLP violations - [111],[112]

I should note that Ronz did not refactor the comments he deleted or ask the editor who posted them to refactor the comments but instead chose to remove them in entirety. When he started these deletions a couple of editors who objected, reverted him, myself included. I tried to tell him to get some outside input on the BLP matter since he appeared alone in his belief that there was a violation. He made no efforts to do so, and just kept reverting. It was made clear to me that since a BLP concern was raised by Ronz I should not edit war to restore them so I stopped reverting him, and instead started a thread at the BLP/N. Not a single editor commenting at the BLP/N has agreed with Ronz assessment of there being BLP violation in the deleted text, yet Ronz is now trying to WP:GAME the system by tagging the conversation as "stuck" and later as having "no consensus". He did the same thing at the FT/N discussion, also declaring it "stuck" and edit warring to keep it in, despite a clear consensus on several matters. He doesn't agree with the consensus of course, and it relates directly to Barrett's reliability as a source on Weston Price, of course. In my view this activity is disruptive. Ronz clearly has a "sensitivity" when it comes to Barrett and it isn't helpful. What can be done?Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The actions of removing other people's comments, hiding them, edit-warring on closing discussions, and the use of BLP warnings on other users involved in the discussion does seem like a major issue that needs to be addressed. These are not actions that a good-purposed contributor to Wikipedia should be making. Silverseren^C 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Block Ronz for 24h in order to prevent further disruption. Basket of Puppies 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that 1) Ronz has been notified, 2) has chosen to respond on individual talk pages, rather than here at ANI, and 3) Basket of Puppies' comment is, at this point, an unimplemented suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd support BoP's suggestion, just for the continued refactoring of talkpages. Ronz can carry a torch for Stehpen Barratt all he likes, but that doesn't give him the right to rewrite what other people wrote, or try to unilaterally shut down discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just received a message from Ronz on my talkpage. It's rather odd for him not to discuss the issue here and instead badger people on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When someone tries that with me, I usually just delete the edit and tell 'em to come here. It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was about to suggest that it's probably wise for Ronz not to put in an appearance here - he's so far into the red on this issue that I don't think there's much he can do to salvage things. But I'll bow to Elen's suggestion as being both more honest and more practical. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First, "As long as discussion is happening, blocking is not required." The FTN dispute is moving along nicely in contrast to where it was just a day ago. I've indicated that I will continue to discuss the BLPN issues, just in a venue where WP:CON and WP:TALK are followed. Are there any other disputes that aren't being discussed that need to be? --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion between Ronz and Ludwigs2

Ronz, there's still the above-mentioned issues to cover:

1. disruptive editing: your refusal to provide a meaningful rationale for the BLP dispute, your refactoring of talk page comments without discussion, and your tendentious efforts to keep the from being closed as unfounded despite your refusal to provide a rationale.
2. user page harassment: Your multitudinous posts to the user talk pages of the people you are arguing with (since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me), mostly argumentative posts or warning templates.
3. gaming the system: deceptive practices such as your attempts to make it look like I wasn't trying to cooperate with you, or your initial intent to avoid this ANI thread.
4. apparent canvassing to help an edit war: why else would QuackGuru (who had not participated in the BLP thread to that point) suddenly appear to carry out a revert just moments after you reached your 3rr limit?

As far as I'm concerned these all still need explaining. each individual act may or may not be explainable, but as a whole they speak to a definite intent to disrupt things sufficiently that you could block losing a BLP discussion that you had no grounds to begin in the first place. That is not responsible editing. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any accusations being made in good faith. If there are, my apologies for missing them in this morass. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't actually expect you to respond, Ronz. I'm simply reminding others that the problems go far beyond the trifling thing you present. I trust that they will examine the case thoughtfully and make up their own minds about it. --Ludwigs2 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think you made one in good faith? If so, point it out and I'll address it. --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I made all of them in good faith. I may be wrong, and I will certainly accept whatever the consensus here is, but this is precisely how it appears to me. If you have a different explanation of what happened this would be the time to share it. Frankly, I don't see any other explanation for your behavior, but I don't like this explanation, so I'd welcome a different one one. it's up to you. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The evidence I've provided for your "apparent canvassing" accusation demonstrates otherwise, as does your comment of support [113]. Pick one where you're not making the same mistakes of misrepresenting the situation and not assuming good faith. There's got to be at least one in all of them. I can't believe I've haven't overlooked something. --Ronz (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to see good faith, Ronz, you're not going to see good faith no matter what I do. That is not my problem. I'm happy to let others decide the issue after reviewing the material; I thought you might want the chance to explain things, but you should do what you think is in your best interests. The only observation I'll make is that attacking me is probably not in your best interests right now. You don't really have any credible evidence that I've done anything in bad faith, and casting aspersions wildly in the hopes that one might stick is just going to reinforce the idea that you're trying to game the system. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry everyone for stirring him up like this. I don't believe he'll stop. --Ronz (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL - God, you are such an incomparable ###. You're going to play the wounded buffalo card to the hilt, aren't you? Well, be it as it may. all the evidence is on my side, and while no one may want to do anything about it, there's not much you can do about the facts of the matter. --Ludwigs2 04:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparent canvassing

Responding in good faith to Basket of Puppies's request that I address some of Ludwigs2's accusations:

I don't see this as a good faith accusation. Ludwigs2 apparently doesn't understand WP:CANVAS, and misrepresents the situation, in violation of WP:TALK (especially WP:TALKNO) and WP:AGF. I made one revert, so wasn't at any 3rr limit. I did work to change his misrepresentation of consensus there (a WP:TALK and WP:CON violation on his part), and indicated so in my edit summary [114] and in a comment to Ludwigs2 [115]. I changed the summary again [116] and continued discussing the matter with Ludwigs2 [117] and Griswaldo [118] [119].

I contacted QuackGuru 14:33, 26 Oct two hours earlier than my first edited related to the supposed canvassing 16:42, 26 Oct. My reason for contacting QuackGuru was to let him know I noticed that Ludwigs2 was treating him similar to the way he was treating me.

To answer Ludwigs2's question, why else would QuackGuru appear? I think it would be best just to take Quackguru in good faith that he actually meant what he wrote in his edit summary, "heavily involved editor shoudld not close the thread when there is possible BLP issues." [120] --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Behavior of Ludwigs2

Ludwigs behavior in this dispute demonstrates an inability to understand or follow Wikipedia's behavioral policies/guidelines, especially WP:CIVIL, WP:TALK, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CON, and WP:DR: Besides his contributions to this ANI, his talk page provides ample additional evidence: User_talk:Ludwigs2#BLP_concerns [121] User_talk:Ludwigs2#Thanks_-_Weston_Price_discussions User_talk:Ludwigs2#Collapsing_text User_talk:Ludwigs2#Marking_your_ArbCom_requestsUser_talk:Ludwigs2#BLPN. If an editor would like diffs, I'm happy to provide them. I doubt there's much need to look beyond the evidence he's provided here in his accusations against me. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If no one is disputing this, then what would be appropriate motions? --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No one disputes what? You're just making unfounded claims again. Provide actual evidence and explain yourself. Simply linking to discussions and to policy pages is pretty meaningless. Not to mention that you're claiming that he has violated virtually every policy he could have. When people look at your links and don't see the violations what are they supposed to do? This is the same frustrating behavior you're exhibiting on the noticeboards and talk pages.Griswaldo (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide more foundation for any claim I've made. I am looking to take a break soon, so how about what I've already gone into detail on the "apparent canvassing" accusation? Or maybe the very brief response to his comment of support[122]? --Ronz (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, the canvassing accusation is pretty insignificant here. I'm not entirely sure why Ludwigs2 even made it. You were discussing him with another editor, who knows if it was WP:CANVAS by the letter of the law or not. Either way it has nothing to do with what brought us here, which is your disruptive talk page behavior. Tackle that instead please.Griswaldo (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait. This section is for discussing Ludwigs2's behavior. Sounds like you want to discuss mine. I'll wait and see what specifics you offer to see if the discussion should remain here. Can you indicate a specific talk page? Diffs and relevant policies/guidelines would help too. No rush though. I won't have time til after my break. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And around the circle we go. There is nothing to respond to Ronz, see above.Griswaldo (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN dispute

You asked for a review. We reviewed it. No one is seeing any issues.--Scott Mac 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to BLPN, then note the comments there by two other editors at 12:37, 24 Oct and 14:50, 23 Oct.

