Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:31, 28 August 2010 editDifluoroethene (talk \| contribs)8,030 edits →InaMaka ← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:43, 28 August 2010 edit undoNishidani (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,541 edits →Einsteindonut/WPYellowStar/David Appletree is back despite a community ban,Next edit →
Line 845:		Line 845:
	::Look at the light side. DavidAppletree, to judge by the day and the way it's been spent, can't be him. Far too much ''melakha'', sitting out there bashing away on a computer keyboard. Must have roped in a ]. :)] (]) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)		::Look at the light side. DavidAppletree, to judge by the day and the way it's been spent, can't be him. Far too much ''melakha'', sitting out there bashing away on a computer keyboard. Must have roped in a ]. :)] (]) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
	:::I have never claimed to be an observant Jew. I rest on Shabbos in my own way. I hope to be more observant again, one day. --] (]) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)		:::I have never claimed to be an observant Jew. I rest on Shabbos in my own way. I hope to be more observant again, one day. --] (]) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
			:::So serious! Well, it's late here, so I must decline Ночьмужик.] (]) 21:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

	== Rangeblock needed ==		== Rangeblock needed ==

Revision as of 21:43, 28 August 2010

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Consider other means of dispute resolution first
- Read these tips for dealing with incivility
- If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
- If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Visa article flood of AFD nominations

Further information: ]

This is the "bilateral relations" mess in a different guise. I've updated Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, and I suggest that people from the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force help stem the flood and work towards some sort of standstill agreement as last time, before history repeats itself. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to get us started I'd recommend he be blocked for disruptive and pointy edits. South korea for example has numerous reliable sources on their visa policy. E2 visas (english teaching visas are constantly in flux and often discussed in the media here. It shows an utter lack of checking before hand and proves without a doubt that these are disruptive pointy bad faith nominations.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- First, I will assume good faith that it was an honest oversight that I was not notified of this thread. Second, I promise that every nomination has been done honestly and with no ill-intent. I am not being pointy nor am I being disruptive (not intentionally, at least). I honestly and truly feel that these articles are not encyclopedic and not appropriate. What I do find to be disruptive is any attempt to circumvent a good-faith AfD nomination. Basket of Puppies 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  - Were it a good faith nomination I would have expected you to do a cursory search on the topic before nominating it and you obviously didn't or you would have found the wealth of news articles I found in only 30 seconds. You can't make pointy edits then try and run behind AGF when there are such blatant cases.--Crossmr (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    - Please read. Basket of Puppies 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    - Looks like standard "not directory" stuff, including the South Korea entry. Good noms, though some may not like it. None of it has academic discussion or other consideration of the visa policies of any of the states (you know, looks at history, economic and political considerations, visa "diplomacy" etc...). I'm willing to believe that in some of these cases there is the possibility that such an article could be written by someone qualified ("Visa policy in the EU" is an obvious candidate) but that aint what these are. As Crossmr points out in the case of South Korea (this would hold true for many of the other country's) visa policies are "constantly in flux," which means that these articles will require constant maintenance (not now or ever going to happen) to avoid misleading readers. The upshot? Anyone seeking accurate info on the "visa policy of country x" needs to go to the various countries websites, embassies, and consulates. All these "articles" are is an often incorrect and out of date mirroring of information that can be easily obtained by interested travelers from the countries in question.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      - Not at all. In it's current state it's nothing but as I pointed out this is quite a notable topic and there is extensive media coverage. It can be expanded well beyond not a directory. Had he bothered to follow WP:BEFORE and done a good faith search for sources he would have found that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      - There is a reason we have a process for batch AFDs (Template:AfD footer (multiple)). This is quite ridiculous. Could all of these discussions be closed, and perhaps one or two of these be nominated for deletion? If they are deleted, that might be reason to do a batch AFD on many of these. However, starting off with 50 AFDs with essentially the same rationale wastes an enormous amount of time. NW (Talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        I discussed this very topic with an admin on IRC and was informed I should nominate them individually. I did exactly that. I am happy if they go into a patch process and my deletion rationale would be the same- nonencyclopedic information, random collection of information, not a travel guide, etc. Basket of Puppies 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        Next time read WP:BEFORE specifically number 9. You would have quickly found sources like this one a great article in the LA Times about South Korean visa policy lending the topic plenty of notability and allowing an interested editor to expand the article well beyond a "directory"--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        Crossmr, like I have repeatedly stated on multiple project and deletion pages, I am nominating these class of articles for deletion as they are non-encyclopedic. I recognize they may have references (nearly all primary, tho), but those references do not make them notable nor encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        No, I just provided a ton of non-primary sources for South Korea that prove it is both notable and encyclopedic. Those are dozens of sources in national newspapers in multiple countries. talking about social pressures behind visa changes, laws, etc. that is plenty encyclopedic.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- "He"? Which "he"? There are a lot of people involved here, and the same is happening as happened last time. We have a mass of nominations, overwhelming people's abilities to give an individual article due consideration, resulting in boilerplate responses, back and forth, across (by my count at the time of writing this) 26 of the above AFD discussions. And the end result will be 26 (or, very probably, more) boilerplate discussions, which don't address the individual articles at hand in any rationale (even the nomination rationales are boilerplate), that some poor administrator has to close with respect to a specific article. As I said, history is starting to repeat itself. This is exactly what happened to bilateral relations before (and indeed to schools before that). We know where this leads, and we know that it doesn't lead to productive meaningful discussion of specific articles, but to block voting with boilerplate discussions. Because it has done, many times. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Agreed. By the way this stems from a discussion started on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Palestinian_citizens. There was a growing consensus that these articles fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and, more importantly, are impossible to reliably source and maintain. In fact considering that they are entirely primary sourced they probably fall under OR as well. I reviewed the past discussion and did not see a policy reason for keeping them - so it was on my mind to do the same as this. My proposal was going to be to wait for the Palestine AFD to close to see the result - then nominate a couple more for AFD before expanding it. Basket got there ahead of me :) I'd tentatively support the proposal to speedy close a portion of the current AFD's and focus on one or two examples to get this hashed out. --Errant 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That'd be fine with me. Of course I have no idea why this deletion discussion had to happen here at ANI. It seems like a colossal waste of time for admins who are dealing with copyvio, vandalism and the occasional threat. Basket of Puppies 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, reading through the noms there are two types of article here. I'd actually tentatively support the "Visa policy of" articles (and support delete for the other type) This is a complex issue that needs discussion --Errant 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, discussion is needed, which is why I opened the deletion discussion. I am sure that ANI is not the place for this discussion. Basket of Puppies 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Because at least one of your nominations is clearly in bad faith. You didn't follow WP:BEFORE and are now trying to hide behind WP:AGF rather than admit you made a bad nomination. The news search was trivial and quickly turned up a ton of sources on the topic to allow an editor to write about the history of the visa policy, how it came about, what is driving it, social factors, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Never was a single one of my nomination is bad faith. Please read. Basket of Puppies 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This one clearly was you mass nominated in quick succession and have shown no indication that you performed the steps in WP:BEFORE before actually nominating it. "South Korea visa policy" alone turns up thousands of articles and there is no way you gave those a look before nominating. We don't assume good faith blindly. You made a mass nomination in a controversial topic and there is at least one that you didn't research properly before doing so. I wonder how many more?--Crossmr (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Japan as well. Plenty of material there that could be used to make the article encyclopedic. Again talking about factors in decisions, pressures from different groups, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Basket of Puppies' latest round of deletions involved 163 edits in 14 minutes. (the previous round involved 86 edits in 7 minutes). How long does the "due diligence" of WP:BEFORE typically take, per article? bobrayner (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Longer than that. It's not long, I found almost 3 dozen articles in about 30 seconds. A good faith search with a couple different keywords to be sure should take 20 seconds if it comes up with nothing. Thousands of results? I would say at least 2-3 minutes to give some articles a once over to see if you're headed in the right direction. It should have taken around 1-2 hours to good faith nominate 50 or so of those.--Crossmr (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(arbitrary break, sorry if my previous post was unclear...)
Which policy requires academic discussion?
Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, information of international interest. If the articles would benefit from fleshing out, then flesh them out.
After the previous round of deletion attempts, people posted comments on the user's talkpage and elsewhere; but instead of seeking consensus, they just hammered away at "delete" again.
The original rationale for the first round of deletion notices was was that they were factually inaccurate, which is pretty absurd since most of these articles are directly based on authoritative sources (though if anybody would prefer a secondary source rather than a government website, that could be arranged).
Any given country's visa policy is very unlikely to change on a daily basis. They're as "in flux" as the typical sports team (or less so). Misplaced Pages still manages to have lots of reasonably-accurate articles on sports teams. And why is it OR, or difficult to source, when taking easily-readable data from a known primary source? It doesn't need any special interpretation. If government website X says that citizens of Y aren't allowed in, it's certainly not difficult to get that information onto wikipedia, nor would it be WP:OR to do so.
I don't care where this gets discussed, as long as it's somewhere centralised, instead of on a hundred different pages. bobrayner (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it, and agree that this adds lots of work and unnecessary shenanigans to the process. I'd strongly urge Basket of Puppies to withdraw the bulk of these and very specifically refactor the noms on two or three as test cases. If/when those are deleted, after detailed discussion on the merits, then a mass nom citing the precedent may be in order (or several noms of a dozen each, for example). You may have a point - and some of these likely warrant deletion - but the signal is being lost in the noise, here. Detailed and specific discussion is in order, and spreading that across 50-some odd pages ain't it. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Ok, before this gets sidetracked I propose the following:

A helpful admin speedy closes the above AFD's
We open an AFD for each of the two types of article; "Visa requirements for X" and "Visa policy of X" (I propose: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for X & Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of X
Put AFD notices on the relevant pages.

That way we can have a cohesive discussion in a single place for each type of article. --Errant 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

oppose They're up there now. Defeating these is extremely trivial. Just have it out and be done with it. A quick news search for most countries will tell you if there are reliable sources there, if there are WP:DEADLINE covers us and mark them down as a keep. Also put the searches on the article talk pages. I've already done 2.--Crossmr (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Links to searches aren't helpful or meaningful. Their results vary according to who is performing them and where in the world they are. And their results vary over time, even at timescales measured in hours and days. If you want to make a good case for a specific article, then cite the specific published works that the searches turn up, rather than handwaving in the direction of a search and saying, in effect, "this turns up stuff". SAgain, don't repeat history. We've had people who said in discussion after discussion "If you Google it, stuff turns up." without giving any indication of what the specific stuff that turns up was, and why it was relevant to the article at hand, before, when things like this have happened previously. This approach is no less of a boilerplate argument than the others. Specific source citations for specific subjects, are needed to help the poor closing administrator find something relevant to each article at hand amongst the back-and-forth boilerplate.
  Search engines are (some of many) tools for finding sources. They aren't citations. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  - I explained above what the specific stuff was. Probably about 3-4 times now. They're stories on the history and other aspects of what drove policies. perfectly encyclopedic. The search engines are simply there for convenience at AfD to say "Here is a list of news stories, these can be used to do this". They're only to show policy, we don't need to actually write the article during AfD. Probably this weekend when I have time I'll actually flesh out the South Korean article just like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    - No. You made no such explanation, and you've failed thus far to cite an actual source in either this AFD discussion or this AFD discussion. A search engine result does not provide "a list of news stories". It's not even necessarily showing the same things to you as it does to other editors. You really need to grasp this point. What you are doing is not "showing policy", and it's not demonstrating that sources exist. Citing the sources demonstrates that they exist. Hyperlinking to a search engine does not.
      Handwaving vaguely in the direction of search engines is a no-effort means of AFD discussion participation. It doesn't demonstrate that sources exist. It doesn't cite sources. It doesn't even point to the same thing for the people reading as the editor trying to take the quick route around actually doing the work that an AFD rationale needs.
      Proper AFD partitipation is not a zero-effort thing. Citing sources is what is required for a watertight case. That means using the search engine (and other resources) to find the source; reading the sources that are turned up to see what they say and whether they are relevant; and citing them explicitly so that other editors can read them too. That is how one puts deletion policy into practice correctly. Nothing less will do. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    - yes, I did. plenty of independent material on the subject including things like why certain changes were made, who pressured the government to look into visa changes, social concerns with visa changes, I exactly detailed the kind of information available in the news search and how it could be added to the article. While news searches sometimes return different content, they do not return such drastically different content that a link to a news search is useless. I put far more effort into my argument than he did his. I actually made a good faith search to even see if it was worth talking about. The fact was there were hundreds of links and I wasn't going to independetly link every single one, but if you'd like , , , , etc, etc. Those are just the first ones off the list. I've checked 4 AfDs and all 4 of them had tons of quality links available of which I only noted a very small sampling. Above I noted one of the quality South Korea sources, and if you'd like more , , , , , etc, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Also, note that "OMG it's reliably sourced so keep keep keep!" does not actually address the rationale for deletion, which is "Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide". Tarc (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  - I would argue that "Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide" does not require the deletion of anything related to travel (Misplaced Pages has lots of articles on tourist destinations, modes of transport &c and a good thing too). These articles aren't giving directions to cool bars in Barcelona, or advice on whether or not the taxis are safe; they cover concrete points of government policy which affect a large number of people. However, let's not get bogged down in detailed discussion if this is not the best place for it... bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  - As I pointed out above the sources I found are not travel guide sources. They're news sources discussing the history of various visa policies. Why they've been made, external pressures that may have caused them, social ramifications, etc. It should be possible for many countries to provide a history of how various visa policies have developed over the year and why they've developed. That's encyclopedia and has nothing to do with a travel guide.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - whatever happens, Visa policy of the People's Republic of China has to be kept as a start article. I have no idea what the nominator was thinking when he nominated that one. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Good proposal. Additionally, it might be worth issuing a haddock in the direction of the nominator for failing to consider whether bulk-nominating an entire category of articles without any prior discussion was likely to cause exactly this sort of drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Support There's no excuse for mass-nominating this many articles as individual AfDs. Alternatively, they could just be closed as disruptive. I further propose that the administrator that BoP allegedly contacted be publicly identified for ridicule and trout-slapping. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Support the merging of all the articles into one large AfD. Please know that I nominated these articles only after discussing it with an administrator and several other editors on IRC on how best to proceed. I would be happy to disclose the logs in a secure manner that would not violate the public logging prohibition. The informed me that I would have to make a separate AfD for each article. I was going based upon the best information I had at the time. I did this in good faith without any intention or desire to be disruptive. Basket of Puppies 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Why IRC and not on-wiki? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you follow WP:BEFORE, specifically step #9?--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support Discussing this coherently and in context of previous discussions on Talk:passport/Archive 3and Talk:passport/Archive 4 has been my aim from the beginning. The speed of nomination that many articles with a single reason was impossible for any user to follow and leads to many very similar discussions... L.tak (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Support: clearly no one is denying that several of these articles are notable; the issue for which they were nominated is the same for all of them, and grouping them together to discuss that single issue ensures a consistent decision and saves the community's resources. GiftigerWunsch 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I am saying. The references are almost universally primary sources and the topics are not the least bit encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  - It's not what you were saying earlier, though; your reasons seem to have changed over time and "primary sources" seems to be a new one (not that it would justify deletion, mind). seems to have intended as a way of saying that all those articles are factually inaccurate (and a large number of them got templated with a similar message). After people who had actually read the articles explained that they were accurate, Basket of Puppies seems to have concentrated on a different reason for deletion and ignored repeated queries about accuracy. As an aside, I doubt that much blame should attach to whichever admin suggested mass AfD; there was plenty of time to reflect on the negative feedback from the first batch of templates, before starting on the mass AfD. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  - I've already shown you two above, (and just did canada as well) that demonstrates there are plenty of non-primary sources for these articles. While the sources in the articles are primary, there exists many non-primary sources which you could have easily found. The history of and public discourse over visa policies is certainly as encyclopedic as anything else.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Support and recommend that folks get off BoP's back. S/he clearly thought s/he was doing the right thing. The encyclopedia hasn't been destroyed. This will all be ok. MtD (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Support whoever told BoP to nom these by themselves gave her/him bad gouge. If you have a bunch of articles which don't belong in the encyclopedia and they share strong commonalities (esp. if those commonalities are what suggest they may not be appropriate for WP), then nom them together. If you think that a small subset will provoke disagreement enough to spoil the lot, then remove those and either nominate them separately or don't nominate them at all. E.g. Visa policy of China is probably both notable and necessary for an encyclopedia but Visa Policy of Luxembourg can maybe be lumped in with Visa Policy of Belgium. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

