Misplaced Pages

• Comment Some members of this squadron came to an AfD I nominated recently Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines, but they have made a reasonable contribution there. While I do think they are making a fair effort to improve articles, I have to share TDA's concerns after seeing what is happening with the AfD he has brought up. We have to be careful that the rescue tag in combination with a rescue "squadron" does not lead to some unintended votestacking effect. We cannot avoid the fact that a selected group with a known opinion (leaning towards keeping more articles), get's notified by this.

The idea that it are not the votes that are counted, but the policy based points, is a nice ideal, but does it also work that way in practice? I think the votes do sway the opinion, maybe not of the closing editor, but of the other people who vote or comment in the AfD. And if the votes are not counted, then why do we give a vote? Then we can as well just comment (which is what I am always doing) and let the closing editors count the policy based points from all the comments. If the votes are not counted anyway, then why do we worry about votestacking and canvassing? Answer: it is a problem because the vote count actually does play some role, no matter how much we try to dream otherwise. And that's why it is a problem when a rescue tag on an AfD article starts pulling in "squadron" members who then all vote "Keep" because the article has their project rescue tag on it.

I see two things that could help with this. 1) the rescue project could make more clear to its member that "Keep" is not the only way that an article can get rescued. "Merge" and "Rename" are two other possible votes/outcomes of an AfD in which the material gets kept and can get improved by this rescue team. So I would expect to see a little more variation in their AfD votes. 2) Restricting the rescue team members from voting in AfD is rather drastic. I don't think that's necessary. But it might be good when rescue members mention their membership when they vote in a AfD that was tagged for rescue. That wouldn't hurt. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

From the ARS' own project page: "The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles... adding sources and rewriting the text to remove or reword unsuitable content will help other editors decide if the article should be kept or deleted... The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is not about casting keep votes...". The problem appears to be that some ARS members (mentioning no names) seem to view their role as votestackers rather than editors: I've often encountered ARS members at AfD who's only contribution to either article or debate was "meets GNG" or similar (again, I'm deliberately not providing names or diffs, this shouldn't be a witchhunt), but such arguments will be discounted by any competent closing admin. This is an issue with individual users, rather than with the ARS Project as a whole. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you see reliable sources already found by someone, click on them and agree they are reliable, then what else would you say? Everyone looks at the references and either agrees that is sufficient coverage or they argue that it isn't. Dream Focus 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• AN/I is not really the right venue for this. What the ARS is doing here is pretty much what the ARS does; as always the closing admin has the discretion to disregard poorly considered votes (keep, delete or otherwise) or votes that don't address the rationale presented for deletion. If the closing admin weighs such votes improperly in your view, DRV provides a remedy. If you're looking for a more broad debate on the ARS, you'll need to put together an RFC. 28bytes (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• There are no AFD members that comment in every single article tagged for Rescue, spamming "keep" about. That has never been a problem. Those that show up usually look over the list and only click on something that catches their interest. There are articles tagged which none of us respond to. If I can determine with 100% certainly an article should be deleted, I do post "delete" at times. If not, I usually just ask questions, or don't comment at all. Dream Focus 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Advocate here. It seems blatently clear to me that a great many life preservers are thrown not to improve the article, but as a clarion call to get ARS members to participate in AfD discussions. They don't necessarily need to get all their members out to vote; three or four of them will usually sway many AfDs in their favor. I've also seen ARS members add sources that barely mention a topic at all, then claim that that means that it passes GNG and must automatically be kept. Those sources are essentially no better than if the article wasn't sourced at all. And very rarely do I see ARS members get an article to DYK or GA quality, or even B or C class. They often just improve an article just enough so it allegedly passes GNG. And that's another problem with ARS members...many of them disdain notability guidelines, particularly the specific ones like WP:POLITICIAN, which they choose to ignore, claiming only GNG matters. I've even seen ARS members start threads on ANI against people who nominate articles for deletion based mostly on the fact that they didn't like their nominations. This has gotta stop Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I have to agree. I have rarely seen the squadron be helpful in an article. Usually all it is, is a call to come and stack votes when I see the template put on the article. The rare times I see an attempt to put any effort into fixing the article its with links that only have a passing mention of the subject and don't actually help with anything. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'd like to see the main rescue template be done away with entirely, honestly; one troublesome wikiproject does not have a right to advertise itself in article-space as they do. Let them reword Template:ARSnote and use that to flag the AfDs only if they like, just as other wikiprojects do. Tarc (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with most of what PBP said. The ARS is of course entitled to its own opinion about the notability guidelines, wrong though it is. But their template amounts to canvassing for inclusioniosts, their members frequently attack AfD nominators and people they perceive as enemies, and they try to save articles with dubious sources because they want to beat their enemies, not improve the encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 20:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• As the comments below are mostly about the tag it should be noted the main page of the Wikiproject itself does not really respect WP:CANVASS. Under the rescue template instructions there is a section for Usage with the following in boldface:

As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen.

This reads like an instruction for any member of the group to vote keep on any tagged article. Other parts do say they are not about casting keep votes, but there is not an actual instruction against everyone just voting keep on the AfD when an article is tagged.

It is also not just North's actions that are at issue. As noted before, Dream's userpage has several comments that are little more than advice about how to game a deletion discussion in favor of keep while railing about the horrible deletionists. That editor's page is also at times a blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC in its demonization of deletionists. Given that Dream is often voting keep right alongside North I think both of these editors are exhibiting problematic behaviors that need to be looked at.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see much use to this thread. If you don't like the actions of an individual editor, usually an Rfc or an Mfd of their userpage is the best way to proceed. If you object to the general idea of the ARS, you could bring the whole thing to Mfd--it's been done a few times before but maybe this time you'll get consensus. My suggestion is to monitor the pages that are tagged for rescue and counter what you see as frivolous votes with policy-based arguments. Or create a rival WP:WikiProject Policy and Guideline Based Articles for Deletion Comment Squad? (Maybe something a bit pithier though.) Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• My opinion about the rescue tag (diff):

  Most articles marked for rescue are not improved, despite ARS' professed purpose of improving articles at AfD ("The Article Rescue Squadron is not about arguing on talk pages but instead about editing articles."). See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Devolvement, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CanSat, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Semi-vegetarianism, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Good Day New York (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amber Smalltalk, and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/American Respiratory Care Foundation for some recent examples. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Darkstars is a particularly telling example—a member of ARS marks an article for rescue merely because the article was relisted with no other voters. Goodvac (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  Goodvac (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You link to AFDs where members found references proving that the subject was notable and met all requirements for an article. That is what we are there for. If you want the information into the article, just copy and paste it over yourself. Dream Focus 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps better to judge any tag by its successes, and not its failures, not by who uses it, and definitely not by assuming bad faith in its use. Besides being listed as a member or ARS, I am a member of

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers,

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography,

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Television,

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Film, and

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced articles,

...all being projects that include on their project page links to AFD delsorts of article of concern to those projects:

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers,

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film

or as in the case of WP:URA, they list articles that have issues needing to be addressed.

The above are projects where my editing skills occasionaly prove helpful to the project through proactive article improvement. And worth noting, is that far more often than with ARS tags, the tags from these other projcts do not result in improvements nor prevent deletion of unsuitable articles. Interestingly, if being tagged through delsort for input from projects (other that ARS) results in a keep or a delete, we do not cry foul nor cry canvas.

Should ARS tagging have better instruction? Perhaps. But a tagging NOT resulting in an article being improved is never a reason to not use such tags nor declare them somehow useless. The ultimate goal of any such tags is the improving of articles to better serve the project. The use or not of such tags is not predicated upon success, but upon hope. Schmidt, 00:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000 04:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Northamerica1000 should be banned from using the {{rescue}} template. Frankly, I don't see any point of it other than to canvass and I am tempted to send it back to TfD again. However, here are some examples of the tag being abused.

• TLG Communications
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
  • Is a brief mention, not even an entire sentence
  • ] Is also a brief mention but actually has 3 sentences
• Lena Cruz
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
    • 3 ARS members !vote ( keep at AFD without making improvements to the article
• Cinnamon challenge
  • Northamerica1000 tags article for rescue
  • Northamerica1000 does major improvements to the article that satisfies GNG (rescued the article) but leaves the tag in place (effectively canvassing !keep votes, no other purpose now that article has been fixed)
    • Two keep !votes ( ) having made no changes to the article
• Cyrus Pahlavi
  • Tagged for rescue, AFD resulting in delete
• Russian Social Terms
  • Tagged for rescue, AFD resulting in delete
• Children's Philanthropy Center
  • Tagged for rescue, no improvements by Northamerica1000, AFD resulted in delete

All of this is actually an improvement over his previous typical drive-by {{rescue}} tagging , none of which received any improvement during the taging that would save it from AFD, but it's clear the tag is being used to canvass !votes rather than to improve.