Further, there is nothing written in WP:BLPTALK on how to handle material "related to making content choices." The exception was made initially 04:37, 25 November 2007 , and appears to be related to discussions beginning here on preventing exceptions to BLP in talk space. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The addition of the exception was mirrored with a talk page comment with no responses: here --Ronz (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As someone with no involvement on the other arguments it all (as far as I remember), your behavior on this board itself is disruptive. Users have presented a number of clear, specific complaints about your behavior. Your response to every one of those complaints has been (paraphrasing) "I don't see any legitimate complaints". That's not a response--it's a refusal to listen to the complaints. I'm not saying certainly I support a block since I haven't looked at the details, but if this is the same way you were behaving in other places, it's no wonder to me that others are questioning your ability to work collaboratively. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Pattern of behavior

This is not an isolated case. I had a content dispute with Ronz not even a month past and the same pattern of behavior showed up. A search of ANI archives will show lots more. WP:AGF I think is being abused and used as a shield for his behavior. I also agree with the observation of gaming the system. The way he posts on talk pages, the way he refactors comments, and the way he edit wars are technically not in outright breach of guidelines, or if breached, there is some token understandable reason. But taken all together and with its regularity I think Ronz's behavior is unsupportable and is causing a poisonous atmosphere. Lambanog (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to this ANI posting you made on October 6th? "Ronz's editing behaviour" --Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci if you follow the trail of breadcrumbs you'll also find at least 3 other AN/I reports ([123], [124], [125]) and 4 WQA reports ([126], [127], [128], [129]). I'm sure these were the instances Lambanog was referring to. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is the ANI dispute I brought up. But this issue should probably be looked at thoroughly. There are many other instances in the ANI archives. I see a pattern. Lambanog (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Motion to block Ronz for 24h

• Support Basket of Puppies 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you be providing rationale at some point? --Ronz (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This. Basket of Puppies 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to do so. Each of them? --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll tackle one while I await your response. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support It is very irritating to other editors to continually object to their edits without providing reasons and it is an abuse to use Wikipedia as a battleground. TFD (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Where/when did I not provide reasons? I've been accused of such a thing, but I don't see any good faith accusations, so haven't bothered to respond. --Ronz (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• support, An RFC/u might be in order as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Will you be providing rationale at some point? --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, you really ought to stop badgering people. I am now thinking a block of 48h is more appropriate. Basket of Puppies 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm working to resolve disputes in good faith. Please do not work to prevent me from doing so. --Ronz (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz I havent even looked at BLPN issue, I think its warranted with just the behavior I have seen here at ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifics, please. What have I done here that concerns you? --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - obviously. I'd also like to recommend that that Ronz be topic-banned from any article or discussion relating to Stephen Barrett or QuackWatch for an indeterminate period. Ronz seems to have a particular problem with objectivity when it comes to Barrett, as various editors have commented on, and when Griswaldo asked him whether he has some COI with respect to Barrett of QuackWtach [130] he refused to answer [131]. Whether or not he has a COI, his obvious investment in the issue does seem to get in the way of consensus discussion. --Ludwigs2 01:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Ludwigs2 demonstrates and inability to understand or follow WP:AGF. Additionally, WP:COI and WP:HARRASS. --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - I support a minimum 4 day block, and an indefinite block on any pages related to Stephen Barrett and BLP. He has demonstrated a disregard for WP:NOTHERE. Indefinite blocks on BLP should last until he demonstrates WP:AGF toward editors and policy. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate where I'm not following WP:AGF. I'm happy to provide more evidence per WP:AOBF regarding Ludwigs2. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I would also support an RfC/U. Lambanog (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ANI is not for any editor or group thereof to penalize an editor where the case was not made that anything specific elil acts occurred. This looks more like a set of opinions, at best, for an RFC/U, and not really strong enough to carry one out. Collect (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Note I've added a block template for a 48h block for this user on his talk page. Will an admin please technically implement this block. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 02:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, "I'm working to resolve disputes in good faith. Please do not work to prevent me from doing so." --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Who's prevented you? You've had a Talk page, two Noticeboards, this space and 12 days to resolve issues. We're done. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz we're here because people have exhausted their patience for your antics. You keep on saying that you are working to resolve disputes in good faith but the reason why people have no more patience for you is that you are in fact simply making unfounded claims and posting links to policy pages that supposedly back your position without ever really answering questions or providing evidence of any kind. Good luck with that. I support a block if it will help but a topic ban from anything related to Stephen Barrett or Quackwatch would be much more effective.Griswaldo (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your obvious frustration.

I'm working to resolve disputes here, at BLPN, at FTN, and elsewhere.

"you are in fact simply making unfounded claims" No, I'm not. If you think there are any good faith accusations against me not already addressed, please indicate one. --Ronz (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hilariously, Ronz added a warning to my talk page. Basket of Puppies 02:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on Ronz behavior here, but yes, adding a block template to their page was out of line. If an admin actually blocks them, they'll add the template. Please don't. Dayewalker (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, tho the overwhelming consensus to block Ronz is clear. I'll admit I added the blocknotice in haste, tho, but in good faith. Basket of Puppies 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Daywalker is not "probably right", they simply are right. Please make an effort to understand when and how templates are used before using them.Griswaldo (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Basket - I opened this ANI, and even I think you're pushing this a little hard. would you mind bringing it down a few notches? --Ludwigs2 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm off to move a table. Basket of Puppies 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested assistance from an admin. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 03:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Reading this whole thing gives me a headache. I see a group of editors who seem to be ganging up on one editor to get a block. Accusations are being made quickly and no one seems to be allowing time for any answers. It looks like everyone has already made up their minds before anything is even said so heck, let's just block Ronz and get it over with. No, that's not how we are supposed to do things here at Wikipedia. Trying to follow the different discussions here are almost impossible. How about everyone just calm down a bit and if this needs to continue than please lay out your questions clearly then allow time for them to be answered. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Questions have been laid out clearly. Ronz doesn't answer them. It is an established pattern of behavior, in fact the very pattern of behavior that brought us all here in the first place. I suggest you read Hans Adler's post below because it is quite enlightening. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• CG, I'm sure it might look that if you just wondered in here. We've been at this for at least 13 days now, and Ronz's pattern of behavior has shown itself the entire time. His prior involvements show it, and editors from the past seem to comfirm it. Ganging up, that's what threads in ANI usually look like when someone is being reported; are you surprised? Cool off? Thanks for coming here to tell us that, who knows what might have happened. :rollseyes: The case is clear, and the choice should be clear. An admin needs to act now. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Crohnie, I notice that you also supported Ronz in the separate ANI discussion regarding Ronz's behavior I started earlier this month. May I inquire upon what your good opinion of him is based? Did he help you with something here on Wikipedia? Do you know him in real life? Do you have similar experiences? Is this support you give based solely on a reading of the conflict? If the latter, what do you make of Ronz's behavior? Do you think it is commendable? Do you think he is behaving properly? For example do you see nothing provocative with his habit of posting dry messages to the user talk pages of people he is in disputes with that do not actually offer compromises? Is that something you would do too? Would you agree with the proposition that the other editors here, not only Ronz, should be accorded an assumption of good faith as well? If you have a hard time understanding what is going on, why are you defaulting to support for Ronz, instead of providing a neutral comment? Lambanog (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• SUPPORT Ronz has accused The Founders Intent of being drunk ([132]), accused Griswaldo on more than one occasion of not asking questions in good faith(Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues), repeatedly used claims of off topic as well as not follow WP:CON and WP:TALK to avoid points raised by other editors, has engaged in apparent Wikipedia:WikiBullying (see Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, Griswaldo and BruceGrubb), has tried to use Stephen Barrett's unreferenced (and per Talk:Weston_Price#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words easily disproved) claims about Price in a biography about the Price himself not whatever organizations happen to bare his name, and disrupting the talk page with what many of the editors both there and on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues see as a misunderstanding of WP:BLP. This is worth far more than just a 24h block in my view.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Seb az86556's comments below. A 24 hour block seems unlikely to have any non-punitive purpose, and that's not what blocks are for on Wikipedia. We should be thinking longer term or not at all. Kansan (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Err... what exactly would a block do?

No, I'm not playing naive, I mean it; there are only two possibilities: either this is meant to be some sort of punishment with a humiliating for-the-record note in someone's blocklog, which is not what blocks are for; or there really is some behavior that hails from conviction in which case the issue is only postponed for 24 hours. If people really think that this behavior hails from conviction and thus won't cease after 24 hours, then please open an ArbCom case or whatever and try to get the user banned (not suggesting anyone should get banned). Head-on-a-stick isn't the answer. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Head on a stick might be warranted when the block suggestion was indefinite or much longer. 24h, however, seems to me to be a short block. Ronz behavior and actions during this ANI thread have demonstrated his continued disruption and lack of desire to work collaboratively and adhere to policy. (I admit my own actions last night were less than stellar, for the record.) Blocking Ronz is not meant to humiliate or punish, but rather to prevent the continued disruption that is happening and ongoing. Basket of Puppies 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Block notice posted by non-administrator

This was a mistake and Basket of Puppies has apologized
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[133] Why did Basket of Puppies add a block notice to the user talk page of Ronz? Basket of Puppies is not an administrator and an administrator has yet to comment in the section above. A non-administrator simply cannot post a block notice on another user's talk page in this way. That seems like disruptive and provocative behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I added it because of the overwhelming consensus to block Ronz. I noted this above and asked for an admin to review and implement the block. Basket of Puppies 02:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)I was quite confused by that myself. Basket of Puppies appears to be confused about how it all works. Maybe someone ought to explain it and point out the protocol. Unless there is some background I don't know I don't see why WP:AGF wouldn't apply to this situation, though I admit its quite bizarre. If Basket of Puppies should have known better then the situation is quite different of course.Griswaldo (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) agreed this conduct is highly counterproductive and disruptive. I would like to hear his explanation for this action The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I think BoP just screwed up. I doubt it was intentional, but you should let an Admin handle those types of notifications. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC) How can any "overwhelming consensus" be determined in just over two hours after posting a motion? Contributors to wikipedia, for example administrators or arbitrators, are in lots of different time zones, so 24 hours is the normal period to allow, just as a courtesy. Mathsci (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I believe that's quite enough. We all see it for what it was, an ignorant mistake. Don't be disruptive yourself to prove a point that's already been made. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Please try to remain civil. I repeat that 24 hours is the normal period of time to allow to see how the community at large feels about a particular motion. Mathsci (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (ec)Let's just all calm down here. I don't think anyone disagrees with you, Mathsci. BoP has jumped the gun rather dramatically here and misused a template to boot. I personally think it was an honest mistake, but if you don't please do whatever you feel is appropriate. However, I don't think we ought to dwell on this issue any longer since no one is in disagreement here. The Founders Intent, please tone it down because I'm sure Mathsci is also responding in good faith here.Griswaldo (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC) You're right, I shouldn't have placed the notice. I am sorry and will never do it again. Basket of Puppies 03:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Review

I have reviewed all the background here (which was not fun), and it is clear to me that Ronz has behaved in flagrant disregard for community norms of editing. It's a textbook case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, taken to an extreme. Because Ronz is a valued editor with a clean block log since 2007, I have left a message on his talk page summarizing my conclusions and asking for an acknowledgement that the community does not accept this behavior and a commitment not to do anything like this again. Because the time of day makes it likely that he is asleep, I would like to leave the issue unresolved until he has a chance to respond. If any other admin feels a need to take action here, however, I have no objection. Looie496 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand or agree with what's going on here. I'll admit that this is pretty much tl;dr. It seems that no one really agrees with Ronz about a BLP violation here, and he needs to accept that. The prolonged back-and-forth doesn't reflect particularly well on either Ronz or the other parties involved. Edits like this suggest to me that The Founders Intent (talk · contribs) should absolutely not be editing any BLPs until s/he reads and demonstrates an understanding of WP:BLP.