a short specification: that's why neither visa policy of Luxembourg nor of Belgium exist and we have the comprehensive wiki Visa policy in the European Union covering 33 countries in one go. L.tak (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

They certainly did before the common market and the EU, though. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have closed all the visa policy pages in favour of a single discussion, my personal preference would be an RFC that takes in visa policy and visa requirement pages for a single solution. Spartaz 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreseeable

I believe the mess started here in January. Somebody insisted on removing said info from all passport-articles, and the only way to keep the information ws to spin it out into stupid stubs (y'know... one of those "compromises"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, here we go again. I remember that! --Ozguroot (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I'd be happy to see this information incorporated into a broader article.

However, doing it on a "Passport of country A" basis (ie. with a subsection "What paperwork is needed to enter countries B, C, D, and E") involves a many-to-many relationship between sources and articles; each of these pages is likely to need separate sources to show whether an A-passport holder can enter B, C, D, E &c and this could become impractical/unmaintainable (how many permutations between 200 countries?). :On the other hand, if arranged on a "Visa policy of country B" basis, it's more practical as most data points in the article can be gained from a single source - a website owned by the government of country B (or a secondary source derived from that). bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass AfD tagging of visa policy articles

User:Basket of Puppies has nominated Visa policy in the European Union as well as 40 different "Visa policy of XXX" articles, from Visa policy of Albania to Visa policy of Venezuela, for deletion (see Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation)). In each case, he has used virtually identical argumentation: "Delete Misplaced Pages is not a dumping ground for random information and Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic." Regardless of whether or not the articles should be kept, splitting up the nomination for deletion into 41 different pages makes absolutely no sense. All of the visa policy articles are similar, and the arguments for and against keeping them are largely independent of the country involved.

I request that the administrators merge these AfD nominations into a singe page so that a reasonable debate may be held on this topic, and to ensure that a given editor's arguments about keeping or deleting the visa policy of a particular country will also be heard by people discussing the deletion of the visa policies of all other countries. — Tetromino (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

We know. Look up ↑ . Uncle G (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass closing incorrectly as keep

Spartaz closed every one of the AfDs as keep, tho this is incorrect. I am certain he did so in good faith, but he accidently marked the AfDs as keep and the associated article talk pages as the same. This should be undone. Basket of Puppies 05:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How should he have closed them? MtD (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not entirely sure I would myself have done as Spartaz did at this point, but I certainly am not prepared to say that he did wrong. For the sake of providing a pause to think about it, probably we should endorse how he handled it. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC) .
  - Given the volume of "keep" votes on the many AfDs, I doubt that Spartaz's action was either accidental or incorrect. Basket of Puppies, since the first and second attempts at deletion failed, would you like a third attempt at deletion in a different venue? bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    - Don't taunt like that. It doesn't lead to mature, adult, discussion and reflects badly upon you. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      - Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Spartaz didn't do anything wrong, in my humble opinion. The (as a model, 'general' view) result is here: Keep: 5, Delete: 1 - Should we continue to insist on deletion(s), Basket of Puppies? --Ozguroot (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those keeps are all procedural, rather than based on the subject. The only problem with closing these all as "keep" is that this will inevitably lead to someone saying "keep per Spartaz" when the group nom is opened. Nevertheless, the solution to that is to ignore bad arguments, not to waste more time re-closing the AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Its nice to have this raised without letting me know. I already told basket of puppies that they were welcome to add procedural to the keep if it made them happy and that my comment made it clear that this was procedural. Bearing in mind I had to run scripts to close and that going for something other then keep, delete, no-consensus, merge or redirect would mean at least 3 times as much button pressing I can't really see that I can be blamed. This kind of this is partly why such mass nominations can be so disruptive, as they take long to fix. Spartaz 12:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Basket of Puppies, since you supported having a single discussion rather than umpteen, instead of complaining at Spartaz' attempts to head off the inevitable train wreck, why not follow up on your very own "Support" above and work towards having a centralized discussion on what you perceive to be the problem here, whether it truly is a problem, and if so how to fix it? Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, a model to follow (or even to use) was linked-to right at the very start of this section. I didn't do that just to keep my fingers warm. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The AfDs should be closed as procedural keep or procedural close or administratively closed to clearly indicate they were not subject to a full 7 day long AfD but rather closed due to a procedural issue. I should not be the one to change anything unless there is clear consensus here, as I am involved and it would not be appropriate or proper for me to change it. Basket of Puppies 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Possibly, but unless it becomes a major issue at any subsequent discussion — which it won't, as anyone with xyr head screwed on will see that this isn't an endorsement of any position but simply a means for preventing the same train wreck happening at AFD as has happened so many times in the past (and one can easily point to me, DGG, and thumperward here if that truly becomes an issue) — this is a minor point. The major issue is your original one. You have a problem with these articles, and you'd like to discuss it. So let's work on that rather than what exact word should go in a speedy closure that's going to be superceded by the consensus discussion that you want to have in any event. Please focus upon trying to articulate your problem, in detail and with more than 1 sentence of bare explanation, with the articles. DGG, who has experience with this, or someone else, will no doubt help with the technical jiggery-pokery of setting up and formatting a centralized discussion, if you have problems. But this whole debate as to What Spartaz Should Have Done is a distraction. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Batch AfD setting up in progress

I am setting up a large batch AfD for the articles listed in this category. It's being done manually so might take me a few hours. Basket of Puppies 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Which ones are you plannng to do? "Visa policy of X"? Or "Visa requirements for X"? I assume the former (as that is what you predominantly AFD'ds). I wouldn't recommend doing both together (that's why I'm raising the point :)) --Errant 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't indicated that you followed WP:BEFORE and from a quick perusal of the first 4 I selected, it's quite apparent you haven't.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the fact that you've just renominated the two articles on china is ridiculous and can't be seen as anything but a bad faith nomination for which you didn't perform the required good faith search before hand, had you done so you'd probably still be reading articles well into next week for that one nomination alone. , , , , , , , etc. etc. Chinese visa policy is a often discussed, very notable topic, covered in many countries. There is nothing random about it, while you might not like the article as it sits, clean-up is not a reason for AfD. There is plenty there from which a history of their policy, controversies, influences, public opinion, etc could be constructed. I renew my original suggestion. We are not blind.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going down the list in the category in alphabetical order. China starts with the letter c. Notice I did Canada before, the Republic of China and Croatia after. These continued accusations of bad faith are wearing. Basket of Puppies 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, BoP has indicated in the past 24 hours that he has problems with all articles with this rationale: Misplaced Pages is not a dumping ground for random information and Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. This way of re-tagging for deletion with a single discussion page enables him to expand on this and the community to discuss these concerns at one page. Let's have the discussion there... L.tak (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This one concerns me: Permanent Resident of Norfolk Island visa It may be AFD material but I am not sure it matches the other articles enough to go in an AFD with them w/o raising issues... --Errant 22:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know what he's been saying. I've been part of the discussion. unfortunately his reasoning doesn't make any sense given the extensive media coverage in many countries given to the various subjects. at this point his nominations are disruptive and pointy. Visa policies of china are clearly notable and encyclopedic. There is plenty to build an encyclopedic article off of. While he might not like the article as it is, AfD isn't for clean-up the subject clearly meets notability guidelines. He has a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Then start participating in the discussion instead of taking pot shots and wandering away to leave people asking questions and not answer them. you've had tons of questions put to you above by different people which you've refused to answer. Including a very direct question of whether or not you followed WP:BEFORE. Stop nominating articles which clearly pass all our policies and guidelines. AfD is not for clean-up. An article titled "Visa policies of X" most certainly meets our notability guidelines in most cases and you are making no effort to distinguish between the ones that do and the ones that might not. You've admitted as much now by stating that you're just going through alphabetically. Since it meets GNG, you're arguing for clean-up and AfD isn't the place to do that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Honeslty Crossmr, the only person acting in bad faith here is you. He has every right to make his case for deletion, and you have every right to make your case to keep, and everyone else has every right to weigh in as they see fit. Letting the community have its say will produce much more useful results than your attempts to harangue Basket of Puppies. Reso lute 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominating an article for deletion isn't a right. Could I go nominate Barrack Obama for deletion without anyone saying anything and questioning by motives? Why? Because the subject clearly meets our threshold of inclusion. It would, and rightly so, be closed immediately as a bad faith nomination. I've seen plenty of AfDs closed as such.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

how many hours/days are we going to let articles sit there in a state of half-completed AfD? He started this 7-8 hours ago, and if he can't write his deletion rationale in that kind of time, the notices should be removed. He managed to nominate everything in 14 minutes last time.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you take a break, man. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Crossmr, just stop. By constantly attacking BoP and his motives, all you're doing is making it apparent that you're the one who has issues with following policy. And frankly accusing BoP of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT is pretty ironic given that you were already told about three times that the reason for nominating has nothing to do with notability, and you still continued to accuse the editor of bad faith actions because the articles are notable. Notability isn't the only reason to take an article, or indeed a large group of articles, to AfD. Feel free to make your case for keeping the articles on the AfD page, but do not continue to attack others and assume bad faith. GiftigerWunsch 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
actually, if you read above, one of his reasons was that there only existed (or were used) primary sources. He's said that at least once or twice. I've provided tons of non-primary sources for 5 different countries. His claim now is that it's an indiscriminate collection of information (which doesn't seem anymore indiscriminate than the thousands of lists we have out there, the scope is decidedly smaller than others), and that it isn't encyclopedic. The last argument is straight off WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which isn't a compelling argument for deletion. So it comes down to indiscriminate collection of information. Which it might very well be, but that is a content issue, not a deletion one. there clearly exists sources which make the topic notable, so even if the articles were stubbed, the topics themselves meet the threshold for inclusion and continually trying to force them to AfD doesn't make any sense.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That said, I will take a break from this discussion and make my comment on the centralized discussion when it's created.--Crossmr (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Seb_az86556 started removing the notices because of absence of the discussion page. Although I think this is correct in principle, it is not getting us any further here and we will be discussing procedures for yet another day... I suggest the following:

revert/rollback the removals of the AfD messages
give BoP a notice on his talk that he should provide a rationale asap (within 12 hours from now? we have no idea which time zone he is in) to move this discussion forward.