Overall, I dislike Northamerica1000 but I'll firmly admit that he/she does a lot of work to improve articles that are up for deletion. My point point of contention is the overuse/abusive use of the {{rescue}} template. He/she clearly uses it to canvass rather than to suggest someone improves the article.--v/r - TP 19:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(an aside:) User:TParis informed me of this discussion. My being involved in the discussion at the above linked AFD for Lena Cruz was NOT due to or a result of the rescue tag. I was alerted to the article by that other tag placed on the article... the one by User:Gene93k: "Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)". However, I did not perceive Gene's use of the tag which alerted me to the article as either misused or canvassing. Further, my opinion there had absolutely nothing to do with the rescue tag... being based upon my own WP:BEFORE, the sources found and offered by others, and my conclusion that the project would be far better served by application of WP:ATD's suggesting nominators check for sources for an unref'd article and rather than force cleanup through AFD, instead consider tagging the article for issues... and in this particular case, notifying WP:BIOG or WP:URA through appropriate tagging would also not be misuse of tags or canvassing. A deletion based upon someone else not yet fixing an addressable issue, is not always the best option.Schmidt, 23:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you cherry picking AFDs like that? Childrens Philanthropy Center had one member of the Rescue Squadron say keep in it, that NorthAmerica1000. This should prove that tagging something for Rescue doesn't automatically bring over keep votes. It also shows that in places where most people said keep, they still delete some articles. Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_Social_Terms Three of us said Keep, it encyclopedic to have that, with only one person agreeing with the nominator to delete that. Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron/Article_list shows what articles are currently tagged, by who, and what the result is when the AFD is over. Dream Focus 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not some people vote keep sometimes is rather irrelevant since posting to a illusionist group where it can be safely assumed that in most (not all) cases its likely to get a keep instead of a delete is clearly doing it for the canvass value and would violate the part of canvass which says not to post invites to editors clearly on one side of the issue and not to both sides. -DJSasso (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of Childrens Philanthropy Center was to demonstrate a case of an article that couldn't be rescued but was tagged anyway. Honestly, the tag is pointless because if you do the work to determine if an article is rescuable, than you are 3/4ths of the way to rescuing the article yourself (ie, you've found refs).--v/r - TP 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Other Wikiprojects are informed of AFDs to bring interested parties to them. I don't really see any difference here. Someone believes that the article is notable and request help in finding reliable sources to back that up, and those of us wishing to help show up and do so. I'd like to see what people who don't regularly but heads with the ARS members in various AFDs have to say. Obviously if you are determined to delete something, and people show up and interfere with you getting your way, some would be upset about that, and start complaining about those on the other side of the argument with them. And we could just as easily cherry pick examples of someone clearly notable, who had people show up and say delete without bothering to even click the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, and find that had a detailed article about them in the New York Times. Dream Focus 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I picked articles and AFDs based on whether the rescue tag involved improvements by the ARS improvements by Northamerica1000 or just keep !votes. I saw none tagged by Northamerica1000 that involved improvements by other ARS members. Feel free to prove me wrong. The rescue tag should be removed once improvements are made to an article. The {{rescue}} template is a big notification to folks who are self-identified "inclusionists" and violates the "Audience" part of WP:CANVASS. (After EC) And other Wikiprojects do not have a problem with the "Audience" portion. There isn't a bias to include articles by other projects.--v/r - TP 20:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Other Wikiprojects are likely to have varying viewpoints on if an article should be kept or not. A wikiproject whose sole purpose is to save articles from deletion is clearly not in the same category as most wikiprojects. Its no wonder that many people consider the ARS as WikiProject:Canvass. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support: It does seem like Northamerica and others are using the tag for the wrong reasons. Northamerica can improve articles all he wants (provided the references he uses are of proper quality and he follows all relevant guidelines), but I think he should step away from tagging them for rescue. TP, you're absolutely right the the template should go if it continues to be serially misused. Failing that, I honestly believe you shouldn't be allowed to participate in an AfD of an article you tagged for rescue. One or the other, not both Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Please see the instructions for use of the rescue tag, at WP:RESCUETEMPLATE. I didn't create the instructions for this template, I just abide by them. Thank you. Northamerica1000 20:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• oppose Although I would hope that closing admins at AfD have the nous to ignore a chorus of bleating "keeps" with nothing to back them up. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• In my experience they don't. Not unless the bleating comes from IPs or new users. I find most admins loathe to throw out a bunch of keep !votes that are based on faulty logic, often going with a no consensus so they don't have to make that hard decision. This is one of the fundamental flaws with AfD. This whole dance we do to write "!vote" when the reality is that it very clearly is a vote. In all my years here, I've repeatedly seen junk arguments used to keep articles which really shouldn't be here, but survive on admins who seemingly just tally it up and call it.--Crossmr (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment– I don't use the rescue template for any reason other than tagging articles for rescue that I consider to be notable topics, which could use more sourcing, copy-editing, inline citations, and general clean-up. Per WP:RESCUETAG, the instructions for placing the template are as follows:

"Our main focus is on articles on notable topics going through Articles for deletion (AfD) that:

• Need references
• Are written poorly
• Lack information readily available
• Need cleaning up."

Perhaps this discussion should be about the instructions for use of the rescue tag, because I always only follow the instructions. Use of the rescue tag is not canvassing, it's placing a template on an article per the instructions. I have no control how other Misplaced Pages users !vote in AfD discussions whatsoever. I have never canvassed or messaged anyone to post a "keep" !vote in an AfD discussion whatsoever. I was disappointed to see that a user I haven't communicated with much has started this discussion by stating that they dislike me from the start; an unfortunate style in which to begin a discussion, in my opinion. I'm neutral about the individual who started this discussion myself, however. If you don't like the tag, for whatever reasons, then please feel free to send it to templates for discussion. The title of this discussion, "canvassing", and then my user name directly below it is misleading, in my opinion.

Regarding the statement above about not removing the rescue tag after performing article improvements, again, this is due to the instructions at WP:RESCUETAG on the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject (verbatim):

"Removing a rescue tag:
It is unhelpful, and possibly disruptive, to remove the rescue tag before a deletion discussion is complete. The XfD process usually takes a week, and the tag is in place for less than that. Let the XfD closer remove it when the XfD tag is removed or the item is deleted. In all cases remain civil, and assume good faith that other editors are working to improve Misplaced Pages."

Removal of the tag prior to the AfD's closue is against the instructions for use of the tag, per the WikiProject's instructions. Thus, again, perhaps a discussion about the rules and guidelines of the WikiProject itself is in order. If I were to remove the tag prior to AfD closure, that would go against the instructions for use of the tag. Northamerica1000 20:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• A Wikiproject cannot invent rules for its own benefit and then point to those rules when their behaviour is questioned, expecting everyone else to respect and abide by them. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but removing a wikiproject's templates and tags without consensus is disruptive. Best to have that discussion first. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 21:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I joined ARS two days ago because I noticed that many tagged articles are indeed notable. I only consider it canvassing with individual editors and I do not consider it a rampant group of inclusionists that hijack AfDs with keeps. Dream Focus, for example, tagged a magazine article for rescue. Although the consensus was delete, I see why he did it. Even though the fact that the magazine's claim to notability was unreferenced, there was still a strong claim. I would be fine with the article being recreated if that claim was verified. Northamerica, on the other hand, has misused it. I would say though that the majority of ARS members do not use it wrongly. Sure it can even cause canvassing when it is used correctly, but that is what closings admins are for. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have only followed the instructions for use of the template. Perhaps consider working to obtain consensus to change the instructions for use of the rescue template itself. The title of this discussion, "canvassing", and then my user name directly below it is misleading, in my opinion. Northamerica1000 22:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• That instruction page was created by a group of ARS users, hardly backed by community consensus. Goodvac (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Then address perceived issues and create a consesnsus for what those instructions might say. What is the sense of banning someone who did NOT create the instructions? Schmidt, 22:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban Per the examples offered showing that AFD is not just a headcount and that closers properly weigh the merits of an AFD discussion before closing. When ANY project tag is added to an aricle at AFD, tt is either improved or it is not. That such tags alert those most often willing to improve articles, no matter the project or the tag, acts to improve the project. Forbidding someone from involving themselves in discussion of something that they have tagged in their hope that others more capable to do so might actually do so, does not improve the project. In order to avoid drama from those who dislike the tag I have myself for many many months avoided tagging aricles for rescue. This does not mean the tag is useless or that it is any more an act of canvassing than any other tag set to alert those who might be able to improve artcles for the project, that something needs their eyes. A use of such tags does not always result in an article being improved. Failure does not mean that such tags are useless. Schmidt, 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I could accept that if there was stronger evidence showing that the results of the {{rescue}} template was improved articles rather than !votes at AFD. I saw very few times in Northamerica1000's rescue tagging where improvements were made by other ARS members (plenty he fixed himself and I nod him for that) but as I've shown above, it more often results in !votes.--v/r - TP 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone having a sense that something is improvable and then alerting others who may be more qualified to address issues is a better argument for addressing usage instructions, than it is for banning someone who uses it in good faith... even if the result was unsuccessful. Schmidt, 22:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(after multiple E/Cs) I have to agree with TParis here; at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Elleore, there are three ARS members (and Radiofan (talk · contribs), whose essay makes it clear that he's a member, even without the tag on his page) who argued to keep the article. Northamerica1000 did some expansion work (including adding two reviews of the single book which contains a section relating to this micronation), but the fundamental notability issue remains (one book whose value as a source is open to question, and a single website hit with a cursory overview of the "nation's" claims). And yes, there was a rescue template tossed onto this article before the four ARS votes rolled in. (The article was kept, for what it's worth.) I don't know that this rises to the level of a topic ban, but it's food for thought.Horologium (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming off-topic, re-discussion of an AfD here. It's one-sided to only mention how users of a WikiProject !voted and omit discussion and analysis about how other users who are not a part of the WikiProject !voted. It's also unfair and overly-assumptive to state that I am somehow knowledgeable in advance about what other Misplaced Pages users may hypothetically type on their computers after a template has been placed in an article in accordance with the instructions for using that template. Northamerica1000 00:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment– Regarding the examples above, provided by creator of this discussion:

• TLG Communications - I've personally added more sources to this article after this discussion was began. See article. It takes time to do research, write, add sources, etc. No stipulation exists that all work has to be done at once. A significant part of use of the rescue template is to divide the work among Article rescue squadron WikiProject participants, in the interest of improving articles that are tagged for rescue. Of course, I have no control over what other users actually do or don't do.
• Lena Cruz - I have no control over what other users do on Misplaced Pages whatsoever, how they !vote, their actions, etc. I didn't canvass these people whatsoever or ask them to contribute to the article on their talk pages. I'm not responsible for other people's behaviors and actions.
• Cinnamon challenge - It's against the instructions at WP:RESCUETEMPLATE to remove the template once its been placed. These are the instructions.
• Regarding the articles that resulted in delete - Firstly, I don't have access to them, as they've been deleted. It is unreasonable to expect that all articles tagged for rescue will be kept, just as it is unreasonable to expect that all articles nominated for deletion will be deleted. Regarding the Children's Philanthropy Center article, could you point out specifically how "no improvements" were made? I recall doing some edits to the article, but don't have access to it, because it was deleted. Northamerica1000 22:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You edited that article two times. One was to throw the ARS tag on, and the other was to change the size of the picture. Those were the last two edits to the article. Horologium (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Northamerica1000 made 9 edits. Of the other 7, 5 were minor formatting changes, 1 was addition of "{{stub}}" and 1 was removal of a prod tag. 28bytes (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this, User:28bytes, I recall doing some work on the article. It's difficult to ascertain without access to it. The creator of this discussion stated that I made no improvements to the article (above). I now disagree with that assessment, as I work to improve articles. Northamerica1000 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness and transparency I have temporarily restored the page history here while this discussion is ongoing. 28bytes (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you User:28bytes. Your administrative capacity here is appreciated. It can be confusing when one administrator makes a statement that two edits were made to a deleted article, and then another administrator comes along and corrects the statement, without people being able to view the actual material. Northamerica1000 00:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to clarify, Horologium means you editing that article two times since it was nominated for AFD. The two edits are as they describe above. The point is that no improvements were made once the rescue template was added.--v/r - TP 23:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no stipulation of being on a timer to do additional work after adding a template to an article. Northamerica1000 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

When you are discussing and article that is up for deletion, there is a timer. Horologium (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not about a timer. If you made changes to "improve" the article, than what purpose was the {{rescue}} template? You already made changes to improve it, didn't you? If you add a rescue template, that implies there is more to be fixed and my point is that nothing happened. That seems to be either 1) There was nothing to improve and the article was misused on an unsalvagable article, 2) The article was improved to meet notability guidelines and the rescue template was used to canvass keep !votes, or 3) The article was not improved to meet notability guidelines and the rescue template was used to canvass keep !votes. What other purpose was the rescue template for that article?--v/r - TP 23:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment– Unfortunately, the preliminary wording of this discussion is very misleading, typecasting me as a canvasser when in reality, I've only followed the instructions for use of the rescue template. I am writing this statement for the record, so that it's included after this discussion has been archived. Northamerica1000 23:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wikiprojects are welcome to establish their own 'instructions', but local consensus within the project can't override the broader consensus in policies like WP:CANVASS or others. If the ARS page had a few lines saying that its members could, for instance, procedurally close any AFD at will simply on a whim, it should be obvious that even if everyone on the project agreed, they would still be held responsible for their actions if they actually acted to that effect. Even for things like the rescue template, the fact that it exists does not equate to tacit approval of its use. Misplaced Pages's policies still (and almost always) apply. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose AFD is chronically ill-attended to the point that discussions are carried forward from week to week in a vain attempt to stir up interest. For example, various features of the Gettysburg battlefield were recently taken to AFD in a spree and, in most cases, such as McMillan Woods, I am the only editor to have responded. In other cases, such as Patoli no-one has responded at all. In such circumstances, it is good to stimulate discussion and Northamerica1000 is to be praised for his vigour and energy in doing so. Warden (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing 1) any cause for administrator action, or 2) any allegation that the encyclopedia has been harmed by the presence or use of the rescue template. This seems like an entirely unimproved discussion vs. the last N+1 times it has happened. However I will admit that I have had my own suspicions that NorthAmerica1000 is actually a returning sockpuppet of one of the community-banned hyper-inclusionists, whose names will readily come to the minds of those who've been around the ARS debates for a while... Jclemens-public (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• This is my first and only Misplaced Pages account. Your suspicions are incorrect in this case. I'm not another person that you may be thinking about, in this case. Northamerica1000 01:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think it's fair to publicly accuse people of sockpuppetry without providing any supporting evidence. If you have good reasons for thinking Northamerica1000 is a returned banned user, this is not the place. You know the way to WP:SPI. Reyk _YO! 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between a suspicion and an accusation. I am perfectly capable of running an SPI, but have not done so as the evidence for such is not sufficient. You tell me, though: Do you think NorthAmerica1000's editing pattern reminds you of any of the folks in question? If so, then you know where I'm coming from. If not, then my suspicion is unshared and can be appropriately disregarded. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's disgusting that a member of ArbCom can so blatantly and flippantly drop unsubstantiated innuendo like that, myself. As soon as you go mouthing off your "suspicions" in a public forum like this, they become "accusations." Please apologize or resign your post. Carrite (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am confused as to what purpose {{rescue}} actually even serves. Do the articles tagged with this template merit saving over ones that are not tagged? Surely, if an article can be proven to meet GNG, the ARS member will be better served finding the reliable sources and dumping them on AfD, rather than tagging the article with the template and getting meaningless "keep" votes? —Dark 02:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rescue" as it is being used, does nothing that AfD doesn't already do: draw attention to articles in trouble. One might argue that "rescue" could be used to save articles before their nomination for deletion, but we have numerous other tags for that already. As it is currently used, "Rescue" is used almost exclusively to canvass editors intent on disrupting a routine and useful process - one that helps maintain Misplaced Pages's credibility: deleting articles that fail to meet Misplaced Pages's standards. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it creates both a local notification and a centralized list of articles that at least one editor in good standing believes can and should be improved. Not just "kept", but improved such that a keep outcome can be made more evident. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I hadn't heard about the ARS before, but I can report on my recent encounter with them. I nominated this AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of weather websites in the Philippines, specifically stating that reliable 3rd party sources are lacking. Northamerica came in, added three poor quality references (two primary sources and one questionable mention), a rescue tag, and voted keep. Not much later, DreamFocus, another ARS member, came in to add a keep vote. I find it hard to believe that Northamerica (with 35000 edits in half a year, and plenty active in AfD) doesn't know that primary sources are not useful to establish notability. Adding such sources by an experienced editor looks a bit disruptive to me. Cannot we expect that experienced members of the ARS should know better than most of us what kind of sources are reliable and needed to establish notability? It is not so much the use of rescue template that is a problem, but adding very low quality sources and then consider the article "rescued" and vote "keep", that is bothersome.
  

While I do not think that Northamerica is using the rescue template with a deliberate intention of canvassing (agf here), I do think the members of that project are well aware that putting on this rescue tag has some "unintended votestacking effect" in certain cases. And that's what we see in several of the mentioned examples. I would be more convinced of Northamerica's good intention in all this, if he just aknowledged that this can become a problem (as we saw in Sesame Street rumors AfD, where several ARS members came in to add their Keep vote after him). NA himself could step in there and point out that too many ARS members are voting keep, pointing them to their own project guidelines that advise against just voting rather than improving/rescuing. Now it is only normal that this activity raises eyebrows. If NA agrees, then all we need to do is wonder how to solve this problem. Personally I would do away with the rescue template. It serves no purpose that is not already served by the existing tags that can be put on any article. The ARS can do its job just as well without this rescue template. They can go through the list of AfD just like all of us. The rescue tag has become nothing but a "canvassing-light" tool. We don't need to punish editors for using a template that has been accepted or at least tolerated by the community up to now. We can just do away with the problematic (and unnecessary) template. I would just hope that in the future the members of ARS bring proper quality sources if they want to rescue an article, and that they also consider "merge" or "rename" as possible votes which also "rescue" the content of the article, but not necessarily in the form of a standalone article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The cherry picked examples prove nothing. One could easily pick stacks of counter examples demonstrating considerable improvement by Squad members. E.g. Kinetic architecture, which is now one of our finest and most attractive short articles. In future, if admins want to start threads against excellent content building editors, please can they keep their irrelevant, nasty, judgemental opinions about who they "dislike" to themselves. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Bans are not things to be lightly imposed, and the evidence that wrong-doing has occurred is thin at best. I suggest you try an RFC/U on that editor if you feel strongly that the community would find his acts sufficiently objectionable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this transparent attempt to shackle a productive editor. Lena Cruz was kept, how is that a misuse? CallawayRox (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment– Here's an example of how I used the rescue template in the Kashless.org article, the revision history for the page. Notice how I first found reliable sources and added them to the article, and then based upon the existence of reliable sources, decided that the topic was notable per WP:GNG guidelines, at that point adding the rescue tag. Northamerica1000 19:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have done no wrong. Perhaps this section of the discussion should be renamed to "Following instructions for the use of a template"– Northamerica1000 should be banned from using the {{rescue}} template, despite following instructions for the use of the template. No personal offense is intended here toward the creator of this discussion. The very initial wording of the discussion is inaccurate and problematic, because it is a synthesis that mis-characterizes and typecasts me as a canvasser, simply by adding a template to an article, a template that any Misplaced Pages user can use. WP:CANVASS doesn't pertain to the addition of templates to articles. Northamerica1000 19:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Lastly, to address the following comment stated by the creator of this discussion:

"All of this is actually an improvement over his previous typical drive-by {{rescue}} tagging , none of which received any improvement during the taging that would save it from AFD, but it's clear the tag is being used to canvass !votes rather than to improve."

Notice how I made improvements to each and every (accessible) article that is listed in this link above. (I can't access the Edvin Hebovija link, because it was deleted.) This was not "drive-by" tagging whatsoever. Part of the use of the rescue template is to notify other Article rescue squadron members about topics that are perceived to actually be notable which are nominated for deletion from Misplaced Pages. Notice how all of the examples except one resulted in the article's being retained on Misplaced Pages. Use of the rescue tag in each of these articles was entirely congruent with the tags instructions at WP:RESCUETAG. It is a mis-characterization to refer to correct use of the rescue template as "typical drive-by rescue tagging", and inappropriate to state my actions as such. Again, I didn't create the instruction set for use of the template, I just abide by them.