  I do think people need to recognize the context here: a small handful of people with grudges against Stephen Barrett have historically used Wikipedia as a platform to defame him. I don't see any reason at all to think that any of the participants in current dispute are so motivated, but that context might explain the apparent oversensitivity to BLP issues evinced by Ronz. I don't see a need to block anyone here; all of the participants seem to be beating a dead horse and fighting for the sake of fighting on some level, so I'd rather just see everyone drop the sticks, take a few days off, and come back with a bit of perspective. MastCell ^Talk 04:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to make something else clear here, to MastCell, we were editing the Price article not Barrett. No one can be shown to have a "grudge" against Barrett (and if you didn't mean us then you're just off topic). Please show it if you can, and bring it to the Barrett talk page. That is all. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Mastcell -- 1) I do think people need to recognize the context here: a small handful of people with grudges against Stephen Barrett have historically used Wikipedia as a platform to defame him. -- That helps to explain why Ronz has such a clean block log despite a history of behavior like this (see Hans response below). 2) ...all of the participants seem to be beating a dead horse and fighting for the sake of fighting on some level, so I'd rather just see everyone drop the sticks, take a few days off, and come back with a bit of perspective. -- I'm going to WP:AGF here and assume that you just haven't looked into the situation enough. Ronz has been stonewalling any resolution to any of the issues being discussed and forcing people to go to numerous noticeboards because of his stubbornness, while refusing to accept the input from those boards. What you are seeing here is a number of editors trying to engage him over and over without any success. Those of us who have been wasting our time with this for days now probably don't appreciate the mis-characterization of this as problem caused by us. I'm not going to defend every action of every editor who has been arguing with Ronz, but in general I would advise an appreciation for what Hans wrote below because it is dead on.Griswaldo (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but I'm not on review here. Please keep your opinions on the subject matter. Not being perfect at every edit does not mean I deserve to be blocked from editing. At least I spend my time here at WP trying to affect good content, and not judging others work. Try walking even a minute in my shoes. Anyway, what Looie496 has stated is to put it mildly, and what Griswaldo said is dead on! Ronz is a smooth operator with years of practice at this combination of wikilawyering and naivete. The way he whips out WP:TALK at the drop of a hat on multiple editors in this incident can make your head spin. I don't consider him to be a valuable editor in his current state of behavior, and there is no need to assume good faith on his part; since he has shown none. I would go so far as to say that term "good faith" has been way overused as a shield from facing the truth by him, especially considering his accusations of bad faith about other editors. No, he needs to go and be taught a lesson that WP is not a courtroom (it's an encyclopedia), and we don't need any "wikilawyers" of this type. The way he has clung to the protecting Barrett, you'd almost think he was Barrett himself. No this is more than just normal and expected protection of WP articles, especially considering his involvement in the last big Barrett blowout. Ronz's threats on talk pages, misapplication of policy, and OCD on Barrett need to be properly addressed by the admins. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that Ronz is purposefully ignoring the issues that have been raised. This edit alone shows that he refuses to engage in discussion, not to mention his actions of replying on numerous users' talk pages (including my own). At this point, the issue with Ronz is less anything to do with the Stephen Barrett discussion and more the fact that Ronz seems to be purposefully trying to work around policy and get his own way, saying that any complaints against him are either users assuming bad faith or users violating some policy. The amount of wikilawyering on his part spread across these sub-discussions is extraordinary. I believe that something definitely needs to be done here, if Ronz refuses to acknowledge the faults of his own actions. I am sincerely hoping, however, that he will acknowledge them after he reads Looie's message. If not, then actions definitely need to be taken. Silverseren^C 04:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but why not go with the above-stated consensus to block Ronz? Basket of Puppies 04:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just add that I'm as (If not more) disturbed by the gamesmanship that goes along with the tendentiousness. I mean, when he feels free enough to pull this kind of ad hominem trick right in the middle of an ANI discussion about his behavior... what do you do with that? and that's just the latest - you'll find a string of 15 or 20 such ploys on my talk page. He obviously still believes that if he can turn this around and undermine my credibility he can 'win' (whatever it is he thinks he's trying to win). Granting that he's good at it - his methodology for undermining other editors is smooth, polished, and seemingly well-practiced; good enough even to work against me, which is saying something - but that's not really a good thing. Whatever else happens, I'd prefer not to see him walk away from this discussion in the continued belief that undermining other editors is an acceptable way to achieve editing goals on Wikipedia. I don't know what it will take to convince him otherwise (well, actually... never mind), but I want to make sure that this concern is properly and fully registered. --Ludwigs2 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have had very occasional contact with Ronz, spread over more than two years. My impression is that Ronz is mostly active in two areas:

• spam
• Stephen Barrett.

The first takes by far the greater share of his time and activity, and his very inflexible mode of operation is optimised for it. Sometimes he overreacts, but it's easy to get away with that in that area. For some reason he treats editors with whom he disagrees in the second area in essentially the same way that he treats spammers. Since these good-faith differences of opinion require rational discussion rather than warning templates and threats, this predictably leads to regular conflicts.

I don't recall Ronz ever changing his mind about anything when confronted with evidence, or ever admitting that he may have made a mistake at some point. I don't remember seeing any dispute involving Ronz that wouldn't have entitled his opponent(s) to get their money back because "this is not an argument, it's just contradiction". The good-faith explanation is that Ronz simply doesn't have the cognitive abilities that are required for full participation in the Wikipedia process.

This give some insight in what Ronz is doing most of the time, and how his behaviour in a context of suspected spamming, while far from ideal, is at least somewhat adequate, probably making him a net positive to the project. This dispute from over a year ago demonstrates that Ronz pursuing his Stephen Barrett agenda in exactly the same way as if he was fighting spam is not a new phenomenon at all, and that the only thing that varies between the various conflicts he is getting himself into this way is how the other parties react. His own behaviour is schematic, consisting mostly of templating and adding diffs to template messages. Sometimes he writes a sentence of his own and adds a diff, which is more often than not the diff of the message to which he is responding. This is essentially a refusal to communicate, coupled with a series of unfounded (since the diffs typically point to evidence of disagreement rather than evidence of wrongdoing) attacks.Hans Adler 10:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User Zucchinidreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has raised an RFC at Talk:Peter Sutcliffe#A request for comment on Rodhullandemu's behaviour (and also at User:Rodhullandemu/Request for comment) claiming that "His behaviour has been monotonous and of a consistently POV and unreliable tone," and that "Rodhullandemu has deleted neccessitated and extremely verifiable information. His continuum of edits is deforming for the community at large." There is no evidence of this, and it appears only to be a way of evading the "2 user" criteria for initiating RFC/U, and out of some kind of revenge because he does not like being wrong.

But there's more. This is part of a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing that he has been carried out on Peter Sutcliffe, ignoring requests from other users to discuss his editing and respect consensus, ignoring explanations about image use policy (even uploading images to Commons and falsely claiming permissions and licensing for them [no diff-deleted from commons as a copyvio], and claiming ownership of other images on his talk page [134]). He has reported an IP to AIV that hadn't edited since June 2008 [135] and claimed that this was "after final warning" - he obviously hadn't checked that a warning had been issued as the talk page would have shown him last being communicated with in May 2008 when a 55 hr block was issued. This follows a few days after he reported an IP who hadn't edited for a year [136]. He blatantly lied to another admin claiming I had re-edited his comments on my talk page to make them say something else [137] and asked for me to be blocked.

His whole history of contributions is one of disruption, and I'm afraid that this is either someone who is being deliberately disruptive for schizzles and giggles, and feigning naivety, given that he wikilawyers so much, or someone who - and I'm trying to be delicate here, not uncivil - has some underlying problems which are preventing him from getting the point. GwenChan 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not respond to such ludicrous and fatuous allegations, with the caveat of ones that are WP:POV. The editor disliked my editing because it conflicted with her WP:POV (Point of view) they've replicated the incidents above to display a false flag of pseudobehavioural edits, which I haven't taken part in. The links above have been replicated ad naseum.

1) The consensus point- the information on that file was being shuttled from place to place, and as such was minor editing, incapable of causing any reasonable minded person any trouble.

2) The imagery- the imagery was reverted on a copyvio so that I could proof-read the address, but I appeared to miss the cut button, so the defunct link was kept on the page. That really is not bad faith, but assuming I meant anything by it, was, and is.

3) The blocking of the I.P- I mistook the history page as a flagged warning, and will undo it, although WP:GOODPRACTICE suggests bringing that up on the editor concerned's (my) talk page.

4) The second I.P- My computer was undergoing updating and I blindly followed through the process, and I will apologise for that publically, and to the party involved, here, as a matter of public record.