Can someone who can do multi-revert do both (also the talkpage notice because BoP and I have started off not very well yesterday...)? Looking forward to really discussing this and hearing rationales! L.tak (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

These can easily be reverted once there is a discussion-page. These templates have been sitting there for more than 6 (some of them 10) hours with a deadlink. I don't think that works. I am not opposed to the batch-nomination, but whenever there's an AfD-template that has no link, it should be removed after a reasonable time. 6 hours should really be enough to create the relevant page. (by the way, I gave the same rationale, albeit shortened, in the edit summary) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its clear that there is general opinion sentiment against deleting the articles either singly or in random groups without a prior consideration of how to handle it. I continue to endorse Spartaz's earlier action, and urge him as someone reasonable to do what he did before, close the present AfDs as speedy keep. Basket of Puppy 's action in doing this is clearly disruptive and pointy, as he went ahead with this in spite of everything that was said above, and I suggest blocking him for a while to permit rational discussion of the problem, which I think can be best done by an RfC at the project page. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up example

As I mentioned above, there is plenty of room here to make encyclopedic articles. I've performed a very basic clean-up of Visa policy of South Korea. It is by no means complete, and at this point is just a stub example of the kind of thing I had in mind. There are dozens of more sources just on E2 visas so that section can probably be expanded to 2 or 3 good paragraphs to include information on how law makers, holder, other countries, etc have reacted to the visa and the changes and decisions that have been made to the visa over the years. I'm digging around now to try and find a citation for when it was first introduced.--Crossmr (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That definitely looks way better without the unnecessary list of countries. And, you're right, it looks like it has a much better claim to notability now than it did before. It's a lot easier to see and check. Silverseren 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianmcfa and law enforcement agencies in Nebraska Stubs

Brianmcfa (talk · contribs) has created a significant number of stubs on law enforcement agencies in Nebraska, a few have been deleted CSD A7 and following objection to CSD'ing of police departments by Bsherr a further 10 more were deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Albion Police Department (Nebraska) that still leaves the following stubs:

The closing of admin of the AfD (Cirt) recommended that I ask here for advice on what should be done regarding these. Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Notified Brianmcfa here and Bsherr here and Cirt here Codf1977 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well. Ahem. Few PD's are notable. For the most significant of the many, redirection to municpality would probably be best. For the most, deletion as A7. I think. For instance, Largo PD does not have an article or a redirect (Small city of &0,000). Pinellas County SO does. Dloh cierekim 22:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Is a script batch deletion in order, or should these go through AFD first? NW (Talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

On a purely technical note (and that's a phrase I've never used before and probably won't again) Special:Nuke would take care of all of them, avoiding the need for any ad hoc script. TNXMan 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked already; these articles were created too long ago for that (verify). NW (Talk) 23:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe merge 'em all into a list? Dloh cierekim 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I was looking at this while you offered that suggestion. There is good material in the articles. However some should remain as a list like Friend Police Department (Nebraska) which may have notability. List of law enforcement agencies in Nebraska exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

He missed some! Column 3 had all the same. I would delete merge them into the list article, even Friend. Dloh cierekim 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would the solution to a collection of non-notable articles be to combine them into one similarly non-notable list? Unless there are reliable sources discussing "Law enforcement agencies in Nebraska" as somehow having notable characteristics as a group, I would argue the list is just as deletable/redirectable as the individual articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, preserving information. Dloh cierekim 00:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the fact that while, individually, they may not merit separate articles, as an ancillary article or list to Law enforcement in Nebraska, the information would be worth having. (Then there is the argument that as important units of government, these agencies are notable.) Unfortunately, in their present form we are looking at a collection of stubs with little, if any, useful information. I would hope any stub on a local law enforcement agency would meet the guideline for a school article: provide information that a prospective employee would find useful, e.g. staff size, year created, organization, URL of website. Then again, these are issues best discussed by the relevant WikiProject, not a bunch of Admins. -- llywrch (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Though individual components of an organization or group of organizations may not be notable, the whole may be; we acknowledge this all the time when we avoid having articles for the local branches of even very important organizations. But the place for this is not AN/I. AN/I does not deal with the merits of particular content, or of individual deletions. The place to discuss the merits of an article, one or many, is AfD ; the place to discuss policy about deleting them is its talk page, or the CSD talk page as appropriate, or another policy page. True, this is an administrative matter in the sense that administrators have the power to delete articles. But administrators do this individually, subject to review at DRV. Subject wikiprojects are another approach to work out a solution, though it must be remembered that they are not independent of the community, and it their decisions about what it notable in their field have not always been generally accepted. For a group of admins to try to coordinate their actions in dealing with a particular group of articles is cabalism. The only thing that could reasonably be discussed here is if it is thought that the introduction of the articles is disruptive, and I do not see how it can possibly be so--it is probably mistaken, but that's very different. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I think that I will do a bulk AfD for them and the discussion can move there. I will however list Friend Police Department (Nebraska) on it's own as it at least has a claim to significance. Unless anyone has any more advice I will list them later today. Codf1977 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing these as they were being created and thinking it would come to something like this. I support merging them into a Law enforcement in Nebraska article, or even List of law enforcement departments in Nebraska, but some of them have very little to merge. An AfD-style merge outcome would be good because it provides some compulsion that this gets done, instead of them sitting around indefinitely. Shadowjams (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or … you could not rely on the ever-elusive somebody else to do something, and just be bold and do the editorial action that you support, using the editorial tools that you possess, yourself. Several of you support a merger? Good! Then pull out your editing tools and actually do it. AFD is for deciding whether an administator hits the delete button, a tool that only administrators possess. None of you want that to happen in the first place. Stop thinking of this in terms of "I have to fill in a form, and make a request, which Somebody Else will enact later on." and start thinking of this in terms of "I and several other editors have an idea. We all ourselves have the tools for enacting that idea. Let's club together, agree what we want to do, and get it done.". I've used nothing more than the ordinary editing tool to start you off. You don't need more than the ordinary editing tool to finish. Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  - I may, and I have in the past. I did a similar project on merging Housing articles at Universities. Lot of work and takes a lot of time to do it right. You're welcome to join.
    
    But as a wider point, is this kind of response necessary, in tone or in substance? You surely can't believe the response to everything is fix it yourself, as if the work of administrative areas is nothing but selfish. As if every tagged page is someone "thinking...in terms of...Somebody Else will later on". It would take two years for someone to read wikipedia, and that was years ago; one person can't fix everything. Part of the bureaucracy is identifying tasks, and part of it is doing tasks editors are well suited towards. I've done those, and I'm sure many people above have.
    
    On the point at hand, AfD merges are pretty commonplace and perfectly acceptable. There's not a lot here to merge. Perhaps someone can identify which of these pages the merge discussion is going on at. Shadowjams (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally don't see what of value there is to merge, however a merge proposal has been made to merge them to Law enforcement in Nebraska, so I will leave it for a day or so to see if anyone comments before opening up a AfD. Codf1977 (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Big Time Vandalism

For a while now i've been feeling usure about User:STEF1995S's articles regarding the RT 100. He created a few related new articles (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) which are literally based on nothing (there's no reliable source in there); also, he "updated" the main article with false chartings (again without having any sources). I and a fellow Romanian writer warned him several times (1 & 2 & 3), but he's not going to stop. There's no point in his work - he created several articles for tops that don't even exist. We've reverted his edits several times but he just keeps on returning and "updating". Someone's got to stop him, please! Lucian C. (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than your opinion, can you point to something concrete that shows that the facts s/he is entering are false? I'd like at least a diff and a contradictory source. I do see where KWW ask him/her to improve sourcing of that material. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

They do appear to be referencing a website for years (pre-2009, back to 1999) which the website doesn't on first inspection actually have data for.

That is sort of suspicious. Not concrete, though. Actual evidence of false info would be better... Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

In Romania we have just an official chart - Romanian Top 100 - and there are no other tops such as dance/rock/r&b; anyone can google it and see there's no such thing. Why should i try bringing counterarguments if there's no argument to prove his work's real? 90% of his articles are sourceless and where there are indeed some references, they're upon the RT100 website (where you can see the real thing). STEF1995S extracts the dance/R&B/rock tracks from this top and makes his own charts. It's pointless even discussing about it. Lucian C. (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So Toddst1, you're asking to proove that something DOESN'T exist? The only site that mentions one of his creations is Misplaced Pages - . Even if there was a chart it wouldn't meet the criteria for notability . Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page protected?

Please explain why the hell the Reference Desk talk page is currently semi-protected. It is impossible to contribute to discussions there. 87.112.158.100 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be because of "Excessive sock puppetry". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So how are non-sock-puppet users supposed to contribute? 87.112.158.100 (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFED is an option. Tbhotch 00:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where does one post their requests for edits, if it's the Talk page itself that's protected? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

One could always just create an account. He iro 01:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Creating an account is not a requirement for editing wikipedia. If the talk page is protected, you can request an edit at Misplaced Pages:RFED#Current_requests_for_edits_to_a_protected_page. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How can a talk page EVER be protected? Its the point of having a talk page to DISCUSS changes where sockpuppets/vandals violate the main page.(Lihaas (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC));

I believe a similar thing was done at Talk:Justin Bieber, where it was semi-protected at one point (might still be the case, I'm not sure) due to a large amount of talk-page vandalism from IPs. A subpage was created in talk for IP contributors which was unprotected, with a warning at the top that vandalism would result in an immediate block. GiftigerWunsch 12:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The protection log confirms that this was in effect until recently. GiftigerWunsch 12:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Tillend4sure quacking like User:Dr.Mukesh111

Resolved – CU request filed for a sleeper checkNativeForeigner /_Contribs 14:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tillend4sure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to pass the WP:DUCK test of being yet another sock of Dr.Mukesh111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Active Banana ( 00:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll file a CU report. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 00:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Soianwala,Sooianwala

We have two identical “place” articles named Soianwala and Sooianwala. Both of them have no references to speak of, and ridiculous, vain, self promotional material is being added to them. In addition, I can’t see why the articles only talk about some place called “Vanike Tarar” only, and never about Sooinwala/Soinwala. Some editors have been adding vain, self promotional material with the names of some of the persons having “Tarar” in them. . User: Mamtazhussain and some other IPs seem to be responsible. Please investigate and take appropriate action. How can I notify them when they have not activated their talk page.-Civilizededucation 01:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed one to a redirect, because it essentially duplicates the other entry. What has me puzzled is the article seems to be about the town of “Vanike Tarar”, which is at(or very near) the geo coordinates listed, but doesn't seem to mention Soianwala anywhere in the article, even the bolded title in the lede is Vanike Tarar. Should it me moved to the VT title? He iro 02:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, stranger still, from its creation to the present, the article creator included, almost all edits are made by single purpose accts, named and IPs, with 2 to 4 edits, almost excusively to this page. A few other regular editors pop up occasionally to do minor cleanup. He iro 02:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That's actually remarkably common for less popular articles. Sometimes the activity is partially promotional or otherwise less than perfectly encyclopedic, but lots of editors are kinda bowling alone. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Should it be moved to the “Vanike Tarar” title and the similar named Soianwala's redirected to it? I was thinking of being WP:BOLD and just doing it, but figured since its here, why not ask. He iro 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. While you're at it you can take out those unverified section tags you added in. Just put one tag on the top of the article. The section tags were meant for a big article which is otherwise well referenced. If you tag the whole think people stop paying attention kinda quickly. Protonk (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I went thru, removed those tags, did some basic cleanup, grammar, punctuation, wording, and individually tagged a few "facts" which should be cited. Then moved page to new title Vanike Tarar and redirected both Soianwala's to it. He iro 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's info on Sooianwala. It seems to be in the Hafizabad District of Punjab, Pakistan, but I can't determine if they're the same place' perhpas S. is an older name for what is now V.T.? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I dont know about that, geo map it and the coords take your to a map with the TV name, but that article is either a mirror of us or ours is a copyvio of it, as it seems much of it is sentence for sentence for what we have. He iro 03:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The url has "/enwiki/en/" so it is probably a mirror. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

EC-I'm now thoroughly confused. The article seems to be ours, as it was built up over the course of several years, so the one you found is prolly a mirror. BUT, the names in the article were all only recently changed to Vanike Tarar. This location shows up on the map, in the location that seems to be described in the text. If you put Sooianwala Chatha ( which was the original title in the lede) in at Acme mapper it take you to Pakistan/India border, but no named town or village. Have I been too bold by moving it so soon or what? He iro 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Only Sooianwala has deleted revisions and they aren't what I would call expansive enough to build a big mirror. Is there yet another spelling variation which might have had this content? Protonk (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont know. Went to original creation and then checked a few edits here and there and watched it grow, so pretty sure its ours. Soianwala was started first and had the longest edit log, Sooinwala only had about 6 to 10 edits where Soinwala had many many many pages going back about 4 or 5 yrs. Alot of the editors involved also edited an article Chatha, which sems to be about an ethnic group from the area. He iro 04:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The best reference I could find for either location is a really lousy document that happens to be on a Pakistani government webserver and hence is unlikely to be an invention. It lists "Sooian Wala" (yay, third spelling!) separately from Vanike Tarar, so it can be assumed that both exist. I can't find anything more helpful for untangling the rest of this mess, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bing maps has a village called Sohianwala (fourth spelling) at 30°57'0N 70°51'25E, and we have a stub article on it at Sohianwala. Bing, however, does not have a location for Vanike Tarar, Pakistan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The name may not take you there, but look to the southwest a hair on this map and there it is. He iro 04:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Very good. There's also a Boys High School and a Facebook page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Switched to Satellite view, the location given in coords seems to have a sizeable village or town, that is not Vanike Tarar(which is located a few kliks away to the southwest), but isnt named on map. I would assume this is Soianwala, but how do we know for sure? He iro 04:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(obviously, I just missed the post above) So it seems as if Sohianwala and Vanike Tarar are different places. Although the map Heironymous Rowe posted the link for doesn't have a location listed at the coordinates given for the village of Sohianwala, a look at the satellite map definitely shows a settlement there, along the canal, at the end of the road which comes in from the east. And Vanike Tara is to the southwest, at the end of the Vanike Tarar Road.