Perhaps this administrative user who created this discussion should focus their efforts upon working to obtain consensus to change the actual instructions for use of the template, rather than singling me out and providing examples which actually show correct use of the template. Perhaps the creator of this discussion didn't read the instructions for use of the rescue template prior to creating this discussion. There is no stipulation that once a rescue tag has been added to an article, the person who placed it is then obligated to only work on that one article. Also, per common sense, I'm not responsible for whether or not other users contribute to a tagged article. Northamerica1000 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose– I shouldn't be banned from placing any template in good faith on Misplaced Pages articles. All of my personal uses of the {{Rescue}} template have been in accordance with the instructions for use of the template. Northamerica1000 11:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. In the past, I have noticed that Northamerica does not comply with the instructions: "As part of this tag's use please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Misplaced Pages's policies and benefit our readers." He will slap on the tag but with no indication in the AfD discussion as to why. I once approached him on this on his Talk page, and, as I recall, he removed my comment. Because he didn't comply with the template's instructions, I removed the template. If anyone insists on diffs for all this, I suppose I can go back in history to find them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Creator of this discussion may have a conflict of interest an ulterior motive, against ARS

The creator of this discussion has expressed an opinion about the Article rescue squadron itself in their delete vote at the templates for discussion page Here.

"Obvious delete Not rationale can be presented for keeping. There are two keep arguments, 1) That it brings editors attention to an AFD. However, so does an AFD tag. 2) That it notifies the ARS project just like any other project. However, no other project has a biased "keep" from the get-go. See "audience" under WP:CANVASS. This template's purpose is to turn the tide of an AFD by creating a centralized location for inclusionist editors to scream "OH MY GOD, WE'LL LOOK KILOBYTES OF PRECIOUS DATA"!" --v/r - TP 14:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion may have been based upon the creator's personal opinions, rather than violation of Misplaced Pages policies. It also doesn't seem that the individual referred to instructions for use of the template prior to beginning this discussion. The creator of this discussion believes that the Article rescue squadron is biased, based upon their statement above. Due to this professed opinion about ARS, it conversely appears that the rationale for the creation of this discussion may be based upon their personal opinion of ARS as a whole. Northamerica1000 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's another, in response to a Keep !vote on the same page:

"Keep: The template has clearly served the goal of improving the encyclopedia over the years, which should be the highest priority and trump other concerns." —Torchiest talkedits 18:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
"I doubt your assertion "improving the encyclopedia". I think the overabundance of crap topics that get saved by ARS hurts the encyclopedia's credibility."--v/r - TP 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Signed— Northamerica1000 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think you understand what a conflict of interest is. That's when someone trusted to be impartial stands to gain personally by favouring one option over another. It's not when someone expresses the same opinion in two different places. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• I entirely understand conflict of interest. The person who singled me out and has proposed that I be corrected for doing no wrong has some bias against the Article rescue squadron and the existence of the rescue template. To make it clearer for you, I've striked-out part of the section, and renamed it to, "an ulterior motive, against ARS". There is a conflict of interest in this case. The editor that placed my name here has motives against the Article rescue squadron WikiProject and article rescue in general. Northamerica1000 11:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Objectivity (journalism). Northamerica1000 11:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, that's the best you got? I laugh at you.--v/r - TP 17:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Significant Moderate bias concerns. See Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Template:Rescue. This administrator may have problems correctly interpreting General notability guidelines (WP:GNG, et al.), and has stated that topics that pass WP:GNG are unworthy for publishing in Misplaced Pages, referring to them as "crap topics." Misplaced Pages is not censored. Misplaced Pages is not paper. I don't laugh at such concerns. However, I don't have any personal problem with you, as we haven't even ever met personally. Misplaced Pages is just one aspect of the world, it's not a medium to judge others in personally. Peace to you. Northamerica1000 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Pooh. A lot of topics that are kept at Misplaced Pages are indeed "crap topics". That doesn't mean that an editor who refers to them as such has any problem interpreting WP:GNG. First, GNG is a guideline, not a policy, and an article can be deleted if it arguably meets WP:GNG. Second, at AfD, we are guided by the notability guidelines, but the decision is made by consensus. What you really mean is that TP doesn't agree with you. So what else is new?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Topic notability is based upon guidelines, to avoid the interjection of subjectivity regarding topics that should or shouldn't be in Misplaced Pages. What if these "crap topics" the individual mentions are actually notable per guidelines? Should there be a dictatorship denying readers this content, based upon their subjective opinions? No. Northamerica1000 20:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000 04:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What admin action is being asked for here?

None that I can see. Section should be re-closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why there is this constant hurry to close this section? It was already closed and re-opened yesterday. There was clearly some kind of "incident" being reported. And there is a request to ban an editor from using the rescue tag. More than a few editors have weighed in on it already. Can't you just let this run its normal course? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Banning discussions are supposed to take place on AN. Here, we ask admins to take specific actions for specific incidents. What admin actions are being requested?, because the banning discussion is, frankly, a farce, and motivated by ideology rather than facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And why have these noticeboards become so fragmented? This is utterly confusing and impractical. Why not have one complaints noticeboard and let the admins put category tags on it as they see fit? The person who opened this section started by reporting an incident, didn't he? If the ensuing discussion crosses the lines into the territory of one of 20something other noticeboards, then is that his fault?

There is often something funny going on. If a certain discussion continues in one place, then after a while somebody will point out that it belongs on AN and not AN/I. But if the person who started the section opens related topics on other noticeboards, then he may get accused of forum shopping. That's a convenient catch 22. How is any new or even reasonably experienced editor supposed to make sense of that? And now you can probably tell me that this is something that should be discussed in yet another place. Yes, thank you. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, what is it you want an admin to do? This is not B&M central, it's an admin's notice board to draw the attention of admins to a problem so they can use their tools to correct it. What do you want them to do? Block someone? Protect an article? Delete something? Just what, exactly, is being requested? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" (see top of page). I agree board discipline broke down in 2011, if not earlier, but it's a systematic problem. Nobody Ent 10:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it my job to say what an admin is supposed to do? I am merely in the role of a witness here, and I should tell the admins what they should do? Somebody else started this section and again somebody else put in some kind of ban request. I am not even supporting the ban request as you can see in my comment. But is it up to one person to decide that this ban request will not succeed and hence close this early? You ask me "what is being requested" and next you try to close this with the message "request will not succeed". Well, then there must be some request, isn't it? And there are already some votes on that request. I find it strange that there is such a hurry to close this section (for the second time). MakeSense64 (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ANI's function changed to include general discussion at least as early as last March Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study. Nobody Ent 11:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC) See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive731#Bell_Pottinger Nobody Ent 11:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually made a very specific request regarding this group. Their tendency to flood any AfD of a tagged article can really only be seen as canvassing. You may think they have a "good" purpose, but I am sure every group that seeks to game the system believes they have a "good" purpose. What matters are the results. I honestly do not see how banning this or that user from using the template is going to change much. Getting rid of the tag may be more helpful, but as long as the group has some way to rally its members to an article on AfD the result will remain the same. I do recognize that the principle of the group is great. That is why I suggested barring members of the group from commenting on AfDs if an article has been tagged. Doing that means they keep their tag and their group, while we don't get them bombarding an AfD with keep votes so they can actually focus on improving an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

So the reward for doing the work of improvement would be that you don't get a say in the matter while idlers who do nothing can vote to delete your hard work!? Apart from being a perverse incentive this is still not a specific request for admin action. Warden (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion that someone with an interest in improving the project be banned from discussing improvements runs contrary to policy. Schmidt, 17:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so dramatic. The reality is that without barring them from discussion on AfD, the project will forever by a vehicle for canvassing no matter who gets banned or blocked in the interim. Either the group is disbanded or it is barred from getting involved directly in the AfD. From what I can see, those are the only two ways to stop the group from being used to canvass articles in favor of the inclusionist perspective. That the group's page says it is not about voting keep is irrelevant if all the people who are part of the group are free to vote keep anyway and no one intends to stop it. Might as well tell members not to shove beans up their noses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion implies that admins count heads rather than weigh AFD discussion merits per guideline and policy. And choosing to impune 400 members of an entire project because of perceived actions of a very few is also unhelpful. Schmidt, 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is basically appealing to the way Misplaced Pages should be, rather than dealing with the reality of how Misplaced Pages actually works. Admins do, inevitably, act based on votes. Expecting them to evaluate the value of each individual claim and then balancing those claims with value against policy while figuring out how consensus applies is expecting admins to essentially decide for themselves whether each article is worthy of being kept or not. Sometimes there are indeed good and obvious reasons to discount votes, but it is not always easy to suss out. Also, I have a feeling if admins start ignoring an overwhelming number of keep votes because they are from ARS members there will be cries of "bloody murder" by editors like Dream (as has been the case if you look at that editor's user page), regardless of whether said members offered valuable arguments or not.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see comments I've posted regarding this matter, directly above the "Nomination for deletion of Template:Rescue" section. Northamerica1000 19:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There is none. Deletionists are wasting everyone's time...as usual. So, rather than improving articles, you have yourselves another fine (ha!) discussion about nothing. Way to go! Pyp! --WR Reader (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• An RfC/U for NorthAmerica strikes me as the appropriate thing to do. I also think that the ARS tag is a kind of canvassing, though--it's the very categorization and the listing on the ARS page that bothers me. But behaviorally speaking, I think a case can be made for an RfC here. The problem with NA, besides the walls of text and the wikilawyering, is the amount of utterly trivial 'references' they add, claiming that just about every fart is notable cause it was reported on in the Okefenokee Monthly. This discussion here will not go anywhere, however, and should be closed. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Northamerica's tagging does bug me. North tagged an article for rescue because of one book (significant coverage) and two download pages saying that sources do exist. I'm not sure if he really believes that download pages help show notability together with the book source. SL93 (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

{Moved to Village Pump: Policy by Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC))