5) The comments I had made on the user concerned's talk page said they were pushing a point of view; therefore they ARE NECESSARY AS PART OF WIKIPEDIAS THREE CORE POLICIES.

6) I asked for her to block because she had re-factored my assertions about her editing being POV, and I asked for her to be blocked for only a few hours.

No one fair minded would accuse me of anything more than accidentally eidting wrongly, but being good in faith when I edited wrongly.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not have POV on the article which has been the main focus of your disruption - it is not "POV" to ask you not to remove given names and ages of victims, for example. That is common sense. Similarly it is not "POV" to ask you to discuss major edits to the article on the talk page.
• Deciding to remove information and sections against consensus does cause reasonable minded people trouble, and reasonable minded people do not do it.
• The imagery was not reverted so that you could proof read the address, you reverted it persistently after at least two other editors took the image out due to it being tagged CSD for copyvio. You then claimed you were the owner of the image.
• The blocking requests of the IPs (and I didn't mention the drive-by CSD tagging you did, which although you later went back and reverted, you didn't strike out the CSD tag from the user's talk page) is indicative of your editing - you don't read what's actually on the screen before pressing buttons. At the absolute minimum you should be blacklisted from automated editing tools.
• Accidents do happen - but not with such frequency and consistency.
• Another example of your persistent refusal to listen to other editors' advice - you were just asked not to take red links out of articles, and despite acknowledging that request you then go back in to the main space and start doing it again!
• Once again, you are blatantly LYING and accusing me of altering your comments on my talk page to make them say something other than that which you wrote. I did no such thing, and to accuse me of doing so is the fucking pits. GwenChan 21:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have three questions for Zucchinidreams.

1. Please provide a diff substantiating your accusation that Gwen refactored your talk page comments, that is, post a link to the change she allegedly made. I can't find it in the history of her talk page. An example of a diff is contained in my next question.

2. When you made this comment (that's a diff right there) on your talk page, were you claiming that you own the image to which you were referring?

3. If you were so claiming, was that claim truthful or untruthful? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The I.P I reported put seriously pornographic images onto a page. They needed to cool down their editorialising.

Gwen chan refactored my comment in the section on her history that says reply, goodbye. I sent an e-mail to the makers of the image, but have yet to recieve copyright info- however, one incident does not a ban make. As for the red-links, they were nonsensical, and removed correctly, and I'd advise Gwen chan to read WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK before she comments on my history page. It is a lie to say I was warned about not refactoring red links; in fact, the message warned about unnecessary removal of red-links, and I have complied with that message. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through Gwen-chan's talk page history (it's not very long). It seems to me that Zucchinidreams behaviour is not stellar there and includes failure to assume good faith, falsehoods (about Gwen chan refactoring Zucchinidreams comments), posting twice after being asked not do so, and making threats. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.53.235 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am making a clean break. I will not edit any articles that User:Gwen-chan has had a hand in making, including the Peter Sutcliffe article, because it seems obvious we can't agree. I will, further, be making no more requests for deletion, or for copyright, or for RFC. Thank you and goodbye.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Again with the false accusation! "Gwen chan refactored my comment in the section on her history that says reply, goodbye." I did no such thing! Either show the evidence or apologise and admit you're lying, for fuck's sake. Making a "clean break" = simply moving your problematic editing from one article to somewhere else. It seems so far that you are a (possibly unintentionally) disruptive editor who is dishonest in both their dealings with others and with regard to copyright/licensing of media, who can't stop himself from throwing mud and false accusations at anybody who attempts to question your actions. Rather than closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and humming that you are going to edit elsewhere, you should at minimum ask for help and a mentor. GwenChan 09:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd calm down - it's not worth it. Everyone can see that you didn't refactor any comment made by Zucchinidreams on your talkpage. I believe what he is referring to is that you deleted various of his comments. Zucchinidreams, editors are entitled to delete comments from their user talk pages. It is not considered inappropriate, and it is DEFINITELY not refactoring. So you can stop making the allegation, we've all now seen what happened.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My actions were wrong- out of ignorance, but that doesn't excuse it- I apologise publically to Gwen-chan and rodhullandemu for my remarks. I am deeply sorry, please forgive me.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very honest thing to have said. I appreciate your openness. I hope the two editors concerned will accept your apology and everyone can move on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While I accept your apology for the talk-page thing, I still think you should consider asking for a mentor to avoid getting into this situation again. GwenChan 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will opt to find someone to adopt me. I echo User:Elen of the Roads in that I hope we can all move on from this state of affairs. Thanks. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Stalker?

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a comment from another editor popping up on the talk page of Hemingwayswhisky (talk · contribs), accusing them of stalking and doing nothing but undoing their edits. A quick glance reveals they may have a point. Does anyone care to look closer and ponder possible action? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I figured I'd do him the courtesy of giving him a warning but, yeah... his account consists basically of reverting my posts, most of which are spelling, etc. Thanks. John2510 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

At first sight it looks like a true bill. Do you have any idea why or if it is another editor you are aware of? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno... There was a guy in Pittsburgh who threatened me (and ultimately an admin) a couple of months ago, no telling if this is him... reincarnated: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=383763596 —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not so much basically, as completely, it seems. (Was the other user notified of this discussion?) Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(Okay, so there's 1 edit that wasn't related to John2510.) Is there any situation you know of that would have spawned such a direct edit summary? Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I placed a note on both editors' talk pages, yes. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well unless there is a very good explanation it looks like a straightforward attack account. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be a few sporadic IPs that John2510 reverted in Siberian Husky, all of them making the same edit as Hemingwayswhisky but none in the same range. It might be the same person who got frustrated at being reverted and just decided to go after John2510 having nothing better to do. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I came to the same conclusion. I have to say that edit warring over light verses heavy loads is insanely dumb given that both terms are subjective . Why not loads up to # pounds or something similar? Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek

There's some indication that this is the same guy that threatened me and an admin a couple of months ago. Using an IP address he made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owens_%26_Minor&diff=378432901&oldid=378401340, which was restored by the subject editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Owens_%26_Minor&diff=prev&oldid=391153240. I don't believe I edited at that page at all... so he didn't follow me there. Can someone trace the subject's IP and determine if it's in the same area (Pittsburgh), and therfore likely the same editor that previously threatened physical violence? Thanks John2510 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That account now sleeps with the fishes. Obviously up to no good. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also semi-protected the article for a month, since otherwise we'll no doubt have the IP nonsense again. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion backlog

Resolved

 – Nothing else to do here. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion shows a 63 item deep backlog. I only checked because I have been waiting for a G6 on Robert_Kendall for 20 minutes. Thought it might be worth mentioning here. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not to fear... I've seen it over 200.  7  03:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There are times when I wonder why they call it speedy deletion... it took one puff piece I found yesterday 9 hours to get "speedily deleted". Of course, I give our admin corps full credit for nailing attack pages, which is the most important part. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@ 7: Wow. Either way, it's down to 10 now.

@ TBotNL: I think "speedy" is relative; AfD and PROD take 7 days, Speedy takes a few hours.

Sven Manguard _Talk 04:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Back when I was a young, aspiring admin who first focused on speedy deletions, the "backlog limit" was 75, and it wasn't uncommon to have a backlog of well over 100. Definitely things have changed within the past year, I don't know what, which has resulted in generally lower volumes of CSD-tagged articles and instances of when CAT:CSD is backlogged. The issue is nowhere as bad now as it was about a year ago. –MuZemike 05:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw at 300 once. But that was years ago, possibly before I even created my account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The backlog has gotten better since the implementation of the new Article Wizard, which has encouraged users to create new articles in the userspace, greatly solving problems regarding patently non-important stuff. But yeah, I wouldn't call 9 hours outside of the normal realm of speedy. Its not impossible to be deleted within a few minutes, depending on how many admins are working on the category, but anything less than a day is not to be worried about. If it needs to go NOW, (such as eggregious BLP stuff), then ANI can get a faster response. But for the run of the mill garage band vanity pages, a few hours is no big deal. --Jayron32 07:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't delete articles that have been listed for under an hour unless they're housekeeping, copyvios or attacks. I generally think A7s, which are by far the bulk of speedies that I see, should be given at least an hour to clear them up. It was actually I question I got asked in my RfA, and one that doesn't seem to get asked anymore. Maybe I should revive it. GedUK  07:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found that User:7SeriesBOT does a good job removing some of the easy CSD's, but even it appears to have slowed down - does this mean there's less CSD tagging going on? 63 is not a backlog ... and speedy means "anything less than 7 days" in most cases. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy really only means 'no community discussion'; that's what's supposed to make it fast, so yeah, anything less than 7 days is speedy! GedUK  11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There's been discussion at other locations (Like the New Page Patrol talk page) about trying not to use CSDs, not biting newbies, and not outright rejecting things in favor of more moderate actions such as tagging, prodding, and AfD nominating to show the article the back door Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, one suggestion a few of us keep repeating (to no avail as of yet) is to have a speedy userfication process, which would take care of most or all of those problems. But honestly, there's no good way to tell someone that their garage band doesn't belong here, or their new colon detox panacea isn't notable enough. No matter how you say it, people won't like hearing it, but it still has to be done; on a Friday or Saturday night, I can easily blast through tagging 30 such pages in about half as many minutes. Not that I'm heartless, but it has to be done, and it won't get done unless someone does it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:The Persian Cataphract

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Persian Cataphract (talk · contribs) needs some looking into. This is an old user who has been around, though infrequently, since 2006. He seems to be fairly knowledgeable about his field (not quite the typical run-of-the-mill ethnic warrior), but there's one serious problem about him: he totally refuses to abide by civility standards. Almost every posting of his, through all these four years, has been an insult [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], He was warned the other day and refused to change his tone [143]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FPaS beat me to it. TPC may well be right on this issue, but his behavior is ridiculous - he knows it may get him blocked yet continues to make personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First diff is current (from 24th) and blockable by itself - it's clearly aimed an one editor and TPC knows perfectly well who it is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, not acceptable.--SPhilbrickT 12:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The first diff definitely is blockable, and this diff [144] could be interpreted as a threat to recruit meatpuppets, to put it kindly. Kansan (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. I have serious doubts this user intends to ever be constructive or collegial ever again. –MuZemike 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparent wikihounding by Off2riorob

Resolved

 – –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

1. On October 24 I commented at an AN. I criticized the disruptive editing of Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (that led to his nine blocks in the last year and a half), and supported (with detailed rationale) sanctions against Off2riorob.
2. Mere hours later, he started an edit war with me at Andre Geim.[145][146]
3. The most-recent posting on my talk page at the time indicated clearly that I was involved in a dispute at the Geim page.
4. Wikipedia has over 10 million articles.
5. Off2 had never edited Geim before.
6. Yet he abruptly appeared, to edit war with me at that very page.
7. On that very issue. Leading to the page ultimately being protected due to an "edit war".