The question now is, which place is the larger article describing? And if it's Vanike Tarar, why were the articles labelled with Sohianwala ? And if the article is about Sohianwala, why did someone change it to Vanike Tarar? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

EC.Doesnt seem to be enough information to tell. Although, if you look at the contribs, it was only recently changed to Vanike Tarar, would be safer to revert my page move back to original name until it becomes clearer. Although, I can see some vandal kid in Pakistan laughing at us right now, "hehe, I change3d the name of tghe village next door to my village, lulz", only in urdu lol. He iro 04:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also the stub article at Sohianwala to deal with, probably a redirect, moving any info into the main article, and list the alternative spellings in the main article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I don't think it's as simple as that. Some of the article seems to be describing the village of Sohianwala (the canal runs alongside it and divides it in half), but the stuff about the school football records and stuff is probably about Vanike Tarar. I think the best thing to do, since not much is referenced, is to leave the S. stub article as it is, and strip down the VT article to a stub, removing everything but basic information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is our vandal , where in this edit he seems to change the name of the town, population, streets, highly regarded residents, etc. over from Soianwala to Vanike Tarar. This and doing the same thing to Sooianwala seems to be about his only edits. He iro 05:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've redirected the two S. articles to Sohianwala, and added the alternate transliterations to that stub. Unless anyone has any objections, I'll take a pass at stripping down the VT article to stub, since it's full of unreferenced material and dead links. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Now I remember why I usually pretty much stick to subjects I know well, lol. He iro 05:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done that, and added the articles to my watchlist - so I guess we wait and see what happens now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I just clicked the mapit function for sohianwala, I think it is prolly a separate entity from Soianwalla, but as we have no way of knowing for sure, will suffice for now. I'm going to sleep. Bleh. He iro

(ec)I briefly considered taking the text from the big article before the vandal changed the references, but the information is too suspect and I would essentially be guessing. Without references for support, it's best if both article are left as stubs until they can be built up again with reffed info. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've left a message on the Wikiproject Pakistan discussion page pointing out the two stubs which need to be fleshed out with referenced material. Incidentally, I don't think there's anything for admins to do here, so this thread can be marked "Resolved". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by user at Talk:Jeannette Rankin

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

It all began with a simple Fact tag on information that was unsourced, and User:Y continued to remove the tag over the past week, continuing to insist that it didn't need a source. Another user found a source and added it today. Afterward, User:Y left this message for me at the talk page. No doubt about it, a personal attack if I ever saw one, even daring me to report him.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

-- Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--Jojhutton (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Seb's warning is all that's needed at this point. Though I'm a little disappointed in seeing this from an administrator. -- Atama頭 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. Tommy! 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Personal attacks are not tolerated here on Misplaced Pages. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It's particularly disgraceful from a sysop. Tommy! 02:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 again

I raised an AN/I recently about User:Sopher99's repeated errors in new page patrol - various wrong CSD tags, incorrectly biting newbies with A1 and A3 just minutes after creation, and basically just not reviewing articles properly. I did try talking to them, and I did get some response - and again over the past few days, which seemed positive. However, the erroneous CSD tagging is just not stopping, as you can see from their Talk page, with another bad CSD tag refused and another new editor bitten. I think the problem is one of rushing - we seem to see bursts of very rapid article tagging going on, without much time spent thinking. Unfortunately, I think some kind of admin intervention is needed here - perhaps an insistence that they stop NPP altogether until they get some mentoring, or at the very least stop A1 and A3 tagging? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I share similar concerns and agree that the user is acting too quickly when patrolling and not carefully considering what the issues are with new articles. I identified a few examples that I found troubling on the user's talk page. You'll notice I made similar comments on the user's talk page back in December 2009/January 2010. I think the user is acting in good faith and wants to help the project, but clearly the user has trouble applying Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. It is also troubling that the user seldom responds to posts on their talk page, so it's difficult to determine if s/he understands what I and others are saying. P. D. Cook 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user returned to active editing within the past week, and in the last four days they have received seven messages warning them of errors in new page patrol. (They don't delete these warnings from their talk, so you can go and review them all). Their very slight acknowledgment of the previous ANI, which some interpreted as cooperation, seems to have been an illusion. They should be officially warned that a block will follow unless they will take an indefinite break from new page patrol. As Pdcook observes, this problem has been going on since January. The user could request a mentor if they are willing to try fixing the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Ed. S/he may be great for new page patrol with a little more familiarity with practices and standards and better communication. If you're going to tag an article, you need to be prepared to justify the tag when people politely inquire as here. Contributor has edited plenty since then, but replied nowhere. Poor communication coupled with a high error rate: the risk of discouraging good faith contributions is too high. --Moonriddengirl 12:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

<---Regrettably, it is not just A1 and A3. In addition to the tilefish article (Corenbot tagged it for a redirect, so it was kinda obvious even to a bot.) I declined a speedy on, Sopher tagged for deletion an article that needed translation-- there was no corresponding article elsewhere. Dloh cierekim 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The good news is, none sense my declined speedy notice. The bad news is I don't see any edit summaries. Dloh cierekim 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There are problems with the user's tagging. A lot of the problem is an overuse of A1 and A3, rather than more appropriate ones, or actually AfDing articles. Sopher99's not nominating well developed articles. But there are wider problems here too, such as the hasty patrolling (patrolling pages that should have been followed up on in some way) and a dearth of edit summaries.

There is this acknowledgement, which is encouraging and comes after the last statement here. I'm of the hope that this will lead the user to be more careful. If that doesn't help we can revisit it here. Shadowjams (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, incorrect A2 tagging too - he/she has been told about that at least twice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Masonic buildings

User:doncram is creating serious problems with NRHP buildings. He is creating article stubs for every single thing he can find with "Masonic Building", "Masonic Lodge", and "Scottish Rite", which consist of "X is a building in Y. It was listed on the NRHP on <date>, with a location box. He has then created dab pages for all these buildings, so we now have dozens of two-line stubs that will never be expanded, dab pages that make no sense (because a Masonic Lodge is not the same as a Masonic Building - Lodges meet in the building despite what records say) and are full of things no one is really going to ever look for (see Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), Masonic Temple (disambiguation), Masonic Hall (disambiguation), and Scottish Rite Cathedral). Part of the problem is that Don does not know what he's doing and refuses to listen to people who do.

He has caused all sorts of trouble on List of Masonic buildings because he refuses to allow any sort of criteria for what the topic includes (a Masonic building he listed in CT actually went into the NRHP as a synagogue, and the one in Newtonville, MA is part of a historic district and is not itself listed as a building, just to name entries directly contradicted by the source documents). He has even gone so far as to stub the Scottish Rite building in Pasadena (Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California)) because "it almost got on the NRHP but the owner objected", which is a blatant violation of WP notability guidelines. Furthermore, Doncram's MO seem to be to create a stub, never touch it again, but vehemently defend its existence, claim he has found sources that he expects other people to look at, and then attacks other editors for not contributing because we're trying to not have a meaningless mess, or when he is reported to a board, he accuses other editors of canvassing, and constantly derails discussions on talk pages Talk:List of Masonic buildings. I'd note that his pattern of behavior seems to extend to all NRHP-related items.

I've prodded a few of the egregious things, but it's going to take weeks at this rate to sort it all out. Therefore, I ask that admin action be taken to delete all his Masonic building stubs and dabs, and that measures are put in place to prevent him from editing building articles - we're ending up with a lot of meaningless garbage that people are never going to look for, because either the titles are wrong, or in the grand scheme of things, the building's NRHP listing really isn't all that notable and there's no information.

Compounding the problem is that no one else can easily get to the documentation that Doncram claims he is using, when in fact he is generating article titles and information merely off of the front page entry in the NRIS DB and not from the full listing documentation itself unless he has found it elsewhere. The two places I mentioned above happened to actually have the material available - many others did not). This is why don only has dates and very basic information for 98% of his material, and then he expects other people to pick up the work he started and got nowhere near finishing. He has even gone so far as to stub two articles, post about it on the talk for List of Masonic buildings, and ask other people to go do stuff to fill out the article. I'd note that both in question are two-line stubs. "Articles" like that should not come out of userspace, period. doncram's behavior is detrimental to the encyclopedia because it's raising the noise level of the encyclopedia, it needs to stop, and regular users cannot control him. His attitude indicates his actions are done with deliberate intent. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this any different from what was discussed here a few days ago? David Biddulph (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a follow on, there has been a lot of activity overnight, and Doncram has chosen yet again to play the players, rather than the ball.

ALR (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, what exactly is the consensus on NRHP buildings? Are they notable by default or not? If not, these should be bulk-nominated for deletion where no other argument is given for notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be an assumption within the project that they are, based on precedent set by a number of majority votes in AfD for keeping them. The associated assertion is that getting something to NRHP (or similar) listing requires the existence of substantive, multiple discussions in sources independent of the topic. That assertion has not yet been evidenced.

ALR (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Within which project? Misplaced Pages? Was that ever discussed in itself? Honest question here, as I'd like to make sure I understand exactly what our notability guidelines say about American buildings. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, within the NRHP project. It's an issue that has come up in the subject article as some of us with an interest in Freemasonry questioned the apparent indiscriminate creation of lots of stub article littered with weasel words about possible masonic association and a dearth of credible sources. One of the main challenges is that while the Register itself is online in a couple of different forms there don't appear to be references to the supporting materials.

ALR (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress - this user seems to be contributing to that progress. Stubs are nothing bad - they are a good thing, as some information on a topic is better than none, and they provide a place for others to add more information in the future.--Kotniski (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There certainly is a problem at this stage in the game of users inventing new notability guidelines and unilaterally invoking them to add dozens or more unsourced stubs, especially where said stubs are created from content which was deleted while it was one list due to lack of notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Was there ever a deletion discussion?--Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on June 13, here, which was June 13, result was no consensus. MSJapan (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

- You need to revisit the "lack of notability" edits. Don't take the edit summaries as gospel. As shown below, they aren't gospel at all.
  Furthermore: I've encountered this argument about sourcing being put forward by Doncram before, at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Naming conventions for United States federal buildings. It's not an entirely unreasonable one. I'll try to paraphrase. NRHP entries, in order to become entries in the first place, have to be documented. By 36 CFR 60.6 nominations for the Register are required to be "adequately documented" and "technically, professionally, and procedurally correct". If you read any of the published books on how places are listed on the Register, they all explain that listings require full and complete documentation, warning that the state and federal agencies will have all entries reviewed by professional historians for accuracy and completeness. (As explained here, both state and federal agencies employ staff historians for this purpose.) Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  - There is a difference between adequate documentation and the General Notability Guideline around substantive discussion in multiple sources independent of the topic. All it means is that the paperwork has been completed.
    A number of times we've been told that supporting material exists, but despite asking the question of those with access to the material very few such references, if any, have really been provided. It leaves me somewhat sceptical that much exists.
    I'd also ask, is it particularly productive to call into question the motives of other editors, as you have done below by raking up material from four years ago. All of the recent debate around the notability of buildings, whether as architectural and historical curiosities or as masonic ritual spaces, has been predicated around wikipedia policy and guideline. I'd also contextualise your use of a short discussion in my own talk space by identifying that was at the same time that there was discussion of allowing the use of professional credentials as a proxy for evidence. something that I personally argued very strongly against at the time.
    I make no apology for being quite rigorous around expectations of evidence and avoidance of personal analysis in articles. I do, however, recognise that frequently majority opinons will outweigh the application of policy and guidance since Misplaced Pages editors are, after all, human.
    ALR (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    - The edit by Blueboar that I pointed to was made 10 days ago not four years ago, and its motives, given the facts of the building versus what was stated in the edit summary, are very much to be questioned. Similarly, MSJapan is pointing to articles created in June 2009 as somehow evidence of a bad faith campaign in a July 2010 dispute. The bringing of that to this noticeboard, tag-teaming with Blueboar bringing it to this same noticeboard four days ago, is something that we're going to consider, alongside all of the previous times that there's been such tag-teaming against another single editor over freemasony-related issues in order to gain article ownership. If you thought that MSJapan's report was going to be accepted on its face, without examination, and people were just going to uncritically support ganging up on Doncram, you were wrong. That often doesn't happen, here. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      - Seven examples from 2006 and 2007? Was it really worth the effort to dig them out? Accusations of meatpuppetry? Are you really suggesting that is in any way productive?
        Anyway, you'll note that notwithstanding this particular issue there does appear to be a growing majority opinion that the article in question is indeed probably inappropriately themed. that's a point that I've been making repeatedly of late.
        The request for a mass deletion is probably not best directed here, but there is probably mileage in culling the weasel words, and personal analysis in many of the articles created by Doncram.
        Like I say, I make no apology for rigour and application of the policies. Not everyone feels the same way in certain topic areas.
        ALR (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
        Yes, because the three of you are still doing this, after five years. Uncle G (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for at least being honest about the fact that you've decided to make this personal, rather than about compliance with policy and guideline. It's useful to be clear about motivation in your position.