User:Ericl

This user is too much to handle. I need some help. He keeps removing notable candidates and replacing them with non-notable ones. I've tried to explain consensus to him but he won't stop. He's doing this across three pages: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012‎, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012‎, and Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. His talk page shows years of just not getting it. He uses bad references, adds unsourced material, creates pages on non-notable topics, and edit wars. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• If you have a proposal, I might have a second. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT doing that. I've been doing this stuff for years, and have been revising the articles in question with GOOD references and sourced material. For some reason Mr. Saturn wants to list a number of fringe candidates as major ones, and I keep trying to either get rid of them or downgrade them to where they belong. There's no consensus on what is considered "notable" here. In previous elections, a minor candidate was considered "part of the group" if he or she was on the ballot in several states. People like Vance Hartke and Patsy Mink weren't considered "major" candidates, i.e., had no chance of being elected. But they were listed because they were on the ballot in quite a few states. ON the other hand, take a look at Stewart Greenleaf, a Pennsyvania State Senator, who decided to get some local publicity by getting his name on the NH ballot. He told the local paper back home "I'm NOT running for president."Notice the word NOT. If someone says they're not running for something, doesn't that mean they're not running for something? Especially if they're not on the ballot anywhere? Which reminds me, when did Mr. Saturn take over coverage of the 2012 election articles? If you check my page out. I've been on very few of these revert wars, and I generally use good references, and the stuff I generally put up stays.Ericl (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose he be blocked for a short duration. Consensus on the page is for candidates with wikipedia notability to be listed. This has been explained to him, yet he refuses to listen. He is someone that believes Facebook is a reliable source. Should someone editing since 2005 really believe something like that? He obviously has not read wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and time shows that he probably has no intention of doing so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Facebook is a reliable source if someone announces something about him/herself on his or her page. When one person states there is a consensus when there is none, it's not exactly to be believed. I've never heard of him before. Could someone please show me where everyone had a consensus on this? I never saw it on any of the discussion pages in question.Ericl (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's on several talk page archives. See this for example.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean where you said this?: "Rather you should use "Candidates that participated in debates" and "Other candidates". This will prevent edit wars.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) " That was the consensus and that's what I was trying to do. Each and every one of the minor candidates in NH had local papers print articles on them. I've checked, besides, like I said in another thread, the race has started, which means the rules have changed. There's going to be lots of deleting and reorganizing. If you go to the beginning of the 2008 article (if you can still find it) you will notice how vastly different it is now than when it was in November or December of that year. That's going to happen again this time out. Ericl (talk)

Here is the consensus for the candidates page. As I said, being on the ballot is not completely necessary to be considered a candidate. In 1968, Hubert Humphrey was not on any state ballots and yet he was able to win the nomination at the convention.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but the rules were different in 1968. Most of the caucuses were in 1967, and they mostly consisted of county committeemen asking who among them wanted to go. We're talking about the rules of the game NOW, and as I said elsewhere, while no one was on the ballot six months ago, now it is different, and barring a death, scandal or criminal indictment, nobody not on the ballot is going to get the nomination. In 1976, if you remember, there was a backlash against Jimmy Carter in the primaries, but it was too late to stop him, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. There was a revolt of sorts at the 1980 convention against him (I was there and I remember it well), but Carter's people whipped everyone good. Look at the 1972 Democratic convention article. They tried to stop McGovern there, but they couldn't. The Republicans were worse on this point, and with the rules now in effect, unless all the anti-Romney candidates withdraw and get a new candidate on the ballot by Super Tuesday, there's just no way anyone not on the ballot anywhere would have a physical chance....Some obscure state senator Pretending to be a candidate might work well before anyone else is on the ballot, but if s/he's not on the ballot anywhere, then s/he's not a candidateEricl (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• William, considering the response here (and on my talk page) we have possibly a two-fold issue: lack of competence and unwillingness to listen. The simple convention is to include bluelinks, to not accept Facebook, etc. If someone says "Facebook is an acceptable source for someone's announcement" while completely bypassing notability (by our standards), then one wonders if they should be editing in the first place. (Ericl, you are wrong: we do have "consensus on what is considered 'notable' here.") We could block, but there may not be an immediate threat of disruption, but perhaps a probation (i.e., threat of a block) or a topic ban is in order. I'd like to hear what more experienced admins have to say here, and what you might think of a topic ban or probation. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. the point is that some minor candidates who were no longer running, notably Greenleaf, who said he was ONLY running in NH, were deleted. BTW, I am NOT incompetent. If something is buried deep in the archives so that almost no one can find it, there's really no way one can considered something settled. especially if something's in flux as it is.Ericl (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling for blocks on ANI for a content dispute where there is no consensus isn't appropriate. On Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012‎ and Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012‎ Ericl and WSS are the only editors who have used the talk page this month, and on Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 the other editor who commented appears to support Ericl's position. RFC the issue. Nobody Ent 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. There is already consensus for this. As you can see, another editor already reverted Ericl's additions. The issue is competence, and I think Ericl should be blocked until he reads the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and demonstrates that he can edit competently and abide by consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How about more recent diffs of what you consider "incompetence"?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All of his edits to the pages I've linked show incompetence: his failure to follow MOS, his failure to understand consensus, and his failure to understand what constitutes a reliable source; he thinks Facebook is a reliable source. Just look at all the problems posted on his talk page. This is someone who has been editing since 2005, and they still haven't learned how to properly use wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen recent diffs in support of your contentions. Generalized statements like asking us to "look at all the problems posted on his Talk page" aren't a substitute for clear evidence. You also originally stated that he added unsourced material, but I don't see diffs in support of that, either. At worst, based on what you've said so far, it sounds like he may not meet your standard of competence, which is a far cry from being objectively incompetent. You have to justify a block based on recent activity for it to be considered preventative rather than punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure I have. I've done hundreds and hundreds of articles. Just because I disagree with you (you still think the 1968 rules are in effect) doesn't mean that I'm incompetent. This is basically a pissing contest (if you'll pardon my French), and Mr. Saturn is throwing a hissy fit. Ericl (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest---block requested

• User: Gizgalasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Articles: Especially, Azerbaijan International, also
  • Ali and Nino: A Love Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Lev Nussimbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Kurban Said (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Ali and Nino – Literary Robbery! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gizgalasi has admitted to being a member of the research team for Azerbaijan International's series of special articles on Ali and Nino: A Love Story (see User Talk:Gizgalasi#Ali and Nino and associated pages). I've been trying to work with the user for the past week or two (see talk page discussions), but the user just isn't getting it. I think the user has almost understood the idea that the AI article is not "theirs", but continues to add promotional links, excessive details, etc., all designed to enhance this article, and, in particular, the special issues xe worked on. As a good example, look at the last sequence of 72 edits on the AI article: . I'm happy to work with a COI editor if they show an understanding of what they can and cannot do; this user does not. Unless someone else wants to step in to mentor/advise, I see no solution other than a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed the links to 4 websites and 4 Twitter pages from the body of the article Azerbaijan International, but User:Gizgalasi reinserted them. I removed them again with a note on the editor's talk page citing WP:PROMO and a warning not to reinsert them, but other editors should keep on eye on the article. There is a link to the magazine's website in the External Links section of the article, and presumably that site has links to the other websites (if it doesn't, that's not our problem). This single link is sufficient, the addition of 4 other links and the Twitter pages definitely crosses the line into being promotional, especially considering they were posted by an editor with an admitted COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Add the Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels article to the COI editing this User is doing. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So....am I just totally off the mark here? Is this user reformable? Or is this simply uninteresting? I've refrained from reverting any recent edits or responding to recent comments until I can get a better read from this page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs) 01:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked editor apparently back and IP-hopping

A couple of years ago Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked for making legal threats and disruptive editing on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's come to my attention that the same person appears to be back and doing much the same thing on the same article, primarily from 86.145.70.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP has already been warned for edit-warring and 3RR, but note in particular the comment on its talk page: "If this IP address is blocked, we shall move to another IP address." It's probable that the IP editor is the subject of the article; the style of writing (using the majestic plural etc) is very much his, as is the apparent feud with the writer George Monbiot (false information about the latter has previously added to the article ). On his previous IPs/accounts he has been advised about WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:V and all the rest but has ignored all such advice. This has now been going on for some weeks. At the very least, the article needs to be semi-protected and some (careful) intervention is needed with the IP editor. Prioryman (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Having undone IP edits which added badly sourced material and wording contradicted by the cited source, or removed well sourced information, fully agree that the article needs to be semi-protected. . . dave souza, talk 12:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess this is the 21st century version of a strongly-worded letter to The Times. --NellieBly (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the IPs apparent threat to start removing sources from the article as he sees fit, in response essentially to not getting his way, I think urgent semi-protection is an essential first step. Is there any chance of a check user on the old account to investigate the possibility of a rangeblock? Basalisk ⁄_berate 12:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The protection log on that article is quite lengthy. I've semi-protected indefinitely. However, I wouldn't know a Viscount from a Visigoth, so what state the actual article should be in is up to other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I very much doubt that a rangeblock would be practicable. Looking at the editing history, it seems clear that the IP is a dynamically assigned one from a major UK ISP (BT) and the collateral damage of a rangeblock would be enormous and would far outweigh any benefits.Qwyrxian's indefinite semi-protection should be sufficient, I think. Prioryman (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, your statement that it is 'probably Monckton' is definitely libellous unless you have some form of proof. See WP:BLP. Please remove your statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.198.134 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Gee, another legal threat The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that Mofb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) specifically claimed to be the selfsame Monckton (who styles himself Monckton of Brenchley), and that the new IPs are editing to the same purpose as Mofb with very similar style, so Prioryman's statement isn't exactly a huge leap here. --GenericBob (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you are topic-banned from climate change articles as a result of WP:ARBCC. And you have the largest number of edits on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (by quite a wide margin). Without disregarding the activities of the IP editor, I find more than a little bit questionable that you are violating WP:OUTING here in relation to that specific BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no question of Prioryman's having outed Mofb, since Mofb enthusiastically identified himself as CM three years ago. If associating an apparent IP sock with a self-identified account is enough to constitute prohibited outing, then that has unpleasant implications - it offers a handy way for editors to make themselves virtually immune to ban evasion/sockpuppetry investigations. --GenericBob (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It says London, which certainly narrows it down. Regardless of who a user claims to be, you can't assume he's telling the truth. It could just be a troll who's latched onto this particular subject for no apparent reason (as trolls often do). ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is of course possible, but as against that the IP editor seems to be very well aware of obscure details of Monckton's travels and activities that have not, as far as I know, been the subject of press coverage (see ). The style of discussion on the IP's talk page - using the "royal we" throughout - is very distinctive. If it's a troll, it's a remarkably well-informed one who's capable of perfectly imitating Monckton's style and concerns. Personally I think the duck test is quite sufficient in this instance. Prioryman (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's actually the subject of the article or not, the probability seems strong that it's the same guy. And if so, as far as any "outing", he did that to himself when he chose to edit via IP's instead of logging on. Given that it's a BLP, editing has to be cautious and conservative, regardless of whether the editor is the subject or not. But a subject can't "own" his page, any more than anyone can "own" any given page. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Flatulotech smearing on Misplaced Pages