I find this wikihounding and disruptive behavior to be more than slightly disturbing to my own enjoyment of editing, and just the sort of behavior that cannot be tolerated. If the "cost" of making an honest accurate criticism of another editor's disruptive editing is that he is allowed to disrupt the editing of the editor who spoke up, that is highly disruptive to the project as a whole, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• So you're saying that disagreeing with you on one page is wikihounding? I hope you can give more examples than a single page where he's started editing later than you. So far this appears to simply be a dispute, and has no place on ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Except, why did Off2RioRob just happen to go there after Epeefleche made a comment about Rob's editing behavior? I mean, Rob's first edit to the article was to start up an edit war over an issue that was reported on Epeefleche's talk page. Is it all just coincidence then? One article can be wikihounding if it is incredibly unlikely that the editor involved went there for good purposes. Silverseren^C 07:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Silverseren.

1. The chance that he would edit any one wikipedia article? One in 10 million.
2. The chance that he would edit an article, just by chance, that he had never edited before: Clearly smaller.
3. The chance that it would be the very same article that the most recent post on my talk page indicated I was in a conflict on? Way smaller than that.
4. And that his edit would be on the precise same issue as mentioned on my talk page, taking the opposite view of mine, and not just taking the opposite view but also -- edit warring?
5. And that he would do so in one of his very first edits after I had criticized his nine blocks for disruption, and suggested he be sanctioned?

No, I don't think we can reasonably assume this is chance.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's rather more likely, given that an edit war resulted, that there was simply a dispute on the article. A single incident isn't enough to categorise the behaviour as wikihounding. Note that seeing that you've recently edited an article and deciding to take a look, Epeefleche, is something many people do all the time, and is not wikihounding on its own. Doing so and then disagreeing with the user's edits isn't wikihounding, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I also ask why you feel it so relevant to this discussion that you need to italicise off2riorob's block history? Can you clarify how many of those blocks have been for wikihounding? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can I also ask why you feel it so relevant to this discussion that you need to italicise off2riorob's block history? – oh give me strength. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 09:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add, TT? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that your previous so-called contribution to this thread was querying another editor's use of italic text, I'm really not sure that you're in any position to be criticising others for lack of constructive content... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 12:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is obviously not random chance. One wonders why O2rr is doing this, especially after his very recent disruption issues. Asking for a block? → ROUX ₪ 07:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see any reason to intervene per Giftiger wunsch. If memory serves me correctly, Epeefleche was not happy with the outcome of the AN and wanted it to be reopened but it was not. I think Epeefleche should pursue a RfC/U or simply avoid interacting with Off2riorob altogether (and if not happy with these two options, be willing to be involuntarily interaction banned from him, but these sorts of involuntary sanctions are something we'd like to avoid generally, unless absolutely necessary). Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • You have the situation precisely backwards. Of2riorob followed Epeefleche, not the other way around.→ ROUX ₪ 09:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this hounding? I hope not! Quite often I notice a topic on someones talk page while leaving a message (or even just seeing their TP go by on my watchlist) and go by to have a look. Given this is a BLP it is exactly in Rob's terrain and he took his established permission on the issue (i.e. there is nothing out of the norm in his approach to this). So, yes, he appears to have got to the article via Epeefleche. But that does not mean it was malicious or hounding. At best storm in a teacup, at worst Epeefleche trying to find a (tenuous) way to re-open discussion over Rob. When he can make no turn on the wiki without Rob popping up to resist or oppose him then we have a hounding issue, and I would be on his side --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that rob has not edited the article or talkpage since the 24th, so there is nothing ongoing. Unless epeefleche wants a block then this is the wrong venue. Quantpole (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I regularly have issues with an editor's contributions on BLP, and I make it a habit of checking their contribution lists to see what they are editing, because I know I will sometimes find further problematic editing. Even if I don't find any problems, I may take an interest in something they've edited while reviewing it - just because I spot something on the article. Is that wikihounding? Granted, I suppose an over-sensitive editor might feel it's intrusive - but that's life on an open wiki.--Scott Mac 10:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Except, that's not what happened here.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Wikihounding" as a charge requires a lot more than "he started editing on an article I own" type accusations. Many editors have edited/watchlisted well over 1K articles - and it is amazing that there are as few overlaps as there are in the first place. Collect (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

By the above comment I gather that I must have created misapprehensions, for which I apologize. To clarify: it was not an article he had watchlisted, it would appear, as it was his first edit ever at the article. And it was not an article I "own", as I had barely edited it. And it is not an issue of "he started editing on an article" -- it is an issue of him immediately reverting me, and then edit warring, on the precise issue that was last-posted on my talk page as one of different views. And, of course, the timing -- he did this with one of his first edits after I detailed why he IMHO should be sanctioned.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that it is not chance editing, but there is no agreement that it is definitely wikihounding at this stage either. So let's just park the problem for the moment. If it moves over to more than one page then we can come back to it but at the moment no admin action is required. Seems reasonable? Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 11:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not chance editing (but 10 million articles? where are the other 6.6 million?) But neither does one incident constitute wikihounding. Like Scott Mac, I've ended up at an article for the first time after going to a talk page, looking around, and seeing something interesting. If there's edit warring,there's a place to report it. For me, I need to see several examples before I'll conclude it is wiki-hounding.--SPhilbrickT 12:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Replying to Theresa's comment) Indeed, as WP:STALKing goes, I can think of plenty of people (myself included) guilty of worse than finding a mention of an article on a user's talk page or contribs list and deciding to have a look. WP:AGF does exist for a reason, and WP:HOUND makes it very clear that simply following another user's edits isn't a violation unless it also involves tendentious editing, personal attacks, intentional disruption, and so forth; while an edit war did result, I'm inclined to believe it would have resulted even if it had happened the other way around, and/or one of the two had had it watchlisted already; that's simply the nature of disagreements. Again, this seems nothing more than a content dispute, and an uninvolved admin should close this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; the circumstances in this case simply do not give rise to the conclusions some users have made on the basis of bad faith assumptions. Action isn't going to be taken at this time so it should be closed (until/unless they fit into the circumstances described by Theresa Knott, SPhilbrick and/or Giftiger wunsch). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Theresa Knott. (And with the others who say hounding requires more than a single incident. The word "repeated" is even repeated in the first sentence of the definition of wikihounding.) Now Epeefleche has named in his initial post a number of incidents. Whether those multiple incidents rise to the level of creating the "repeated" incidents needed for wikihounding is the question. I don't know. But I'll say this, when you get wikihounded, it sure doesn't feel great. Let's give deference to Epeefleche here while at the same time being fair to off2r. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, within hours after Epeefleche commented unfavorably on an ANI, Off2riorob clearly looked at Epeefleche’s contributions history and then went spoiling for a fight by editing the same article. This is not a new phenomenon and it strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think it was a random happening. Off2riorob had best go find another article (there are many) to edit. Sufficient editwars and battles occur on Wikipedia by editors accidentally finding themselves in disagreements. The last thing we need is an editor purposely spoiling for conflict. Greg L (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Growing consensus seems to be that that's not what happened. No one's saying it was a random chance, but as has been stated multiple times above, simply seeing an article on a user's talk page, or even their contribution list, and deciding to contribute to that article, is not hounding; many editors do so all the time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes a “growing consensus” here is a transient phenomenon; allowing the thread to run a little longer until the earth turns just once often affords others to get home from work and weigh in. That often results in a different consensus—or no consensus at all. You characterize it as Off2riorob “simply seeing” that Epeefleche was editing on a particular article (hours after Epeefleche contributed to an ANI) and that lead Off2riorob to innocently decide *that looks interesting* and went there to edit. It’s certainly pretty to think so, but your characterization seems like a case of excess rose-colored glasses to me. I hope you are right, for if you are, then all’s well and good and no more wikidrama will come of this. And if there is more bad ‘cess from it, a little time-out for Off2riorob will be in order. Greg L (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Giftiger wunsch, but I believe there is a greater problem than just a single page. And if so, that could be hounding. Depends, of course. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