ALR (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If one is going to get upset at people starting articles for NRHP entries, then one should get upset at all of the people listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#Members, including Juliancolton, Toddst1, and others. I also note that the above account is somewhat disingenuous. "He has even gone so far as to stub the Scottish Rite building in Pasadena Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California)" it is claimed. If Doncram did that in order to win the July 2010 dispute over List of Masonic buildings, then xe was amazingly prescient in doing so, given that xe performed the action being complained of in June 2009.

For the benefits of people who don't know the history here, there's a large sackful of salt to consume: MSJapan, ALR, and Blueboar have a half-decade long history of trying to own anything freemasonry-related. These were the editors who tried three times to get Jahbulon (AfD discussion) (2nd discussion) (3rd discussion) deleted, and went over to Wiktionary to try to get wikt:Jahbulon deleted there (wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/January 2006#Jahbulon and the meatpuppet parade at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Jahbulon) as well. It's not exactly surprising that they are in conflict yet again, over another freemasonry article that they want deleted (AFD discussion) or, failing that, to own. (Compare Masonic Landmarks (AfD discussion) and William Guy Carr (AfD discussion).)

Reading edits like this one does make one wonder whether there isn't, once again, an unstated article ownership agenda at work here. Apparently the Montreal Masonic Memorial Temple, headquarters of the Grand Lodge of Quebec and documented by the Grand Lodge itself, is not "notable... either for being Masonic or for any other reason". The reason for that edit cannot possibly be what is in the edit summary, given the facts about the building.

And some final historical context, from those who have been trying to divert this onto a discussion of Doncram's assertion that these three are "close to the topic of Freemasonry": This is not in dispute. None of the "Freemason three" dispute being freemasons. Indeed, see User:ALR/Credentials. That discussion is a complete red herring. Uncle G (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And is there any identifiable reason (legitimate or otherwise) why freemasons don't want masonic buildings listed on Misplaced Pages? Are they supposed to be secret locations or something?--Kotniski (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Grand Lodge of Quebec doesn't seem to think that its HQ is a secret. ☺ It's a fairly big building, and they aren't Shiwan Khan. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe the buildings are secret - a lot of them have masonic symbols carved on them. (And I'd ask the guy I know who's a freemason, except he doesn't know I know). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate venue for discussing notability standards. I'm a member of the NRHP group, and have created around a thousand articles on subjects within that topic, in most cases with multiple references and clear notability. Doncram has a more minimalist approach, which I and other members of the NRHP project have criticized, In general, the consensus of deletion discussions has been that National Register properties can successfully sustain an assertion of notability by virtue of their documentation from multiple sources in the NRHP nomination (which is a secondary source for the most part), its review by the National Park Service and state historic preservation officers, and acceptance onto the list. This is no different in principal from Misplaced Pages's acceptance of every school as notable (something I personally disagree with) or creation of stub articles on the geography of Hungary, although it is, in fact, more likely to be expanded and has a solid base of research to reference. The only problem is that only less than half the sites presently have extensive on-line documentation.

Doncram has done extensive work on disambiguation, which is sheer drudgery as far as I'm concerned, but is a part of making an encyclopedia. He sees a lot of criticism along the lines of "this will never be expanded" or "this will always be a redlink." Redlinks aren't toxic, and I've made a lot of them blue. It's part of writing an encyclopedia. I have three NRHP-related DYK's in queue, two of which arose from a single redlink in Wyoming and one from a 40x expansion of a two-sentence stub. We have many prolific stub creators; it's not to my taste, but it provides structure and context to the encyclopedia. Not everything can be an FA, or even more than a start.

I see nothing that requires administrative action here. I have disagreed vehemently with Doncram's minimalist approach, going so far as to certify an RfC on duplicate stub articles on locales and historic districts and his approach to resolving overlap, and to informally mediate a long disagreement over places in Connecticut; he has some ownership issues of his own. We are writing an encyclopedia, and some things start small, from a basic structure. Doncram is doing nothing wrong by creating articles. I would like for him to take a less basic approach, but that isn't a motivation for sanction or a rationale for deletion. As for the lists and their criteria or terminology, it appears to be a matter for an RfC. Acroterion _(talk) 12:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My position is probably best captured in this comment from yesterday discussing Notability. There are issues of proportionality and emphasis, also the availability of evidence to support assertions. There are instances of weasel wording in many of the stubs, which reflect the lack of available sources.

I personally have fairly significant concerns, articulated here and here for example.

The main issue that has prompted this is more about attitude and approach, we've been working to try to find a solution, but there discussion frequently goes so far, and then reverts back to unsupported assertions and claims. A lot of it is a lack of understanding and a personal focus, and that's fair enough. This is where I've tried to suggest some options, but having tried that several times it's clear that there is an unwillingness to actually go firm on how to make progress.

I'm not entirely convinced that wholesale deletion is the way ahead, that risks a baby/ bathwater situation. But each of these articles should really reflect the emphasis, and wind down on the masonic issue where there is no supporting evidence.

ALR (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, there definitely isn't any reason Masons wouldn't want Masonic buildings on Misplaced Pages -- the long-term discussion has been about what makes a Masonic building. A building that was built as a lodge but is now a coffeehouse? (See also Masonic Temple (Providence, Rhode Island)) A church where a lodge meets after selling their unmaintainable, non-ADA-compliant 3-story building with no elevator? Buildings that appendent organizations built, like the Scottish Rite Cathedral mentioned above? It's a tough question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps the whole idea of a "List of Masonic buildings" is flawed? There should be (perhaps more than one) such list with clear inclusion criteria in the title, since there's no way we could ever build a single complete list of every Masonic (in some sense) building in the world. One such list could be of NRHP-listed Masonic buildings, for example.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Side note, the Masonic buildings debate has finally forced us to come to some discussion about how to evaluate the inclusion standards for lists due to various venues being asked questions by those involved in the masonic building dispute. (It's now far enough separated from the Masonic buildings to be its own question to ask)

While that's all nice and all - I'm not seeing the ANI need here, especially given the entrenchment of both sides based on what I've had to come and read here due to the list issue above. I strongly suggest other means of dispute resolution such as mediation or - at worst - ArbCom. Admins can help if there is behavior during such cases that has been urged to be stopped while the case is pending, but not at the present time. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The situation at List of Masonic buildings is a collision between two immovable forces:

Doncram has created hundreds --indeed, probably thousands -- of "articles" based solely on individual entries in the National Register of Historic Places' National Record Information System database. While it can be presumed that significant documentation exists for any property listed on the National Register (and that the property thus is notable by the GNG), I and a number of other contributors have repeatedly complained about the largely content-free stub articles created on the basis of NRIS. There also has been a lot of recent contention regarding the disambiguation pages he has created for National Register properties, in which Doncram has not deemed it necessary for each entry to include a blue link to an article that provides content on the linked item. Several contributors are embroiled in long-term and complex conflicts with Doncram over matters unrelated to Masonic buildings (I include myself in that group, along with User:Polaron, User:Station1, and recently User:Dudemanfellabra). I believe Doncram would say that all of these disputes are due to fundamental personality defects in the other contributors -- he's OK, but he comes into numerous other people who aren't. Yesterday I accused him (at User talk:Polaron of being a dog in the manger in guarding -- but refusing to improve or productively discuss -- his cr*ppy content-free stub articles. Misplaced Pages has been pretty gentle with Doncram, presumably because he's a productive contributor in many other ways and he has some good friends here.
Meanwhile, there are several contributors who are members of Masonic bodies (several of whom have commented here) who are strongly protective of the word "Masonic" (their comments sometimes make it seem as if this word were a trademark that can only be used by initiated members of a Masonic body) and all topics related to Freemasonry. As I have stated (at length, I fear) on Talk:List of Masonic buildings, I believe that some of their positions regarding Misplaced Pages content are in direct conflict with Misplaced Pages policies including WP:V and WP:NOT. I hasten to point out that (as with Doncram) these are productive good-faith contributors whose viewpoints receive (and deserve) a lot of deference.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the current situation at List of Masonic buildings. Apparently the list article had existed for a long time before Doncram got involved in expanding it -- essentially to include all properties listed in NRIS with the word "Masonic" in their name. IMO, that was a meaningful basis for a list (as I argued in my "delete" comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Masonic buildings). Some Freemasonry editors particularly didn't like it -- apparently because they hold the view that "Masonic" topics can be Misplaced Pages-notable topics only if the topic has significance within the framework of Freemasonry (and buildings apparently do not have any significance in Freemasonry). Since the listing of "Masonic buildings" is a fairly inconsequential article topic, one would not expect it to lead to such a significant dispute, but Doncram has been unusually persistent in continuing to "push" the list, while Freemasonry editors have been indefatigable in their efforts to stop him... --Orlady (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we got very protective back in the days of WP:Long-term abuse/Lightbringer, and it never really wore off. In addition, we try to strike a balance between "regular" Masonry, "irregular" Masonry, and "we'll-call-it-that-because-it-sounds-cool" Masonry -- and sometimes, that's not easy to do. Heck, even "regular" Masons don't agree on some things; the Forget-me-not issue generated a great deal of heat at one point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I've taken a long time away having become pretty disillusioned by the sustained and intrusive personal abuse by certain other editors. This looked pretty straightforward and clear cut when I saw it coming up and thought it would be worth expressing an opinion on.

ALR (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

9ec) Again, I don't see anything wrong with creating stub articles, be it 1 or 1000, regardless of whether you yourself have any intention of working on them further. A stub is a (small) added value, which also provides the opportunity for others to add more significant value. (The problem with the list seems to be one that will always occur when we start an open-ended list whose inclusion criteria can't possibly be exactly as defined in its title - probably this kind of problem needs to be discussed in more general terms somewhere.) --Kotniski (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with Doncram creating stubs... I do have a problem with his behavior when people raise questions about them... or about other material that has added. He exhibits a strong case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when you note problems and WP:OWNership, and quickly exhibits a lack of Good Faith when people disagree with him. He tends to attack the messenger instead of addressing the message. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff written above, and i can't/won't respond to it all in detail. A lot is repetitive to many of 85 or 90 discussion sections already opened on Masonic buildings' talk page and in the AFDs and noticeboard discussions. I was not specifically aware of the specific cases linked above, where tag-team-type behavior of Masonic-focused editors played out, but i am not at all surprised. I may browse those previous cases sometime later. I also appreciate the support in statements by several above.

I'll point out the following, at risk of being further accused of making things personal by the mere fact that I am commenting about another person's behavior. I do feel a bit harassed by other editors at times, but I don't think I take things too personally or attribute a whole lot to "personality defects" of others. I have certainly expressed some impatience or anger at times (and sometimes have apologized for some of my Talk statements). I believe my Masonic-building-related edits in mainspace have been productive, and also that my participation in Talk page discussions has been generally constructive. But I do not have a perfect answer, about how to engage constructively with one or a few editors here.

MSJapan, here, appears angry about developments at Talk:List of Masonic buildings where I had just opened discussion sections about two specific Masonic buildings, honestly trying to change the focus of the Talk page to talk about the actual subject of the article. And, per his opening statement, he felt it obvious that Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), Scottish Rite Cathedral, Scottish Rite Cathedral (Pasadena, California), and Masonic Building dab pages and articles should be deleted, because in four edits around the time of opening this incident report, he prodded them all. This is angry-seeming behavior. Several related dab pages including the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Masonic Lodge (disambiguation)#Masonic Lodge (disambiguation) one had previously been AFDd and Kept; i am not checking now how much MSJapan had participated in all the related AFDs but I think it would be reasonable to expect that MSJapan should have been aware of them and all the arguing around them. For the 3 dabs another editor removed two of the prods and MSJapan himself removed one. I just removed the last (for the Pasadena article, whose notability i suggest should be discussed at its Talk page rather than here).