Flatulotech (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account used to smear Anwar Ibrahim (who recently was acquitted of sodomy charges in Malaysia) by selectively lifting sources to "prove" Mr Anwar's guilt on Misplaced Pages. He's been conducting a slow edit war (also by using other anonymous IP accounts) at Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials by pushing material which has been rejected outright by other editors. Questionable edits:

• this one is gold
• misleading paragraph characterizing bits classified information by 3 agencies as proof that "the sodomy charges were accepted as factually justified by foreign intelligence sources"
• 120.151.54.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 203.82.92.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 110.159.4.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 141.0.8.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 141.0.8.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 42.241.18.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• 114.73.82.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) diff
• - unnecessary quotebox to prove his point

The list of diffs provided above shows that Flatulotech is not editing in good faith and should be banned immediately to avoid wasting other editors' energy dealing with his nonsense. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 13:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed due to repeated violations of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:IDHT; in short, disruptive editing Misplaced Pages can do without. Salvio 16:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Persistent Deletion of POV Dispute Tag

This request for administrative intervention is basic. in order to facilitate resolution of what I perceive to be a clear WP:NPOV policy issue, I today elevated my prior Talk:Swiftboating inquiry to formal "Dispute" status with the placement of an associated "POV Section Dispute" tag. Despite my explanation in talk as to the specifics of elevating my objection to formal dispute status, my tag placement was twice reverted by User:Snowded, first with an edit summary "No dispute documented on talk page with sources. Just variants of I Don't like it" and second, with an edit summary "Tagging an article when you are not providing any properly sourced proposals on the talk page is disruptive editing". This is, IMHO, both a specious and contrived misrepresentation of the pertinent WP:NPOV guidance (as I attempted to demonstrate in my talk comments) and, furthermore, a contentious, highly disruptive, wiki-lawyered misrepresentation of WP guidance on the placement of dispute tags and the legitimate exercise of an individual editor's unilateral right to arbitrarily remove another editor's tag prior to consensus resolution of the issue.

Pending administrative review, I am seeking both administrative reinstatement of my POV Section Dispute tag and some determination as to the WP propriety of User:Snowded's editorial conduct. Thank you. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See comments on talk page. No attempt is being made to provide a properly sourced justification for the PoV tag. The tag has been removed by several editors on those grounds. This article gets periodic attempts by people who think the Swiftboat veterans position should be represented as valid, when the sources say otherwise. We are in one of those periods, so some more experienced editors would be welcome. Mind you, I hadn't realised just how strongly JakeinJoisey feels about this issue. --Snowded 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The tag has been removed by several editors on those grounds.

That is erroneous. The tag in question is, contrary to your misrepresentation, a POV Section Dispute tag twice inserted by me and twice deleted by you as opposed to the general POV Article tag placed by another editor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "PoV tags" not "The tag". You still haven't made any case not the talk page supported by sources for any PoV tag. Just changing from the whole article to a section makes no difference to that. Tagging, without properly raising the issue on the talk page (which doesn't mean just saying that you don't like it, or that you think the Kerry campaign would) is disruptive editing. Better to make a proper case and raise a RfC if you feel you are not being listened to. --Snowded 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "PoV tags" not "The tag".

That's a minor concession evading the heart of your misrepresentation. You stated that there were "several editors" who had removed my tag. There were not...just you.

You still haven't made any case not the talk page supported by sources for any PoV tag.

Your apparent inability to understand that "sourcing" is irrelevant to the aspect of WP:NPOV guidance at issue here will, hopefully, be rectified at the completion of this exercise. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tags were removed by Johnuniq and Xenophrenic. They have been placed there by yourself and Gunbirddriver, my references are to those tags collectively. --Snowded 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

POV tags were removed by Johnuniq and Xenophrenic. They have been placed there by yourself and Gunbirddriver,...'

False! I had no part in the placement/removal of the "Article" POV tag and, hence, it has zippo to do with your singular removals of MY legitimately placed Section tag...the subject of this ANI petition. I'll defer any further comments pending the requested administrative determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true that Jake's tags were removed by involved editors.

No, it is NOT true. My tag (singular) was twice removed by User:Snowded. The legitimacy of those removals is the sole purpose for this ANI petition for administrative determination...not an administrative determination as to the merit of my WP:NPOV objection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI, NPOV is absolutely about sources. "Neutral" on Misplaced Pages does not mean "fair" or "balanced" in the sense that a journalist tries to present all sides of the story. Neutral on WP means that we represent what is published in reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. We don't, for example, pretend that intelligent design has merit just because conservative Christians think it does, and we don't seek to "balance" our article on evolution to account for those views. Nformation 22:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There are special rules for giving some degree of preference to the scientific point of view on scientific and medical questions. This does not apply as readily to politics.

My view in general is that if any good faith editor thinks the POV tag justified, it remains until the issue is settled. It's more sensible to argue about the meirts of the article, than about the tag. I don't seeany contradcction between an article and section tag; the meaning I assume is that someone thinks the article as a whole is non-neutral, and one section is in particular, or perhaps in the opposite direction. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The article states that swiftboating is a smear because that is what all reliable sources say—the talk page contains nothing to indicate otherwise. There has not even been an attempt to argue that a source passing the sniff test claims that swiftboating was ever anything other than a smear. A tag cannot remain on an article without justification, and given the overwhelming sources stating the obvious ("swiftboating" is a smear) there would need to be more than a couple of dissenters to warrant a permanent badge of shame on the article: such a tag backed by no reliable sources would be an NPOV violation as the article would then be stating that there is significant doubt about the article content (but there is no such doubt). Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My view in general is that if any good faith editor thinks the POV tag justified, it remains until the issue is settled.

Thank you for your consideration and determination. So as to be explicitly clear, it is my understanding of your determination that any further removal of my POV dispute tag prior to resolution of the specific issue addressed is improper per WP:POLICY. Based upon that understanding, I am restoring my POV Dispute Section Tag and will return to the discussion on resolution of the issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No tag is warranted until there is at least one reliable source showing some doubt about specified text in the article. An alternative, if further time wasting is wanted, would be to hold an RFC on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note the in general . The interpretation of policy is in the hands of the community. The thing to do is to answer the matter on the talk p., not here, and get consensus. If it's just one person with a isolated position, the discussion can be very simple. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "determination" is a bit worrying JakeinJoisey DGG is contributing to the discussion not deciding the issue. You have to contribute sourced material to support your position on the talk page, or the tag will be deleted. At the moment tagging seems to be the back up strategy of you and one other editor having failed to make the case for any change on the talk page. POV tags are meant to indicate that is a real dispute, not that one side of the dispute has no evidence but is unhappy--Snowded 05:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DGG is contributing to the discussion not deciding the issue.

The "issue" addressed in this ANI petition is the WP:POLICY propriety of your editorial conduct in the removal of a legitimately placed and talk-supported POV Section tag, not the merits of my POV objection...and the "determination" in this instance has, I believe, been made.

Any purported rationale that, per WP:POLICY, traditional WP:RS "sources", external to WP:NPOV policy, must be provided to legitimately support the placement of ANY POV tag is patently specious and suggests that neither you, nor others objecting on this basis, have yet to come to terms with the substance of my POV objection. The pertinent and controlling "source" is the specific WP:NPOV policy language I cited and should be evident to anyone reading the text of my POV objection. Your rationale is, therefore, unsupportable in fact.

That being said, as you have suggested some lack of clarity as to the exact nature of the specific determination in this ANI, I will refrain from re-tagging the pertinent section pending further clarification from DGG. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for block

Hello, I'm sorry if I'm in the wrong place, but I'm requesting a block on User:Boribreizh. His talk page can be found here. He blatantly vandalized pages, deleting entire sections. Please help. Agent 78787 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki13 reported Boribreizh at WP:AIV: Glrx (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Boribreizh blocked 2 days: Glrx (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

MarcRey

Despite having an "editing history on Misplaced Pages stretching 7 years" (through his previous accounts Ancient Land of Bosoni and Bosoni and IPs ) user MarcRey (talk · contribs) continually inserts tags that do not apply on the Bosnian language article in order to prove a point and exhibits an extremely hostile attitude towards other editors and carries a xenophobic attitude in general. He refers to editors as "you and your likes" and makes statements such as:

• "I presume you to be part of the neo-Serbo-Croatian movement on Misplaced Pages. Maybe you could help me answer the following rumor: Serb editors on Misplaced Pages are on a pay check from the government (or individual municipalities) in Serbia to protect "the interests of the Serbian nation"? Would explain a great deal."
• "a fraction of Serb (possibly Croat) editors have had the comfort of editing undisturbed for a long while."
• "an undefined number of Serb editors have succeeded with this by semi-hidden maneuvers over the last few months."
• "At times like these editing on Misplaced Pages is really pinpointed by the phrase "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded"."
• "I award Tiavo this star for his incessant attempts to reintroduce a defunct linguistic classification the whole world renounced 20 years ago just "beacsue there is no better", for his attempts to smear other users, and lastly but not least for his attempts to dodge all input to the discussion."