I already answered this question on my talkpage .. It is nothing more than coincidental, I had no intention of stalking your edits then or ever ... that is the situation, sometimes happens. I had and have no intention at all of following user Epeefleche around and increasing any tension there may be between us, actually I am more attempting to reduce the tension between us by avoiding contributing to those articles, which are still being disputed by others, it will get worked out without me, so I am avoiding further contributions in those disputed articles. Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Epeefleche's experience, combined with Off2riorob's statement above where he states he is now "avoiding further contributions" [to CC articles] indicates that a problem exists... again. It is my own view, expressed at various times and pages previously, that Off2riorob is a net minus for Wikipedia. Yes, I have a history of conflict with this editor; however, this latest incident is what I'd call clear cut wikihounding, and should not be tolerated. This is just further drama and a big time sink. Off2riorob continues to push the limits of AGF, and in my view has become used to ongoing gaming of the system. I agree with Greg L above: I suggest that a block is reasonable, given Off2riorob's lengthy, established history of abusive editing. It would be a good thing for the community, as it will demonstrate that community tolerance has limits. With deep concerns, Jusdafax 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Noted for the record: you have had a long-running problem with Off2riorob. I think it will have to be left at that on this go-around, which pertains to Epeefleche and Off2riorob trying to be paperboy to the same house and unfortunate timing and circumstances made for a poor looking coincidence. Off2riorob’s 17:28, 27 October post, above, is entirely satisfactory to establish that no more conflict between those two will arise in the near term. I suggest this be marked as resolved. Greg L (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Quite a few people are not at all convinced by the claim that it was coincidence. Perhaps some will be persuaded that the problem is resolved for now, given the 17:28 post. But it shouldn't surprise anyone if there continues to be a recurring issue along these lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Given what off2r just said, this matter is essentially moot and should be closed. Agree with others saying essetially the same thing. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploads by Northernhashberry - review of action

Resolved

 – All suspect files have been deleted, newbie user not put on any kind of restriction at the moment, we all make mistakes when learning Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 10:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

}

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

I came across this user in the recent upload log, to find that it appears he's getting his images from a variety of sources and tagging them all GFDL-self. A few examples:

• [147] (non-admins can view the deletion history here; it was a CV of [148].
• File:Subang_Daku_River.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• [149] and [150]
• Uploads with different camera metadata: File:Public Markets.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) vs. File:Immaculate Concepcion Parish.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

I'm thinking of straight just speedy deleting all the user's uploads. Does this seem like an appropriate course of action? It seems like an unnecessary burden to take it through WP:PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes i agree just am 'em. Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 09:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Restriction?

In cases like these, undoing the damage is one thing. Prevention of further damage is another thing. There are two ways to go about this; one is to block the editor completely from editing. Another way is to impose an editing restriction on the editor in question, allowing them to contribute constructively in other areas whilst prohibiting them from causing further problems in the area where their editing has proved problematic.

Therefore, I propose that Northernhashberry is banned from uploading any images to Wikipedia. The ban to be logged at WP:RESTRICT. An appeal may be made after 6 months have elapsed from the imposition of the ban (should consensus be that the ban should be imposed). Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well this user is a n00b; I don't want to propose that quite yet (I'm not even sure the editor is communicative enough to abide by that). I've already thrown down a block for the latest upload. I'm more worried about is it feasible to speedy the latest uploads? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog, if you have reasonable evidence that a user is a serial copyright vio, you can presumptively delete all their uploads. If there are text edits as well, you need to open a WP:CCI. I would have said the evidence above is quite reasonable enough to hose all the image uploads. I don't believe the chap even understands that there is such a thing as copyright on an image on the web. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I was a n00b once! OK, some editors take a sharper learning curve than others. For the images, I'd say tag them with {{db-f9}} and let those experienced in these matters deal with it. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am experienced in this area. But the wording of F9 ("unambiguous copyright infringement") is such that I don't want to go about speedy deleting them without community consensus, even if I am 95% sure they're all copyvios. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Magog, also I would block him indeff, rather than 12 hours, because he doesn't seem to have ever responded to anyone reporting a copyvio. Block him until he responds and shows he understands what is going on - he'll just wait out a 12 hour block. I don't think a topic ban will work, because he won't understand why (not even sure he will understand what it is!!) If he talks, you may just be able to educate him not to do it again.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just delete them. You can remove copyvio items presumptively - it's safer for the encyclopaedia. They can always be undeleted if by some miracle the guy can demonstrate that he actually took the photo. From WP:CCI If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Magog, you tag them, someone else makes the decision. If declined, there's always PUF. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagged. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrectly closed move request at Cambridge

The move request at Cambridge was closed by User:Born2cycle (so a non-admin close), despite it being a contentious debate and to my eyes without a clear consensus for a move – quite the opposite. I can't see a RM review so am posting here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the user who closed the discussion was very strongly in favour of moves at Plymouth and Dover (making over 30 edits at the Plymouth discussion). This would be a problematic close even if they were an admin. Quantpole (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a {{db-move}} tag which Born2cycle placed on Cambridge, so that the move shall not be implemented pending discussion here. JohnCD (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I also think someone entirely uninvolved in any of the related proposed renamings should close the discussion. Regardless of the result, which is clearly controversial, it needs to have the legitimacy of someone entirely uninvolved, so it cannot be challenged later purely on procedural grounds. MRSC (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Note, I have removed the closure formatting on the Cambridge move discussion added by Born2cycle based on the complaints on that page and this thread. I have avoided moving the page back myself as I have been involved in explaining why a move is not a poll (see diff) with the almost identical Plymouth move discussion. Considering Born2cycle's apparent confusion on how consensus is supposed to work, their conflict of interest and the fact that it is not a ballot, it seems quite inappropriate for them to close such a robustly discussed move request. Fæ (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Concur - I'd hate to be the admin trying to straighten this out, but it is clearly a contentious move and needs a fresh set of eyes. Also, how long are these discussions typically held open for? I would have thought this one is still active, with new editors still commenting.

Several page move/disambiguation discussions have been started simultaneously. While they are all slightly different cases, it is useful to at least be aware of the others. For the record, we have Talk:Peterborough, Talk:Dover, Talk:Plymouth, Talk:Sydenham, Talk:Cornwall, Talk:Cambridge, Talk:York, Talk:East York and Talk:Lincoln (I may have missed others), and a discussion at the village pump. GyroMagician (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's completely inappropriate for Born2cycle to close any move discussions; much of his/her editing seems to be somewhat of a mission to move pages.  pablo 10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also re-targeted the redirect at Cambridge to Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, pending closure. It makes no sense to break wikilinks when it may not actually be necessary. (Depending how the admin closes it). Personally I'd read Born2cycle's closure statement as a !vote in the discussion.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see also this which again is a non-admin closure of a discussion, with clearer consensus but for a different name to that which it was moved to. It seems Born2cycle has a very poor understanding of the move process and how decisions are arrived at.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to Cambridge, as it appears that the discussion may not have been properly closed. I'll leave the question of a final close to someone else, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the discussion and will close it shortly. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the review. For the WP:IAR-required good reason of trying to help with the backlog at WP:RM, several editors who are non-admins but knowledgeable in naming policy and experienced in these discussions and decisions have been ignoring the rule about non-admins avoiding controversial RM discussions to close quite a few contentious debates. To make up for it, I, for one, have tried to provide detailed reasoning in my closings, as I did in this one. I've had one other closing challenged like this [1], and the reviewing admin approved[2] with the following note:

I'm an uninvolved admin, and have read through the move discussion. B2C is correct; those who opposed the move did not present any sort of argument for why we should ignore the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC policy. While Wikipedia generally works by consensus, we must adhere to established policy and not fall victim to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments. I have therefore completed the move request and moved the dab page to ...

The issue of being a non-admin closing a contentious debate was not raised, and I've continued to try to follow this lead to "not fall victim to WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT type arguments", including in this situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Decision to move back

I see that the discussion has now been closed "no consensus" with a decision based largely on the following assertion:

"Page hits (7) are not much use in this situation because, for all we know, every US city searcher might be typing Cambridge, Mass (or clicking on Cambridge, Mass when it shows up in the search result list)."

Page hit counts tell us how relatively popular all "competitors" for a given name are, regardless of how readers get there. For the most part, anything listed on the relevant dab page is a "competitor" for the name in question, and Cambridge, Massachusetts is clearly one of those "competitors" for "Cambridge". Just because some readers might type "Cambridge, Mass" (I wouldn't) to get to that article is no reason to discount its high page view count relative to its "competitor". Since we have no way of knowing what searchers might be typing to find any topic, this reasoning invalidates how almost every primary topic decision I've ever seen has been made.

I agree that Cambridge, Cambridgeshire might not be the ideal new location, but, as I noted in my closing, no other alternative was discussed in the original discussion. I suggest that that discussion should be held separately, but a need for a better alternative is no reason to leave this article at Cambridge. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't an appeal like this forum shopping?

Also, one big question... was there anything wrong I did in my closing? What is the basis for the reversal? I followed the reasoning and explained the error I see in it above, but what I didn't see was an evaluation of my reasoning, or how I might have made an error. I know in the court system for an appeal to reverse the decision of a lower court, some error has to have have occurred at the lower level, and I think there is good reason for that. Otherwise, any non-admin controversial decision can be appealed for no reason other than forum shopping. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any "non-admin controversial decision", so the problem shouldn't arise. WP:RMCI#Non-admin closure says:

"Non-administrators should restrict themselves to:

• Unanimous or nearly unanimous discussions after a full listing period (seven days);

• Where there is no contentious debate among participants; ... "

David Biddulph (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth

• Would anyone like to close the similar discussion at Talk:Plymouth? DC T•C 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Anne

Resolved

• Queen Anne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I request an independent review of the closure of Talk:Queen Anne#Requested move by the same user using similar arguments to those used on the Cambridge move. Fæ (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reviewed. And I endorse the close.--Scott Mac 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that. Not sure if it is normal or appropriate but it might be handy to add your endorsement to the discussion to avoid any further challenge. Fæ (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Might not be a bad idea. Add my endorsement as well if you wish. NW (Talk) 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

I'm slightly loath to bring this one up since I actually agree with the result, but again there did not appear to be consensus for this requested move. Quantpole (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest there are two definitions of "consensus" that are often conflated:

1. The "consensus" of those participating as determined by giving equal weight to every "vote".
2. The "consensus" as determined by evaluating the arguments and assigning weight according to how well each argument is in concert with the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large as reflected in policy, guidelines and conventions.