As recent background, MSJapan also previously intervened to impose himself in a administrative/mediation type role about a reference formatting issue (the NRIS reference brouhaha), in Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 2#Solution time and Talk:List of Masonic buildings/Archive 2#Decision. I at first welcomed his intervention and tried to support his taking authority, but found that his entering into specific arguments seemed unreasonable and to take him out of a mediation-type role, and said so. You may consult the archived discussions for how that played out. (I am pretty amazed there should be 3 archives of a simple list-article like this one!) The upshot was that MSJ's preferences were not met, and ultimately a revised footnote formed by Orlady was put in place.

I think this ANI incident report, and prods of appropriate dab pages, provide further examples of strong ownership and wrong views strongly held, despite plenty of previous discussion and available guidelines and policies. Arguing the dabs should be deleted is uninformed and wrong by Misplaced Pages policy, guidelines and practice. I'll stop here. I recognize there are other accusations within the comments by others above, but I think this responds somewhat to MSJapan's original report. There are other accusations in MSJ's original report (like erroneous statements about my "MO" and predictions that various articles will never be developed) that i am not going into. Please let me know if I should comment further about anything specific, in regards to resolving/closing this ANI report. --doncram (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the distinction made between there being sources available and there being sources available online. I believe that knowing that there are sources available that support notability for all things on the NRHP is the reason I and AFAIK the rest of Wikiproject NRHP automatically assumes notability for anything listed. I believe that back before I even joined the project this was repeatedly tested and proven to be the case, with AfD's resolved in that manner. More and more documents are available online every day. Anything not available online is available in either electronic or paper format by contacting the NPS. Details about how to do this are have been minutely documented at the wikiproject and elsewhere, mostly by Doncram. When I travel, I print the NRHP lists for places I'm going, and I take pictures of the places I'm near. Sometimes I add the pictures to just the state or county list, sometimes to an existing article, and sometimes I create a stub. If the document is available online, I create a proper reference for it. But, if the document is not available online, I have/do/will create a stub referencing the database we use as a shortcut to create the stubs. I realize there is disagreement, even among the wikiproject, about what level a stub should be allowed to exist at. I am personally pro-stub, as nothing makes me happier than to find a ready made place to add a picture or text, and I presume that it helps attract new editors, which I hear Misplaced Pages needs.
As far as this particular disagreement over this particular article, I've been trying valiantly to ignore it. This is the kind of thing reducing my participation in Misplaced Pages, but, I will point out, that Blueboar and others are just as immovable as Doncram. They may see him as refusing to answer the questions, but what I see is him refusing to answer the questions again and again and agaian, just because they didn't like the way he answered them in the first place. They're all (both sides) just saying the same thing over and over and over, but the fact is that the one who stops saying it first loses on Misplaced Pages, and I've yet to figure out how else to deal with it either. You just keep saying it until you tire the other guy out, or you move away from that topic and find some other way to contribute, ignoring the fact that soemthing you worked hard on and/or felt strongly about has been ripped to shreds.
Every complaint being aimed at Doncram I've seen him level at others in other situations and vice versa. They are all productive editors passionate about their subjects. That they sometimes don't understand each others ways of contributing is evident. It's a shame that they can't just let each other get on with it. The whole point of a wiki is to let people do what they are good at and enjoy doing and to wind up in the end with a strong and cohesive whole. So I wish everyone would quit insisting that others do something their way. In this case everyone wants Doncram to better develop this particular set of NRHP articles to satisfy the Masons. In the situation Orlady mentions above where she called him a dog in the manger (wrongly in my view) it's historic district articles in a Connecticut. It's often all the articles on a given disambiguation page. Doncram develops articles. He also develops a framework to attract others to develop articles. Neither he nor any other single person can bring all of the NRHP articles (80,000+) up to the level we all want for them quickly enough to satisfy every group that an editor as active as Doncram is comes in contact with. Does he seem to be embroiled in a lot of conflict? Yes, it sometimes does. But, that's because he contributes SO MUCH, and touches so many areas. He's not just dealing with other people in some given area. He deals with wave after wave of disambiguation editors unfamiliar with tediously negotaiated agreements at that projects page, he deals with editors only interested in their own corner of the world, and with those trying to insiste that they do things the same way everyone else does even when it doesn't fit their corner, he stumbles unaware into conflicts between the way different projects do things all the time. Often they are settled easily and amicably, and sometimes it is harder. This one with the Masons is harder. I can personally remember other times when there's been conflict, but I don't honestly remember which ones were resolved amicable and which ones not in all cases. NRHPs touch everything. They touch ships and parks and monuments and states and cities and counties and places that aren't states and planes and things that move from place to place and things with the same name as each other and things with the same name as someplace not on the NRHP and windmills and Civil War era sites and Revolutionary War era sites and they generate DYK fodder...........It is a ridiculous waste of everyone's time and energy to constantly distract everyone with this type of discussion, IMO. Lvklock (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So it's not an issue at all that while we are trying to discuss inclusion criteria for a list article on a type of building, that don's stubbing articles based solely on the name of the building it might have had at one time without actually looking at the source paperwork? It comes down to indiscriminate addition and sidestepping process, which is detrimental to the encyclopedia. Don is minimizing his side of the argument - he may contribute a lot, but if it isn't done properly and isn't in compliance with WP guidelines and policies, what good is it? for example, the Scottish Rite building in Pasadena that Don created last year (not that one could tell, as it's exactly the same level of depth as the articles he made yesterday), clearly states that it is not on the NRHP. What more proof do we need of non-notability? Nevertheless, I've had to take the article to AfD because don removed it. He wants to discuss notability, and yet he found nothing in a year to prove anything. The article itself has had maybe five edits to it. Why does no one see that this is a content and behavior problem? Instead, we've got people claiming it's a question of ownership. What we have is a list that is so big it's unruly (which contradicts LIST and NOT), populated with entries that we have no usable sources for (against WP:V), done by someone who, rather than do the work himself, expects others to clean up his mess, contrary to BURDEN. And all that's happening is that stub after stub is getting piled onto this list, when it has been demonstrated that the claims made on the list from the superficial review of sources that were done are inaccurate. Moreover, this whole "Masonic or not" mess is because what is a subjective term to those who know (and which is explained and illustrated as such in multiple articles like Freemasonry, Continental Freemasonry, and General list of masonic Grand Lodges) is being interpreted as objective and simple by those who do not understand it. Freemasonry is neither uniform nor universal, and when we try to pigeonhole it all into a blanket term like "Masonic building" we have problems. Instead of addressing the problem, don is piling stub after stub onto the list, and we have serious issues as to what his criteria are. He has never actually answered the question other than he did a search, which brings us right back to "I looked for it by name, and the rest you can look up yourself". The article creator is not doing due diligence at a basic level, ignores it when he gets caught, and keep on doing what he's doing. The reason we ask the same questions is because we never get a straight answer to them. We have tried mediating, going to boards, all this other stuff. None of it has worked, and the encyclopedia is continuing to be disrupted as a result. I could contribute a lot too if I ignored any criticisms of my contribs, but I stop and sort them out instead of making more of the same. A large quantity of junk is still junk, and it needs to be stopped by an outside party because the instigator is not stopping of his own volition. MSJapan (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

MSJapan (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

- From the peanut gallery. The definition of "Masonic building" here would also call for labeling every hotel, motel, VFW Hall and restaurant used in the world for Rotary Club meetings as "Rotary buildings") (ditto for the Elks, Toastmasters, etc...). Nuke the whole lot of 'em and start over with the ones that are well, actually notable as can be determined through multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  - You're conflating two different things. I suspect that onlookers are supposed to be being confused like this. After all, if I hadn't spoken up, we'd be back where the last discussion left off, chiding Doncram for claims that these three editors are close to the subject and taking this whole thing at face value alone.
    There are two separate things here, the list article of "masonic buildings" and the separate set of articles on NRHP buildings, some of which are masonic and some of which are not. The idea of notability applies to articles. It is verifiability and no original research that apply to the list article. Don't fall into the trap of mixing the one up with the other. Remember, the article that Doncram supposedly wrote to "pile onto" this list this was written, presciently, a full year before this dispute flared up. Montreal Masonic Memorial Temple, the article that Blueboar doesn't want listed as a "Masonic building", because it is not "notable... either for being Masonic or for any other reason", wasn't even written by Doncram at all. Xe's never even edited it. (Ironically, MSJapan has, putting it into the category of "masonic buildings" that xe now claims not to believe applies to this building.)
    This is not a case of "regular users" versus Doncram, with the "regular users" being on the side of policy and goodness and righteousness, as it is being painted to be by MSJapan above. This is a case of the "Freemason three" versus Doncram, in a situation that has occurred several times before, with people other than Doncram in the opposition seat.
    So don't buy into the notion that it's all about Doncram and the NRHP articles. As can be seen from the above, there are plenty of other editors who create these self-same articles. The list article is the focus of the dispute, here. Look at its back-and-forth edit history between Doncram and Blueboar, MSJapan, and ALR. Look at the same back-and-forth in the edit history of Masonic Temple. The NRHP articles, created by Doncram well outside of the present dispute, and by people other than Doncram, are not the real dispute. Uncle G (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Bali. AFAIK the Rotary did not have the same impact on the development of the communities across the country that the Masons did, which Doncram has mentioned frequently in the myriad discussions at the article in questions talk page. And, I have yet to encounter a building on the NRHP with the name Rotary Club in the listed name, so I doubt there would be a bunch from that source. Nor is there a large, active Rotary wikiproject that I have ever encountered.

In response to MSJapan, as far as "stubbing articles based solely on the name of the building it might have had at one time without actually looking at the source paperwork", it doesn't seem like a problem to me. I would say that the term Mason or Masonic in the name proeprly implies a Masonic connection. Why on earth would it be named that if it didn't? You seriously believe that perusal of the documents is going to prove there was never any connection to the Masons? Regarding "he may contribute a lot, but if it isn't done properly and isn't in compliance with WP guidelines and policies, what good is it?" I believe that stubs are perfectly within those guidelines and policies. About the "Scottish Rite building in Pasadena...clearly states that it is not on the NRHP. What more proof do we need of non-notability?" What it clearly states is that it qualified for inclusion on the NRHP (and thus met the standards of notability) but was not included per the wishes of the owners. So, by your definition it is not notable because its owners wish it not to be. I wish some real estate I own were not valuable so I wouldn't have to pay so high taxes on it, but that doesn't make it so. And you say "He wants to discuss notability, and yet he found nothing in a year to prove anything." He found nothing in a year because he wasn't looking for it. He created a stub (which is perfectly acceptable, and what he chooses to do with his talents in this wiki) and left it for someone whose choice it was to further develop it to do so. When forced to defend it he readily and quickly found another source and added it. He could spend a year and not be able to run through and do that with every stub he's ever started in pursuit of HIS process of establishing a framework for article (especially NRHP) development. You ask, "Why does no one see that this is a content and behavior problem?" I can't speak for everyone, and I don't believe that's accurate, but I don't see it as a problem because STUBS ARE AN ALLOWED AND USEFUL PART OF DEVELOPING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THIS KIND. Indeed, my understanding is that they were welcomed and sought after at the beginning of Misplaced Pages. That Wikiproject NRHP may still be at an earlier stage of development than other areas of Misplaced Pages does not mean that it should not be allowed the same tools for development that other areas had use of. You say "Instead, we've got people claiming it's a question of ownership." Well, yes, everyone does seem to be saying that. You claim Doncram is trying to OWN the list. He claims you're trying to OWN the Masons. Of course everyone has their own viewpoint and perspective. You say the list is "populated with entries that we have no usable sources for (against WP:V)". What do you consider usable? Only something you can access by computer. Every NRHP document is available. And, he "expects others to clean up his mess" or he sees a work in progress that is being developed and will in time be the finished product everyone wants it to be now. Here, finally is something I can agree with you on..."what is a subjective term to those who know (and which is explained and illustrated as such in multiple articles like Freemasonry, Continental Freemasonry, and General list of masonic Grand Lodges) is being interpreted as objective and simple by those who do not understand it. Freemasonry is neither uniform nor universal, and when we try to pigeonhole it all into a blanket term like "Masonic building" we have problems." So, is the whole issue that we need to have one of those silly, convoluted, politically correct list names to satisfy those of you who "know" more than the rest of us who just want to see a list of what those of us in ignorance perceive to be Masonic buildings (like those with the word in the name, how naive of us to think there's a connection!)? How about "List of buildings perceived by the general public to have a Masonic connection"? You say, "the reason we ask the same questions is because we never get a straight answer to them." The reason you never get what you call a straight answer is because you're talking about kumquats and he's talking about pancakes, but you all insist on acting as if you think you're actually talking about the same thing. "We have tried mediating, going to boards, all this other stuff. None of it has worked" Did it ever occur to you that none of it has "worked" because no one is actually doing anything wrong? And, "the encyclopedia is continuing to be disrupted as a result." Well, yes. It's disrupted. You're annoyed. Doncram's annoyed. Blueboar's annoyed. I'm annoyed. And we all have perfectly valid reasons to be annoyed. Asfar as "I could contribute a lot too if I ignored any criticisms of my contribs", first, it seems you might be ignoring Doncrams criticisms of some of your contribs to this process. But, you might say, I don't feel the criticisms are valid, and so you'd ignore them. Just as Doncram would ignore criticisms he believed to be invalid. And further you go on, "but I stop and sort them out instead of making more of the same." If he were completely ignoring said criticisms why would there be so many entries signed by him on all of these discussion pages? "A large quantity of junk is still junk" Ah, but one man's junk is another man's traesure. "And it needs to be stopped by an outside party because the instigator is not stopping of his own volition." So, you get to be arbiter, and stop it all on your own. How very omnipotent and powerful of you. That must be fun. Lvklock (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the notability of Freemasonry (the organization) with the notability of their buildings... notability is WP:NOT#INHERITED. What is needed at the article in question are a) sources that establish that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable.... something that says that the concept of a "Masonic building" is notable. and b) sources that define what a "Masonic building" is (we can all give our own opinions about what a Masonic building is... but that is OR without sources), and c) sources that demonstrate that the individual buildings listed fit that sourced definition. That is what we have been asking Doncram to provide, and that is what he consistently refuses to provide. The NRHP listings that Doncram relies on do not establish that the topic of "Masonic buildings" is notable, they do not define "Masonic building" and they do not substantiate that a building IS a "Masonic building". For example, several of the buildings listed by the NRHP as "Anytown Masonic Temple" are no longer owned by the Masons... they were sold and have been converted into non-Masonic uses (Hotels, condominiums, office or commercial space, night clubs, etc.). So you can not go by the name listed in the NRHP. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But, they are still notable buildings that had a significant connection to the Masons. If, for example, it was built as a Masonic Temple then it clearly has historic association with the Masons. If Masons met there for 200 years, but they don't any more, there's still a connection. I very much doubt that anyone built a building that was never meant to be a Masonic lodge, never was one or never had any association with the Masons and on a whim decided to name it Anytown Masonic Temple. So explain in the article that the significance is not necessarily current significance to the Freemasons, or tweak the name of the list. There are hundreds of thousands of notable buildings just in the US. There are going to be lists of any number of subsets of them. Churches, tall ones, ones in certain cities, counties or states, ones designed by a given architect, ones built for a certain uses (like aquaria or train stations) or ones associated, either currently or historically, with an organization that helped to shape the country. Of course it's a notable topic. Lvklock (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an emerging thread that, subject to the availability of evidence, what might be an appropriate way ahead would be to change the title and topic of the article to be notable buildings with a (possible) association with Freemasonry. At the moment Doncram has avoided engaging with that suggestion. Any help you could offer in encouraging that would be useful.