-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone should inform him of the WP:Discretionary sanctions status of articles related to Eastern Europe outlined here. He could find himself blocked in a hurry. Basalisk ⁄_berate 00:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

None of these so-called pseudo-incidents are to be considered as violations of any sort but rather substantiated opinions which I am entitled to posses and share at will, or is PRODUCER claiming that Misplaced Pages is isolated from the basic foundation of democratic values underlining the Western World? Freedom of speech is the key-word for you sir. This is an obvious counterattack staged to neutralize, under false pretenses, an editor (I) with views contesting the biased ones of Serb users PRODUCER, Taivo and Biblbrooks. If anyone feels like maintaining that the ethnic background of these editors is irrelevant I will strongly have to disagree. Their background may be of little relevance when it comes to articles on the Cosmos or the Gila monster, but more so relevant on articles related to the territory of former Yugoslavia considering the still-ongoing blood-feud between Serbs and their neighbors. It is generally known, and by no means any violation to express the democratically justified opinion, that Serb editors have been abusing Misplaced Pages for a long while. Too see PRODUCER with administrative privileges is highly disturbing as he is bound to support other Serb users simply because of their ethnic background. I shall in the following weeks investigate the legal extent of Misplaced Pages's right to contend controversial inaccuracies in articles simply because one ethnic group (in this case Serbs) is in majority and choose to capitalize on bully-tactics for the disqualification of individual users with opposing views. Has it not ever stricken you that Serb users are constantly editing Bosnia-related articles whereas Bosniaks and Croats seldom edit Serbia-related articles? This is a phenomenon requiring closer scrutiny. Basalisk, if you do not revise your comment which you apparently wrote without being familiar with the issue at hand I will have to consider you as biased. The current "report" by PRODUCER is plain abuse of the Misplaced Pages administration and I will soon counter-file own reports discussing these issues. In the meantime, despite not confessing to any actual violation, I may admit that my emotions got the best of me and that some sentences may have been formulated differently, but this has to be put in perspective to the complete disregard of objective discussion by, among others, Taivo who is pushing for the totalitarian and controversial revival of "Serbo-Croatian", part of which Taivo and other users are deliberately distorting interpretations of sources in reality discussing Serbo-Croatian from a historical point of view. Any accounts I may or may not have had several years prior is of even less importance and yet another illicit attempt to discredit me. The whole issue is extremely deplorable and will be handled legally if required. Portraying highly controversial and inaccurate information as valid in a supposedly encyclopedic context is considered to be a significant abuse of legal rights at least in my current country of residence, Sweden. If nothing else, I will insist that domestic Internet service providers post warning messages on certain articles on Misplaced Pages related to Ex-Yugoslavia, most recently the Ex-Yugoslavian language articles which are currently suffering a large "Serb" offensive trying to reintroduce Serbo-Croatian, a defunct linguistic classification of no contemporary substance. This issue of controversial original research will also be addressed by me through WP:DR. But as to everyones attention, PRODUCER is currently underway of neutralizing any actions from reaching that point. By his ignorant appeal, Basalisk is indirectly aiding this illicit process. I am deeply saddened. MarcRey (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating baseless rant from MarcRey. I'll have to tell all my Irish and Scottish ancestors, who emigrated to the US in the 17th and 18th centuries, that they're really Serbians because MarcRey says they are. --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no right to free speech on Misplaced Pages. – ukexpat (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat

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

I just blocked Luciferwildcat for 48 hours, then promptly reversed myself as I'm almost certainly WP:INVOLVED, so someone else should do the deed. Luciferwildcat has recently created a few articles that fall distinctly under WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The first one that I know of is Trey Scott Atwater--that case is Snowing delete under both policies as an article about a trivial person who allegedly committed a trivial crime. The second was Attempted murder of Michelina Lewandowska--also snowing closed due to the fact that the crime is routine, and that it adds additional harm to that already done to the victim. The thing that caused me to block was his creation today of Case of Trey Scott Atwater, as if simply renaming the article on Trey Scott Atwater somehow mitigated the problems being discussed at the AfD. One editor prodded the article, which Luciferwildcat removed; I've CSD'd it under WP:CSD#G10 as a duplicate of the existing article already at AfD.

The reason I feel a block is necessary is that I believe that these articles do real, serious harm to living people (the second more than the first, but still much more)--and this is the core purpose behind WP:BLP. That these articles have to spend a week going through an AfD creates a very large chance that they'll be cached and mirrored--then, even though deletion from our site isn't in doubt, they're going to live on indefinitely. This behavior has to stop. Short of a block, a topic ban on creating new articles about current events would also stop this problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The names and information contained in the articles are freely available through news sites. The articles also appear to be written neutrally so I don't see how this is a BLP violation. Delete them as one events and leave a friendly note to the creater, but blocking seems harsh at this point. AIRcorn (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• The hand-wringing piety that Michelina Lewendowska's life will be damaged by not speedy deleting her story on Misplaced Pages is IMO an unfair myth.  A Google news search for reveals 767 newspaper articles just on the first page, and languages I don't recognize on the following pages.  I read the AfD earlier today, and the editors I have seen posting in the AfD have overstepped the bounds of reason by declaring that there will be no long-term notability in the incident.  The judge in the case has called the murder attempt "uniquely chilling".  Add to that the irony that the attempted murderer's gift of the engagement ring is what was used to escape death.  The couple (would-be-murderer and intended victim) has a three-year old child, and the 27-year-old woman face-on is beautiful.  IMO the correct thing to do with articles like this is speedy incubate (currently a WP:IAR procedure) to prevent premature attempts to ascertain notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

News articles fade from search engines relatively quickly; Misplaced Pages, and its mirrors, do not. There is a radical difference. Note, also, that I'm not actually advocating speedy deletion of that article--what I'm advocating is that Luciferwildcat be stopped from creating new problems of this type. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fade?"  "relatively quickly?"  "Radical difference"?  What is this?  I above gave results from Google news, there is a setting how far back you want to search: "Any time" "Past hour", "Past 24 hours", "Past week", "Past month", and "Archives"—the results I gave were for "Any time".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the notability of the article, but whether Luciferwildcat's actions merit blocking. AIRcorn (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying that this is not the place to discuss the notability of the article is something of a truism, since this is not an AfD discussion—the discussion at hand as per the OP is the concern that cached and mirrored sites are "going to live on indefinitely" and therefore LWC's "behavior has to stop."  OP still believes that Michelina Lewandowska's life is receiving "real, serious harm" by Misplaced Pages.  What is the evidence?  Further, I'm saying that any admin could have avoided the entire issue being raised here at ANI with a speedy incubate.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: Luciferwildcat got caught in an autoblock because of my short mistaken block of an account (btw, my left cheek is currently accepting trouts, should anyone feel the need). I believe that I have correctly lifted the autoblock (first time I've had to do that). Xe indicated xe is interested in participating in this thread, so if I've done everything technically correctly, I expect xe'll be along shortly. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

On an encyclopedia whose induction encourages Don't be afraid to edit blocking an editor for creating neutrally worded reliably sourced articles is surreal. Nobody Ent 03:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. Does this mean you no longer looking for a block of this account? AIRcorn (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nither one of these cases could be BLP issues because they are not attack articles, they were written based on the sources available and reflected what was in those sources. This sounds like a thought police moment from a ridiculously overzealous editor that is way too inpatient for an article to be AfD and dislikes my keep vote. Sad times.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The BLP policy does not only deal with attack articles. You must provide reliable sources and please read WP:BLP1E. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't dislike your (Luciferwildcats's) keep votes; rather, I dislike your creation of multiple articles that contravene WP:BLP1E and do harm to living people. I especially dislike the fact that you tried to get around the obvious consensus on one AfD by creating a second article with much the same content under a slightly different name. I also dislike the attempt to use Misplaced Pages as a sensationalist news site. We provide information about subjects with lasting notability, not random crimes that catch the attention of the media because they're flashy. And, in part, I'm not reacting only to you, Luciferwildcat, but to the fact that we go through this problem routinely, where editors see some subject get hot coverage on the news and race to make articles about it...then defend them based on the claim that "this will make significant precedent" or "people will remember this person for years to come" or "this is the start of a vast movement" or "this is totally unique and unlike any of the previous several thousand stories like it"...then try to find any other means to keep the same information. It's already in policy at WP:NOTNEWS, but maybe it should be made more prominent: our job is not to get it first (that's what mainstream news and even Wikinews are for); our job is to get it right. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am only seeing three articles here and the Case of Trey Scott Atwater could quite easily be a response to this comment. I dislike the trend of creating articles on a minor news topics as much as you, but blocking any editor for doing so without first discussing it with them is just wrong. Let alone a new editor that created a neutrally worded, well sourced article with no obvious BLP violations. AIRcorn (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize Luciferwildcat was a new editor...I had assumed that, given that I've seen xyr at ANI, I had assumed this was a more seasoned user. So yes, perhaps my ire is unwarranted. For my over-agitation, I apologize. And as long as Luciferwildcat will agree to stop making articles of this type, I can also live without any action being taken. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I see a keen and enthusiastic editor here with a strong inclusionist tendency (not necessarily a criticism) but who perhaps has not studied the policies and guidlenes intensively enough. I would hesitate to say that Luciferwildcat is a 'new' user. He launched into Misplaced Pages with his first edit on 11 November 2011 and began almost immediately in maintenance areas. His performance at the 97 AfDs he has edited is mediocre with a hit rate of only 53.0%. Two-and-a-half months further on and only 533 edits to mainspace, he still appears to be attracted to meta areas with little experience of our processes and policies and seems to have got involved in a couple of battles with other editors that have been the subject of AN/I. I shouldn't say too much about any AfDs that have been mentioned here because I probably voted on many off them myself, but recreating a copy of Trey Scott Atwater under another page name while the jury is still out is definitely unconstructive. Not strictly blockworthy in my opinion, but he should learn from his errors, and perhaps begin to be more objective in his comments at AfD with regard to policies and guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is whether creating reliably sourced neutrally worded BLP articles which end up being deleted are grounds to block the creator editor. Qwyrxian, do you have sources for your claims a.) that such articles cause harm to living people, b.) the purpose of WP:1BE is to prevent harm to the individual or c.) news articles "fade" from search engine results? Sipho William Mdletshe, accidentally declared dead in 1993 has no article (per policy) ; a Philadelphia Inquirer news blurb appears on the first page of a google search. Nobody Ent 11:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My evidence is what the WP:BLP policy says: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." And in the subsection WP:BLP1E, "Misplaced Pages is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. " Additionally, WP:VICTIM and WP:PERP explicitly show how important the crime/person must be for them to receive an article. If you want to rewrite the policy, take it up on the policy talk page or the Village Pump, but this is how Misplaced Pages treats BLPs. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't have said better myself. I wholeheartedly agree, Qwyrxian, and have issued Luciferwildcat a warning pursuant to the requirements of this Arbitration remedy. Salvio 12:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Synthesizing notability/(wp:victim) and blp into a new conclusion is not evidence of any policy; WP:VICTIM states A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Misplaced Pages article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.This explicitly does not preclude including victims on Misplaced Pages -- it only says not to create a separate article (in support of the WP:NOT pillar). The justification given for the block (harm to living persons) does not hold up.