I try to make my closing decisions per (2) sometimes conflicts with (1), and concede that was the situation in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Derekspage and VHarris44

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the new accounts Derekspage and VHarris44 are one and the same person, and that they are socks of the recently 'retired' Codf1977 but am really not sure what to do about it.

In any event I believe that the behaviour of VHarris44 in particular has been highly inappropriate over the last few hours, including apparently rifling through my talk page history to discover a reference to a university that I have studied at in the past, and then posting details of this in various places, including on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities.Rangoon11 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not the same person as Derekspage and don't know what "socks" mean. I think it is Rangoon11 who has been highly inappropriate with his wish to keep adding flags to Law firms even though he knows it is wrong. VHarris44 (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For a brand new user you seem to know your way around Wikipedia remarkably well. I haven't added any flags to any pages, you have gone through a whole series of law firm articles over the last few hours and, without any discussion, deleted the entire lists of offices (not just the flags), even though you know, from the discussion at DLA Piper that you have been involved in, that this is highly controversial.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

funny it is only you who says it is highly controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VHarris44 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not for content disputes. Sockpuppet investigations is thataway. However, I see that there's not been any denial by VHarris44 of the allegation by the OP of posting personally identifying information—that is blockable on Wikipedia, I believe. If this is true you would do well to undo such edits and apologise. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This looks to me like a behavioral problem, not a content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The original complaint, yes, not a content dispute, but the subsequent posts seem to have degenerated into an argument over one. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec's - resp to original post)I suggest filing an WP:SPI report, since the Codf1977 account is still fresh enough for CU's to check against the other accounts, as it is patrolled by users who are also familiar with noting similarities between reported editors contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have done wrong posting that he went to a given university, but I read that on his talk page. VHarris44 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It is buried somewhere in the deleted content of the talk page, it hasn't been visible on the talk page since you opened your account. I now deeply regret my honesty in having ever given out that information to users on here. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked VHarris44 for violation of WP:HARASS, as it is clear that that account's purpose was to oppose edits by Rangood11. I still think that an SPI report will determine if there is a history or backtrail to other accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:4cneortic

Can someone look at User:4cneortic? I have no time right now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a SPA targeting suspected sock-puppet accounts. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Creating a page that has been "restricted to administrators"

Resolved

 – Name hasn't been salted or otherwise restricted; user advised how to request creation if not autoconfirmed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

When trying to create and entry for the following: Keith_Hampton I received a message that the title has been "restricted to administrators". I was instructed to post on the noticeboard. Is it possible for an administrator to create the page for me? If not, what are the next steps? (apologies for breaches of etiquette. This is new to me)Sessi10 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Odd, I see no log entry for Keith Hampton, and when I visit it, there appears to be no issue with me creating it (I'm not an administrator). Perhaps it is simply because you are not autoconfirmed? You need to be autoconfirmed, i.e. have made I beleive 12 edits over 72 hours, to be able to create pages. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) was gonna say the same thing; and user has been around since 2007. maybe a glitch. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Been around since 2007, but has made 12 edits it seems, including this posting; so the autoconfirmed userright probably hasn't kicked in yet. I'm not sure how frequently it's updated; probably every 24 hours. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) It seems you're not autoconfirmed yet; that's a somewhat misleading message since creating the article isn't restricted to administrators, but if you'd like to create the article, I'd recommend drafting it at User:Sessi10/Keith Hampton, bring it up to standard, and then get some feedback on it and have it created. You could also submit it to articles for creation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)It should be four days and 10 edits for autoconfirmed to kick in...but I don't believe that status is needed to create articles. --Onorem♠Dil 16:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Just tested it. works fine. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Looks like it's 64 now... (Actually the backlog's pretty much clear now thanks to exposure to the frantic ANI environment, but my point remains valid ;)) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Winchester2313

Regarding Winchester2313 (talk · contribs):

1. User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) has in the past been requested to stop edit warring, see User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Menachem Mendel Schneerson; User talk:Winchester2313#Edit warring on Elazar Shach; adding defamatory stuff User talk:Winchester2313#April 2010, requested to stop blanking and vandalizing pages at User talk:Winchester2313#May 2010 and has been requested a few times to stop his intimidating behavior on several pages that he violates WP:OWN when editing.
2. At Talk:Elazar Shach he has displayed crude and ruthless behavior, name calling against editors who disagree with him. He has intimated that he is WP:OUTING as he taunts them "Now be nice Yonoson (or is it 'Rabbi' Rosenblum...)", that he's a "a brainwashed robot", as he directs his attack against User Yonoson3 (talk · contribs) naming him as Jonathan Rosenblum.
3. He attacks subjects of articles: a "blatant liar".
4. I have also asked him to clarify his user name, see User talk:Winchester2313#Your user page, may be associated with other blocked puppets.
5. In the past there was a case against pro-Chabad POV editors who swoop in on subjects their movement dislikes, not to mention control their "own" articles, and create havoc by attacking and harassing editors who disagree with them. At that time the case was brought against 4 pro-Chabad POV editors who are now not as active (one was blocked subsequently, two are not as active), but where they have left off User:Winchester2313 has picked up the cudgels.
6. In the past case ArbCom left the door open that "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision#Future proceedings: "Chabad movement...if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed."
7. I have repeatedly asked him to stop his confrontational behavior and to engage in good faith discussions, see User talk:Winchester2313#Let's talk at Shulchan Aruch talk page; User talk:Winchester2313#Yitzchok Hutner; and most recently stop his vandalism User talk:Winchester2313#STOP your vandalism FINAL WARNING but his favorite weapon is to ignore my pleas and to keep on reverting.
8. He is conducting an edit WP:WAR at the Yitzchok Hutner article, not allowing me to add references and citations while he hurls accusations, as he has done at other editors in the past in the hope of intimidating them away, as he has already reverted the article 3 times [151] [152] [153] in 24 hours (very recklessly) in blanket reversals with his other changes bordering on WP:3RR that destroy my good work and ignoring pleas to talk at Talk:Yitzchok Hutner#Expanding the article discussions.
9. While at this time User:Wincheste2313 is one of the most pro-Chabad POV editors who is very active, there are in fact a few more editors like this who pop in and out, almost never creating full identities on their user pages, who are blatant pro-Chabad POV editors who use all forms of WP:LAWYERING to harass other editors away from articles they wish to edit their way.
10. This is a very troubling development and I again wish to bring to the attention of the community the inherent threat to Wikipedia's open editorial style when such one-issue POV editors work in a loose federation and confederation to impose their will and drive out others they deem as their foes who disagree with them. In this regard see the serious threats that Wikipedia has confronted at the: (1) TM case; (2) Scientology case; (3) LaRouche case; (4) CAMERA case as well as at the (5) Chabad case, that are all related and must be seen as similar dangers to Wikipedia's editorial independence.
11. User:Winchester2313 must be sanctioned for his own mounting violations. Wikipidia is not fair game to editors working from only one point of view. Thank you. Most sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the user. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Favonian (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also by me [154]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

USER:IZAK has in fact been relentlessly accusing both myself and various other editors of some type of ongoing 'Chabad' conspiracy for some time, and which is blatantly untrue. I do not act in concert with any other editors, and while I've only been on Wiki for a relatively short time, have (and continue to) tried to learn the rules well and adhere to them. To a conspiracy buff like IZAK, this becomes WP:LAWYERING, as if removing unsourced and highly contestable material, as I've done at Yitzchok Hutner is wrong.

More recently, User:IZAK has resorted to repeatedly threatening me (and others) on various pages, while continuing his allegations of 'Chabad POV', as if that were some type of crime?! Some recent examples include [155] [156] where he continues to allege a Chabad-conspiracy (despite there never having been any strife between Chabad and Breslov ?!!), and where he relentlessly lobs insults/accusations like: 1. "something you should be acutely aware of as a member of Chabad that worships a dead rabbi and sees nothing wrong with that as continuing the dynasty of a deceased ruler, regardless of who his predecessors were." IZAK (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC) 2. "but that does not mean that when pro-Chabad POV editors start getting involved in articles outside of purely Chabad topics, such as you have done by downgrading and in a great sense also demeaning historical rivals to the Chabad movement," 3."What I said was that pro-Chabad POV editors have taken it on themselves to attack articles about targets they hate, and that includes the article about Berger. Please do not twist my words, and enough of going around in circles". IZAK (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

4. "There are so many various splits in the Hasidic world, just see the dozens in template

that it would be impossible, absurd and reckless for one or two basically pro-Chabad POV editors to decide who and what is or is not a Hasidic dynasty in the world and history of Chasidus at large."IZAK (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC

5."Let's get this straight, the issue is not Chabad which deserves and gets lots of WP:NPOV from me and other editors, the issue here is the proven pro-Chabad POV editors who need to exert utmost care when entering a domain that has potential WP:COI with the subject matter at hand, since it has been proven again and again that when a controversial topic intersects with so-called Chabad party lines, then proven pro-Chabad POV editors such as yourself, Yehoishophot and Winchester jump in and often create a WP:WAR, when if they just stepped back, and at least focused on the pure Chabad topics it would be more understandable and productive for them and the rest of WP. IZAK (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) 6."Why do you just wish to keep on fighting and quite obviously violate WP:CIVIL yet again? There are better ways to be productive, try devoting serious time to improving as many articles in your supposed realm of expertise at Category:Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidism and not running and rushing to attack subjects and editors you don't like." IZAK (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see [157] where again, accusations of a Chabad conspiracy are inserted by IZAK to derail a discussion as we are informed that;