ALR (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr Mukesh's sock

Just like yesterday's report here - another of the numerous socks of Dr Mukesh is back with the same edits on the Playback singer article, and he is Consistancyalways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

His name was already confirmed to be a sock by a CU on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.Mukesh111.

Could all the other accounts be blocked as well before he would be able to use them? Shahid • 09:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - He's been blocked. Shshshsh, reverting him thirteen times on the same page in slightly over an hour (w/Rollback?) is... okay, I guess? 3RR seems pretty clear to me. He's not a banned user whose edits can be reverted on sight, correct? Engaging in edit-warring, even with socks, is not a great thing to do. Jus' sayin'. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 11:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Vandalism is an exception but only "obvious vandalism – edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism", which this certainly wasn't. Although I appreciate the annoyance of dealing with a sock repeatedly reinstating edits, please don't break 3RR to remove them again. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

He is an indef blocked user. Why can't his edits be reverted on sight? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Because he's not explicitly banned. —Jeremy 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So the sock gets to play games while the people doing the work of keeping Misplaced Pages clean are the ones in danger of being blocked? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's best not play the game the socks are playing, because 3RR applies to everyone. Otherwise, people could just run around reverting without fear, constructively or not. He should have been reported after the fourth revert, and Rollback should not have been used... Doc9871 (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD edit war and pointy AfD

I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a quick look at a situation and determine if action is necessary. It all started when I BLPPRODed an article here yesterday. About 8 hours later, Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) inappropriately removed the BLPPROD tag without adding any sources. Later that day, 69.181.249.92 (talk · contribs) appropriately reinserted the BLPPROD tag. Following that, Kintetsu and 92 got into an edit war about the BLPPROD tag (). Finally, Kintetsu reverted for the fourth time (a WP:3RR violation), nominated the article for deletion at AfD (here), and tagged it for rescue (here). His AfD nomination rationale (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Salamat Sadykova) clearly states that he doesn't think the article should be deleted, but that he wants to take the article through the AfD process to prove that it's worthy of inclusion.
This is clearly a WP:POINTy AfD nomination. I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the AfD and determine if a speedy close is appropriate, as well as if any corrective actions need to be taken with regard to Kintetsubuffalo's edit warring. Thanks. SnottyWong 16:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

All I am going to say in my defense is you are attributing motives to me that are not my motives. I lived in Kyrgyzstan for two years, I know that the notables there receive little media coverage, especially southern Kyrgyzstan, and so are difficult to find internet source material on. Trigger-happy dive-bombing articles that make a clear statement of notability with PROD tags is what is clearly WP:POINTy, and a violation of the spirit of WP:Systemic bias. And changing a tag from PROD to AFD is not a fourth time, it is trying to find a new solution to the problem you are hellbent on creating.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You still clearly haven't read WP:BLPPROD. I'll say it one more time: PROD IS NOT THE SAME AS BLPPROD. BLPPROD is only for biographical articles which have zero reliable sources. That's the only reason it was BLPPRODed. Not because I hate Kyrgyzstan, not because I am trying to perpetuate systemic bias, and not because I don't like Salamat Sadykova. I have not accused you of having any particular motives at any time, but it seems that you are accusing me of PRODing the article because I'm a racist or something. SnottyWong 16:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to blame the writers of the BLPPROD proposal and policy for the confusion. Apart from the general BLP issue which causes otherwise reasonable people to take leave of their faculties, calling an irreversible deletion a "PROD" is setting up other editors for failure. We see this all the time in the pseudo-speedy deletion of images despite the longer pedigree and simpler execution of that process. Protonk (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, slow down. I am not accusing anyone of racism, that is the furthest thing from my mind and a card I never play. I have no beef with you or the IP, before yesterday I never saw the IP, and as for you, I enjoy reading your ripostes, I find we agree on a lot, even dig your username. What I am saying about your PROD tagging and about systemic bias regarding sourcing is that you are applying hasty non-solutions when better ones can be applied, as other editors even now are cleaning up the article rather than see it deleted. You attributed motives to me that are not mine, don't put that word in my mouth. This is not a battle, I just want you to slow down. This is an article worth saving and I was making no POINT. The author is on my watchlist as someone from the old neighborhood. At the end of this I don't want acrimony, I want a worthwhile article saved and improved. So far all I've gotten is bitten, but I will use good faith with you if you afford me the same.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You do not seem to be aware of how BLP prods work. The idea is that it is completely irrelevant whether someone meets notability criteria, it is that we no longer accept articles on living people without any reliable sources. The BLP prod gives 10 days for anyone to come up with a source and then it can be removed. It is explicitly stated that the prod should not be removed until sources are provided. As such AfD is not an alternative to a BLP prod in the same way that it is to a standard prod. Quantpole (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And I am saying there are better solutions than dumping tags onto articles that will get them deleted. The editor is infrequent and a non-native English speaker. Had I not been watching her page, it would have been deleted without a single finger lifted to help.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to try and change policy because what you've done is explicitly against it. Anyway, it seems that sources were relatively easy to find. If you had looked for sources instead of edit warring over the tag and just added one to the article you could have saved this nonsense. Quantpole (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD is not a "hasty non-solution" nor is it a way to pull the wool over the eyes of non-native English speakers. It's a policy, it's the way Misplaced Pages works. If you create a biographical article about a living person which doesn't have any reliable sources, then it's going to get BLPPRODed and deleted. It doesn't matter if the article is about Salamat Sadykova or Barack Obama. No sources = deletion. End of story. Please understand this in the future, and do not remove BLPPROD tags without adding sources to the article. It appears that your bad faith AfD will have to run its course after all. Of course, the article now risks actually getting deleted at AfD. Had you just added sources and removed the BLPPROD tag, it would not have been in danger of being deleted. I guess we'll see how it all pans out. SnottyWong 16:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As sources have been added, it's no longer eligible for BLPPROD, and as there's an outstanding delete vote, the AfD is not eligible for speedy keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a good question here about BLPPROD. With a normal PROD, an AfD supersedes the PROD and would replace it. With BLPPROD, the tag should not be removed for any reason until a source is added. Should an AfD be allowed on an article with BLPPROD? I think it should be allowable, but that should probably be discussed at WT:BLPPROD.

Now, was Kintetsubuffalo wrong to remove the tag? Over and over again? 100% yes. If he was unaware of BLPPROD, hopefully he understands it now and won't do this again in the future. The edit war over this matter in particular is pretty bad and he should be admonished for that.

Is the AfD pointy? I don't think so, an AfD is an attempt to start a deletion discussion on an article, and clearly Kintetsubuffalo wants that discussion to take place so I think the AfD creation is honest. The AfD could be seen as an end-run around the BLPPROD deletion, but again I think that it should be okay here, especially as it was done not long after the tag was in place (so a 7 day AfD would only mean the article takes an extra day to be deleted if it closed with that result).

I don't think that Kintetsubuffalo was accusing racism here; systemic bias is an acknowledged and easily found phenomenon here at Misplaced Pages. He was only pointing out that finding resources for a person in Kyrgyzstan can be inherently difficult and doesn't necessarily indicate that the subject isn't notable. I ran into a similar situation myself trying to improve an article for a prominent entertainer in Afghanistan. That doesn't mean that we get to wave away our need for sources, especially for a BLP, and you're correct about that SnottyWong. But don't take the systemic bias remark the wrong way, I think it's still a legitimate concern.

Kintetsubuffalo's actions have ultimately led to sources being added, so I think we're seeing a good conclusion, but I will state that he doesn't have any call to say that the deletion should be done "the right way" when clearly he didn't know what the "right way" to handle BLPPROD was. An acknowledgment of the mistake might be helpful here. -- Atama頭 16:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- Without commenting on the specific events, yes, AfD is the right escalation point for a contested BLPPROD. PROD processes' defining characteristic is lightweight--AfD is for full discussions or disputed events. It should be perfectly acceptable, and perhaps just standard practice, to respond to an unsourced BLPPROD tag removal with an immediate AfD nomination. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I described the AfD as WP:POINTy is because he nominated an article for deletion while simultaneously believing that the article should not be deleted. This is bad faith editing, disruptive, and a waste of time for people who contribute to AfD's. No one was challenging the notability of this person in the first place, so to start a deletion discussion about it is irrelevant and pointless. SnottyWong 16:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Nominating an article for deletion doesn't require you want the article deleted, necessarily -it can just mean that one wants to gauge the community's pulse on the article. It is always healthy to seek for wider consensus, and I see it as a good faith gesture: putting your article under judgement to see what is the outcome. Kintetsubuffalo didn't handle the thing well, but in the end the AfD did only good. --Cyclopia 16:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cyclopia. Also, to Jclemens and Atama, Misplaced Pages:BLPPROD#Objecting discusses the appropriate way to challenge a BLPPROD. AfD is appropriate for a disputed situation (i.e. where a source has been added but its reliability is disputed). In clear-cut cases where there are zero sources, I don't think removing the BLPPROD tag and starting an AfD is appropriate. SnottyWong
17:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- The beauty of an escalation to AfD is that everyone knows what an AfD is and does. BLPPROD is still our most novel and least well understood deletion process. If it was really harmful, it should be deleted by G10, so edit-warring over a BLPPROD tag shouldn't be for something really important, and I see AfD is the path of least resistance to an appropriate deletion process that everyone is likely to understand. Jclemens (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  - AfD isn't mentioned anywhere in BLPPROD, and I think it should be. If an AfD shouldn't be started until a source is located for the article, that should be mentioned. If an AfD can replace the BLPPROD and be used to contest it, that should also be mentioned. I don't think it's clear either way. -- Atama頭 17:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD is mentioned at Misplaced Pages:BLPPROD#Objecting. SnottyWong 17:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it is mentioned there. But it's still not clear, it mentions that in the case where a source has been added but the source is questionable, the article should be taken to AfD. But there's nothing stating, or even implying that you can't take it to AfD unless there's a source present. Basically, the policy right now is saying that if the BLPPROD tag can technically be removed because there's now a source, but you still think the source doesn't cut it, you should bring to AfD because the article's suitability for inclusion is still in doubt. As I'm reading the policy now, I believe that it suggests that an AfD can be started for an article with a BLPPROD tag (because it doesn't say it can't be) but you still have to leave the tag on the article until a source is added. That can lead to an awkward situation where an AfD discussion begins, but the BLPPROD expires and the article is deleted before the discussion concludes. I don't think that's a good thing. I still think there should be more clarity. -- Atama頭 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to note that even the originally prodded article did refer to three sources--not very good sources, but if an exact citation had been given they are no worse than the sources in many bios of musicians. I would have placed a BLP improve tag, not a BLP prod. A BLP prod is not appropriate if there are sources, even poor or incomplete ones. But my view is that both parties are equally at fault-- not just for edit-warring, but for not adding proper sources when they could so easily have been added. I do not think it reasonable to place a BLPProd tag for an article which indicates likely notability and reasonable sourceability without at least doing a preliminary check for sources. Yes, the original ed. should have done it first, but the way to improve inadequate articles is to improve them. Yes, placing a BLPProd tag is such circumstances is permitted. I think it should

not be permitted--I think WP:BEFORE should be required for any deletion process, and I continue to hope to obtain consensus on this. But although it is still permitted to ignore it, it is neither productive nor cooperative to do so. Cooperative behavior should be expected in a cooperative project with a common goal. This totally unnecessary discussion here ,and somewhere between half and three-quarters of the BLP Prods, would be eliminated if people did this. The very purpose of BLP Prod is to avoid the possible harm from unsourced BLP articles by getting articles sourced, & removed quickly if unsourceable.