If an argument is to be made that LWC is not following policy by creating too many inappropriate articles the issue is disruptive editing, not BLP violation. If the community feels this is the case, lesser sanctions should be attempted before implementing blocks or bans. Nobody Ent 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• So this is all about two articles. Qwyrxian, someone suggested to Luciferwildcat that he make the article about the case and not the person. Instead of using the move command to rename it, he made the mistake of creating a duplicate by a different name. Assume good faith please. You could've asked why he did it, instead of just assuming it was to somehow get around the current AFD for an article, which would make no sense since obviously it'd be noticed. And it doesn't harm people by adding in information in the news with references aplenty to the news that mentions this information. Dream Focus 12:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SPA Tagging at Misplaced Pages:SOPA initiative/Action

Amadscientist and Occupy Wall Street

Amadscientist removed some longstanding information from the article. I reverted, and he reverted back before discussing. Since I thought that the complaint was that I had used the {{quotation| formatting, I put the info back in as blockquotes instead, and continued to discuss on the page. Later, Amadscientist reverted back.

The discussion has been extremely frustrating: as I see it, he does not understand or accept policy. He says what he did did not violate BRD. He has made statements such as that it is undue weight to quote from CNN with blockquotes, saying "I can see the heads exploding FOX News." When I offered to paraphrase instead of quote the text, he said "we don't paraphrase," and also said the quotes were a breach of copyright and that they were misused per this guideline. He wouldn't go get more opinions at a noticeboard when I suggested it. He said "for WP:BRD to apply....you need to show how there was consensus for your edit." He also said there were opposing opinions to the quoted text, but failed to provide any when I asked. He also assumed bad faith saying "No, sorry...it is you... attempting to justify your edit in ways that are very misleading sir." After his last revert, he dismissed me thus: "you may continue to edit war or take this to a notice board."

In short, I know this may not be up to the standard of blocking, but it is very disruptive. I don't know where else to take it, so please instruct me what to do instead of reverting. B——C_ritical 02:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably best for you to take this to WP:DRN. Basalisk ⁄_berate 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously! That place? You wait for eternity before anything happens there. And they make you fill out a form that takes far too long. But okay, I'll do that if no one here is willing to talk to him or something. B——C_ritical 03:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Block this editor

User:180.183.11.6, a sock of User:OSUHEY, is reverting my reports to AIV. Can I get an admin to bring this to a speedy resolution? Marcus Qwertyus 06:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 06:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Block sockpuppets

The user E.G. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has used several sockpupets, and has been blocked both here and on svwp earlier. After a checkuser verified a number of users active on svwp I would like to get the same users blocked here on enwp as well. Some of them have been used here in the same manner as earlier, trying to influence consensus. The identified sockpupets that have a SUL account and thus have edited here, or may do so in the future, are:

• Bianessås (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Glytt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Paved with good intentions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Voice (SWE) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Formion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dark Claimant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last time I asked for a block on E.G.'s sockpupets a local checkuser did a check to verify, if such a check is done this time I would appreciate it if any other accounts that are found get banned as well. GameOn (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ingen Alls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) couldn't be checked on svwp since no edits have been done there nor any login, the user shows several traits similar to the other sockpupets. GameOn (talk) 06:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ingen Alls is  Stale. The following accounts have been indeffed, and  Confirmed by checkuser:

• Paved with good intentions (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Formion (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Glytt (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bianessås (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Voice (SWE) (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dark Claimant (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Also, underlying  IP blocked. AGK 13:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone block Fastily for his Jihad war on NFL helmet logos

Having just got back form celebrating a NY Giants win I still see that the files I asked for back at undelete have not been done but I have been told to ask Fastily, but on taking a closer look I think he has somehow lost it, as far as I can see he has gone on a Jihad war on ALL of the NFL helmet logos, can someone block this tosser and restore all the files he has deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYGFan (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL, calling people tossers isn't going to get you anyway. I would suggest you say your goodbyes now, because you are going to be blocked by an admin who comes along. Y u no be Russavia 07:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User NYGFan only has 6 edits to the projects. Needs to learn some civility and Image use policy, and that we won't be so generous next time. NYGFan Warned. No further admin action necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Only 6 edits, and one of them is a familiarly articulated post at AN/I. 2 others are undelete posts. While trying to assume good faith, I still find myself doubting that these are the user's first six posts. --Colonel Tom 10:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Priyabhar repeatedly removing Template:Copyvio

• Priyabhar (talk · contribs)
• Mobile Payments in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Priyabhar created this article which contains massive copyvio from https://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~gr224/PAPERS/Mobile_Financial_India.pdf http://www.mobeyforum.org/content/download/16699/175936/file/Mobile%2520payments%25202012_Innopay_v1.0.pdf http://www.ncc.org.in/download.php?f=NCC2011/1569367349.pdf. Duplication Detector reports for 3 biggest chunks: , , . It was blanked with {{Copyvio}} and reported at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2012 January 9. According to the OTRS clerk, the OTRS received did not establish a credible claim to ownership of any of the above sources. The copyvio template has now been removed 4 times, the first two by an IP and now twice today by this user, despite a clear warning on his/her talk page . I've now reverted twice today and can't revert again. Eyes please. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User notified. Voceditenore (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... seems to be another case of a well known cultural dichotomy. He doesn't appear to have responded to any messages and the many warnings (5 uw plus all the deletion notices) and perhaps cannot read sufficient English to understand what he's doing wrong. Nevertheless, if he reverts the current COPYVIO notice, we should block for a very short time or until the copyvio/OTRS has been resolved, to prevent further disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) PS: and perhaps PP the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to expunge the copyright? I tried to look through it but didn't have time to do a full sweep. If that can be done then do it and let me know (so I can do some RevDel). At the moment my feeling is that the article is un-rescuable and it's probably easier just to scrap it and start afresh. --Errant 10:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No comment right now on the copyvio, but communication is vital, and an editor that won't or can't communicate really doesn't belong here. I've told the editor that. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who blanked it with {{copyvio}} and listed it at Copyright problems. The topic is potentially suitable, but the current article is unrescueable in my view and needs a complete rewrite da capo. I only listed the three sources that account for the vast majority of the copyvio (and the article), but I suspect that virtually all of it consists of individual sentences copied from other sources. Given the editor's level of written English (e.g. ) virtually every sentence in the article written in grammatically correct, idiomatic English is highly likely to have been lifted from somewhere. Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; that was my feeling too. Now you have confirmed it I just went ahead and deleted the article. --Errant 11:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article existed before Priyabhar became involved. I nominated a couple of images that had been in use for deletion because they were aparrently copyvios / contained invalid licenses, but after the first was deleted an earlier editor showed up asking why the file was deleted. I was aparrently in error when nominating the second and I withdrew the nomination; I can no longer recheck the first. See the discussion at User_talk:Fastily/Archive_5#File_.28Image.29_deleted. So I should draw your attention to the fact that:

• It is possible that there exists an earlier version of the article that could be restored
• The discussion linked above was never responded to, so it's also possible that the deleted image could also be restored.

RichardOSmith (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was an oversight on my part (sorry). I have undeleted an older version of the page before this editor came on board :) --Errant 17:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through his deleted contributions. He's done an awful lot of uploading with no license, and when that's deleted, uploading copyvios and claiming he owns them. I have blocked him indefinitely - there is a risk to the project to allowing a serial copyright violator to remain uploading copyvios. If at some stage he communicates and demonstrates an understanding of copyright, an unblock could be considered. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ban or block User:Zachy580 - her/his edits have all been acts of vandalism

All of the edits of User:Zachy580 have been acts of vandalism, including editing Liberalism and replacing the word "liberalism" with "the retarded liberal's" ; on the article H. G. Wells he/she replaced the word "an outspoken" with "homosexual" ; has edited the New York Police Department by replacing the word "largest" to "most corrupted" ; on the Pittsburgh article added "THE STEELERS ARE THE WORST TEAM IN THE NFL!" . Everyone of this users edits have been reverted for being acts of vandalism. This user has nothing positive to contribute to the Misplaced Pages Project and is only here to cause a nuisance and to damage the Project, I support a prompt ban of this user - this user is not here for any positive purpose and is only here to repeatedly vandalize Misplaced Pages articles.--R-41 (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the correct avenue for this. Basalisk ⁄_berate 13:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Where this report would probably be declined as No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.. Salvio 13:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs), apparently. -- Luk 14:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for block

Hello. I am requesting a block on User:209.56.73.2 (his/her talk page can be found here). It (let's refer to him/her as it, since we do not know the gender) has made many unconstructive edits, and has been blocked for two years. However, it still makes very many vandalizing edits. Please help. Agent 78787 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

For ease of lookup, 209.56.73.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 2 years. Please feel free to use WP:AIV in future for such reports - they will handle schoolblocks as well as dynamic IPs. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)