"You fellows start the problems yourselves, so you only have yourselves to blame. Stop acting innocent. Stop harassing editors and edit warring at the Rav Shach-type articles and any topic that Chabad deems to be "enemies of Chabad"! For example, even though Orthodox editors do not agree with Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism you do NOT find them spending time attacking them and their notable people, as Chabad editors do with their "hate list" topics. It becomes very tiresome, and I must warn you that in the past when such behavior, with clear evidence of group editing taking place, that sooner or later the entire group will face the music. This is not just my imagination or prejudice talking, but please take a long hard look at what happened over the years with the: (1) Transcendental Meditation movement case; (2) Scientology case; (3) Lyndon LaRouche case; (4) CAMERA case and why the (5) Chabad movement case is similar and came dangerously close (for you) of serious measures against you. If you persist in your violations and threats and harassments with your pro-Chabad POV edit warring, you will leave me no choice but to reopen the case against you as you create an environment of hostility and insults that makes it impossible for other non-Chabad editors to tangle with you out of fear and the sheer drudgery of having to put up with your constant mischief making. I have a very simple word of advice for you, just remember, all the time, that Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org!" IZAK (talk) 06:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC) and then that; "Well at least you agree with me and prove my point with the abominable way User Winchester2313 (talk · contribs) is carrying on right now. I am always open to reason. You make a big error when you falsely accuse me of "anti-Chabad POV conspiracy theories" because (a) it's not a "theory", and (b) I am not "anti-Chabad" and (c) the way it has worked over time is that pro-Chabad editors do work in tandem..."IZAK (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It should again be noted, that the subject matter of this latest tirade had no connection to Chabad at all, and merely highlights User:IZAK's ongoing war against his imaginary opponents.

He then takes to threatening me with "more formal actions" if I don't "mend my ways" [158] further accusations of sock-puppetry followed by more threats [159] and [160] [161].

I have tried to respond to User:IZAK's issues directly, but he seems determined to force-feed his agenda and edit-warring unabated. Requests for WP:SOURCE and WP:VERIFY are simply met with accusations of WP:LAWYERING !! Upon informing User:IZAK of my intention to file a complaint regarding his behavior [162] his response has simply been to co-opt me with this spurious action. Winchester2313 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Viriditas

I would like to undo a week-long block of Viriditas, imposed by 23skidoo, but want to check consensus first. 23skidoo has been an admin since 2005, but not an active admin or editor recently. He arrived today at Talk:Juan Williams, his first edit since June, and reverted archiving that Viriditas had just completed. The archiving was apparently to remove personal attacks from the page. I don't know the rights and wrongs of it, but 23skidoo complained on Viriditas's page about his attitude, Viriditas objected to 23skidoo's arriving out of the blue to unarchive, and said he was meatpuppeting for other editors on the page. 23skidoo responded by blocking him for a week. See the exchange here.

It's so obvious to me that this is a bad block on so many levels that I was tempted to undo immediately, but we're not meant to do that, so I'm bringing it here. There have been objections to the block on User talk:Viriditas and User talk:23skidoo from Mastcell, SPhilbrick, Roux, Off2riorob, and myself. 23skidoo's response here.SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock. I was considering doing this earlier, but wanted to see 23skidoo's response first. As this is now here, I think consensus is to overturn the block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

unblock. something's wrong this week... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unblock. I'm willing to AGF that there was a good reason for the block, but I can't see anything that would stand up to scrutiny. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Having read 23skidoo's response, this is not a legitimate block. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• On the fence: I encourage people to read 23skidoo's response on his talk page and not dismiss it as tl;dr. The point he is trying to make is certainly very valid. While I don't think the block was entirely proper, neither do I think that this archiving was proper. NW (Talk) 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Even if one assumes the archiving was improper, that's not the reason for the block given either in the blocklog or 23skidoo's response. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, that I understand that. The claimed reason was a "a bullying aggressive tone that is counter-productive to civil discourse on Wikipedia." 23skidoo backed up that assertion with evidence, of which the archiving was just one part. Still not sure if a block was the proper way to handle it, but it was an option, and I am not convinced that it was out of order. NW (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "Not out of order" to one editor is a pretty low hurdle. The question is whether the block was "in order", and most replies so far say this block was not. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• On the fence per NW. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Reduce to time served as per Jclemens' summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Support - This block seems to have been a bad response to Viriditas' bad behavior. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock - clearly there are issues, an administrators that is basically inactive for one and a claim of involved in the dispute' Also support Administrator SlimVirgins not rushing to unblock out of process and attempting discussion and then bringing the issue here for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with your second sentence. I also hope that no other administrator will rush to unblock and curtail this discussion. What has happened so far is setting a good precedent. NW (Talk) 18:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock, perhaps the archiving was improper, but this wasn't the reason given for the block -- the reason given indicates a highly improper block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Reduce to time served per NW and 23skidoo's response. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock, note that block was improper in the unblock entry in the log. → ROUX ₪ 18:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock, with note in block log per Roux. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock. The tools were misused here and I can't support a revisionist attempt to make a bad block into a faux-good one.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support roux; "time served" is not sufficient in this case. The block was inappropriate. Indeed, I think it could be argued that 23skidoo's response merit a block. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, definitely not. While it's questionable whether 23skidoo should have imposed the block at that time, an uninvolved admin given the explanation here would likely have reached the same conclusion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm uninvolved, and I did not reach the same conclusion given that explanation. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock now, and note that it was an incorrect block in the log as suggested by Roux. Consensus seems pretty clear, this wasn't a good block and it should be undone sooner rather than later. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Hell no" on "unblock now", discussion is underway and lively. Once it peters down a bit, an uninvolved admin can determine consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • In the meantime, we're driving off an editor who shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
      • And how do we know that, when Viriditas hasn't edited their talk page since the block was imposed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Unblock or Change of Block Length BUT AFTER an uninvolved admin or community consensus determines (a) if a block was appropriate and (b) if so, for how long (a day? a week?) - unless 23skidoo can provide sufficient rationale for why a block by an involved admin was appropriate. It would have been easy enough for 23skidoo to get an uninvolved admin to review and (if warranted) block to ensure no impression of impropriety existed. After that, possible review of 23skidoo's actions and if any repercussions for such are warranted. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with roux. unblock plus note in block log. This was a hasty and unwarranted block.--RegentsPark (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock with message in unblock. Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

*Strongly support block.

As one of the editors who was being treated roughly by Viriditas I wish to place on record my support for the actions of 23skidoo in placing a temporary block on an editor who was - to put it mildly - very intimidating in his approach to me and to other editors. 23skidoo noted some of the wording used by Viriditas in his explanation for why the block was imposed. There are often tensions when one is passionate about a topic one is editing. We are all accustomed to those. But as an editor who has a reputation for working to achieve consensus and who has been awarded Barnstars etc and complimented for my spirit of compromise, I was a little startled to read text like the following from Viriditas - directed towards me and to others: (All of these can be seen in recent edit summaries and notes left on various talk pages by Viriditas.)

"Anyone who continues to use Wikipedia to fight these battles will be taken to task".

"You either go with the sources or you don't edit."

"You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple."

"If you didn't already know this was wrong before you added it, then now you do, and I've set you right. Don't do it again."

I'm sure no one reading the above would feel comfortable being on the receiving end of such abrasive messages. I've been involved in edit wars very occasionally over the years and I'm not accustomed to such blunt and heavy-handed diktats being handed down from one editor to others. I support the block, as long as it is only for a few days to help him cool off. And I hope that when Viriditas returns in a few days time, he will try to be a little more sensitive to other editors. I contribute to many different articles on Wikipedia and enjoy being part of the community. I don't want to be too frightened to edit because an editor is so aggressive in his interactions with other editors that I am intimidated. Davidpatrick (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That all looks like sound advice to me; I'd suggest getting a thicker skin, taking the advice without jumping to complain about a user you disagree with, and learning about our blocking policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed every discussion I could find and it looks to me like exactly the kind of "admin cowboy" block that should lead to a quick desysopping and for which Wiki should have a process in place for desysopping short of arbcom-- the very problems with abusive admins that have been oft-discussed of late. Wrong on many levels. I suggest that Davidpatrick may need a talking to as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

-

• Unblock asap with note in block log that this was an improper block. The Admin should lose his bit, anyone who hasn't been using his tools and then suddenly swoops in with this sort of block is not an asset to the project. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? Don't we always say that it should be uninvolved admins who are dealing with things? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking right now would be a bad thing

For the record, folks, I'm strongly considering blocking anyone who undoes this block in the next little while. Consensus is in the process of being determined: waiting a couple of hours isn't going to make much of a difference in a 1-week block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm strongly considering blocking anyone who blocks anyone for undoing the block.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend striking that pretty quickly Brewcrewer, impersonating an admin isn't going to end well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

He was joking. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

and then i'll block anyone who can't take a joke.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep your jokes on your own talk please and stop adding to the three-ring circus at ANI where important matters should be discussed without sideshows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And for the benefit of Viriditas block log, I encourage the original blocking admin to undo it with a note that it was wrong and a link to the discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Frankly Sarek, doing so will simply be adding to your growing list of blocks which the community has had to call you here on. I would strongly advise against it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(too many edit conflicts)Yes let's all start blocking one another. It sounds like fun! Theresa Knott | Sort that Knee! 18:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)