And I think it's ridiculous, as pure wikilawyering and bureaucracy, to leave a prod tag or a BLP tag on an article when taking it to AfD. ; it serves no conceivable purpose & confuses the two processes. Any good faith editor has the right to a community discussion. On the absence of a unambiguous rule, IAR will do, in its appropriate role when there is no clear rule, since facilitating community discussion improves the encyclopedia--I suppose the way to clarify this is to amend the wording of the BLP Prod rule to specifically say so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Statement by involved editor - I came across Salamat Sadykova because it was listed at User:PSBot/Deprods. As anyone who reviews my contributions can verify, I've routinely double checked such articles to see if further action was appropriate. There's a string of edits to such articles as Romain Gazave, Harry B. Flood Middle School, Red Shore Redemption, Xilinx ISE, Virginie Dechenaud, etc. that I edited as a result. I checked this particular article, saw the it had been BLPProded, had the prod tag removed but no sources added, and reinstated the prod tag. Kintetsubuffalo again removed the prod with the reason that "already deprodded once today, AFD it if you want, but do it correctly this time." Since reinstating the BLP prod is the correct way, I once again reinstated the prod with a note that it should not be removed until a source was provided. Kintetsubuffalo reverted. I once again reinstated the prod tag with a link to the proper policy page and dropped note on the user's talk page pointing to the correct policy and even quoting the relevant line. Kintetsubuffalo removed it without comment and again removed the prod and initiated an AFD with the comment "we're going to do this the proper way, whether you like it or not." To me that indicated the belief that I was acting in bad faith. Rather than continuing the revert war over the prod tag, I took my objections to the AFD page. This all could have been averted if Kintetsubuffalo had followed policy and either added a source or allowed the prod to remain. End of story. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

PS - apparently there was an edit conflict betwixt myself and DGG, but because I was editing only the section there was no edit conflict warning when I saved. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I appreciate your comments and I have been making a better effort to source BLP's rather than BLPPROD them during newpage patrols. I have even done exactly that earlier today, on Emma Brown Garett. However, I made a judgement call on this particular article, mostly because the article itself was terrible and appeared to be a copyvio of a source that I couldn't find. Since I didn't have the time or motivation to rewrite this article from scratch (which was the only way to improve it, in my opinion), I decided not to waste my time sourcing it and instead BLPPROD it. As far as I know, simply referring to a source without actually citing it (i.e. "According to the New York Times, Snottywong is a genius") does not count as a reliable source as required by WP:BLPPROD, and therefore I assert that the prod was correct. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know. SnottyWong 20:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the statement, "appeared to be a copyvio of a source that I couldn't find"... How could it appear to be a copyvio of something if you can't find it? If you had something to compare, doesn't that mean it's available? Maybe you mistyped but that statement spins my head around. -- Atama頭 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Atama, it is very possible for an article to be copied from elsewhere without the source being readily discoverable. It's sometimes obvious, such as when a whole block of text is added that includes ref notes without accompanying refs. Other times it's not so obvious, which is why tags such as Template:Copyvio link and Template:Cv-unsure exist. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do a lot of newpage patrolling, and I run into copyvios on a regular basis. There are various tell-tale signs of copyvios, of which this article displayed several. So, while I wasn't able to locate the source of the copyvio, I strongly suspected that it was copied from somewhere. That's why I BLPPRODed it instead of trying to speedy delete it for copyvio. SnottyWong 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority of copyright violations which aren't detected as a verbatim copy by Coren are picked out by tone. After reading/writing enough copy for wikipedia you can pretty easily pick out what doesn't belong or what wasn't written on the spot as a summary of sources. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this has gotten sidetracked from the purpose of this report, which is the actions regarding the removal of the BLP prod and potential pointyness of the AFD. A larger issue is whether or not Kintetsubuffalo is now sufficiently aware of the relevant policy. I have concerns about his/her unwillingness to respond to legitimate issues raised on their talk page, as shown by their reversion of posts on topics they don't wish to discuss, and the "House Rules" that seem to indicate a tendency to ignore people s/he doesn't like and WP:OWNership over said talk page, but those are for a different discussion. If the relevant issues have been sufficiently discussed, then this thread should be closed. If not, then perhaps a course of action could be suggested for further progress. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on his latest comment above, Kintetsubuffalo is fully aware of policy; the residual problem is BLP prodding of clearly notable and probably sourceable people without troubling to search or think about alternative ways of handling. (I'm not in particular referring to this particular article or any of the editors involved right here; the problem is more general.). This can be best handled by a policy change. one sentence "an appropriate use of relevant portions of BEFORE is required before initiating deletion process" The details of "appropriate" can be expanded if necessary, the immediate point is the principle. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I can understand the confusion that happened here. I've entered many regular PROD's and contested a few, but wasn't up on the subtleties of BLPPROD til now. Maybe BLPPROD should be renamed to BLP-MUST-SOURCE-OR-DELETE to get the point across. I don't agree with DGG about requiring "BEFORE" before BLPPROD. That goes against the whole WP verifiability principle which says that 100% of the burden of sourcing is on the person who wants to include the material. At most it's ok to suggest it as a courtesy. I don't believe keeping scantily-sourced BLP stubs is good for wikipedia either. WP articles are required to give the neutral point of view, which means summarizing all significant facts and viewpoints about the subject by due weight. Googling the person and including the first random fact you can document and calling that a "biography" doesn't cut it, no matter how well-sourced that one fact is. We don't have a neutral article until we've researched the subject thoroughly enough to say in good faith that we've found all the significant facts and viewpoints and included them with citations. That means IMHO that we should not have BLP stubs at all. If DGG is going to talk about changing policy, I'd counter his/her suggestion with one that every new BLP should be start-class or better before we accept it into article space, maybe only by consensus through a kind of reverse-AFD process that includes a neutrality evaluation. We have way too many BLP's, we should get rid of a ton of them, and we should drastically increase the standards under which we'll accept new ones. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In reference to the overall discussion, I have personally found it a bit odd when people counter a deletion request with WP:BEFORE, when it seems to me that WP:BURDEN, as policy (while BEFORE is just part of a set of procedures for an AfD) seems to vastly trump the issue. I don't see why, if I see an article that's hasn't met the requirements of WP:V, I have to be the one to go out looking for a solution. It's even worse when the article is about some topic that falls under a content-specific notability guidline, when the research can be much more involved. I think 67.119.3.248's reasoning seems very strong to me: for a BLP especially (although the rationale can easily be applied to other topics), I think that it should be up to the creators/primary editors to make sure the article hits a certain minimum standard prior to being in mainspace, not the responsibility of other editors to complete their work. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Moulton

Two edits that purport to be from blocked user User:Moulton. and , coming from Special:Contributions/68.163.100.214. Thanks in advance for any action taken. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits deleted, IP blocked for 31 hours. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another IP for same user: . --Cyclopia 10:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That IP blocked as well. Also undid an attempt by the IP to hide a falsified signature. —DoRD (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* Another one blocked after this edit. —DoRD (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed to close an RfC

I've just closed an RfC discussion (one that I opened) about whether Christ myth theory should be called Jesus myth theory. If there's an uninvolved admin out there willing to determine the conclusion that would be very helpful. See the RfC here. Cheers, SlimVirgin 17:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I'm not an admin and I was briefly involved in Historicity of Jesus discussions a few weeks ago (so could be midly considered involved - though not really in this specific area). However I'm willing to make a closing argument if you want and it is acceptable to do so. I'm only offering because there has been no response to this for a few hours & I didn't want to let it slide. :) No offence taken if you say no. --Errant 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom, I'd be happy to have you close it, thank you for offering. SlimVirgin 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tom has closed the discussion as move Christ myth theory to Jesus myth theory, but as he's not an admin he can't move it himself, and I'm reluctant to. Could an uninvolved admin step in? Tom's close is here. SlimVirgin 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually like to request an uninvolved admin read the RfC and close it. -Atmoz (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was pinged by Slim off-wiki to take a look and am reading it (have been intermittently for a couple of hours).

I'm as far as I know uninvolved.

The non-admin close statement is not unreasonable. I want to re-read everything a few times and think about it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Two editors deleting a talk page comment

I've found a pair of editors bullying another editor by removing his/her talk page comments. These editors are part of the discussion thread containing the comment and have been warned that as such, they should leave it to an impartial 3rd party to review the comment. I'm an impartial 3rd party (not part of the thread, etc), and it's my opinion that this particular comment contains several useful points that should be addressed. And as far as offensiveness or incivility goes, it falls far short of any standard that would require its removal. I'd block the editor responsible for repeatedly deleting the comment - especially given that he/she was warned, but I see no harm in bringing it up here first. Rklawton (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. DocOfSoc and I were in a content dispute on a BLP and whether the subject should be called "Jewish". His language was a little heated, but we resolved it. Then, NeoNeuroGeek (a new user) launches a tirade against DocOfSoc about whether he is a real Jew. He, not unreasonably, removed it. Rklawton then blunders in, reverts the removal with some wikilawyering about "involved" but does nothing to cool NeoNeuroGeek. Since it wasn't me NeoNeuroGeek was attacking, but my erstwhile opponent, I felt disinterested enough to remove the post and have a gentle word with the newbie about our expected decorum here . Next thing Rklawton's spitting block threats here, with, despite me posting to his talk page, no attempt to resolve anything. This just looks like trolling to me. Calm down, sir, and get your overly-dramatic tanks off my manicured lawn.--Scott Mac 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to follow the thread can do so in sequence, it's short. Not only is Scott Mac mischaracterizing my comments/summaries (I explained the problem and what I'd do to resolve it if the problem persisted) he's being rude, too.

, , . Rklawton (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored NeoNeuroGeeks comments with some elements redacted. My concern was that it was not a vitriolic attack on Doc but that the editor clearly felt hurt by the comments they read and made comments in the heat of the moment - we all do it. Please don't unilaterally remove comments like that in the future; it is better to politely ask the editor to retract the attacks (pointing them at the relevant policy) and, if they do not, ask an admin to come in and explain it more explictly (and redact the commets). The other way risks alienating someone further :) --Errant 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. What do you mean "unilaterally"? Every time one clicks submit it is unilateral. I stand by my action, I removed the comment, and left a very polite note on the newbie's talk page, explaining our civil ethos here, and assuming that his post was made in ignorance of that. Rklawton's actions were totally unhelpful: restoring personal attacks, with no attempt to talk with the newbie, indeed no attempt to explain anything to anyone outside of threatening edit summaries. How was that going to help? Drama-stoking at it worst. Liable to allow the heated rhetoric to escalate, while slapping those trying to dowse the flames. If he didn't like my way of doing it, he should have substituted his own, or at least done something constructive. --Scott Mac 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant nothing by "unilateral" except in the sense it was just the two of you :) and, yes, your note was constructive. Rklawton should, perhaps, have removed the PA's (or reported them to be removed) or encouraged you to report it. But he was correct in restoring the comment. --Errant 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Two isn't unilateral, by definition. Had Rklawton refactored and replaced, or had he taken some other course of action, that might have been correct. What he did was extremely disruptive. The correct thing to do, if you involve yourself, is to try to defuse a situation - you may wrongly judge what will do that, but any good-faith attempt is a start. Rklawton's action were in no sense of the word correct, as there was no strategy to help the situation lying behind them.--Scott Mac 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not obligated to solve your problems. I saw the need to prevent two editors from abusing a third by removing talk page comments that were marginally offensive at best. In general, we don't remove comments from talk pages and we don't bite the noobs. I restored it with a reminder and restored again with a warning. As an experienced editor, you should know better, and the comments above from 3rd parties bear this out. Rklawton (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my actions - and in my criticism of yours. But since the thing is moot now, I'll let it go. Unwatching.--Scott Mac 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Scott, if I wasn't clear - don't read anything into my use of the word unilateral :) it was cultural/personal use & I realise that in this forum it came across differently. --Errant 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me make an observation that, as an uninvolved user, I believe that the warred over comment is valid and does indeed raise some very good points. Yes, the language is a bit heated, but it is certainly not in the realm of anything that would require removal of said comment. It appears to me that the removing users have rather vitriolic opinions of Schlessinger and perhaps should disengage and not edit the article because of such opinions. Silverseren 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. I know nothing about her and have no opinion. I got involved when I picked up she was unhappy with the article, I reported it to BLPNB, and began removing unreferenced negative stuff.--Scott Mac 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That was referring far more to DocOfSoc than you. Though you should have also not removed that comment. Silverseren 19:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment please note that Scott Mac is jewish, so this is a WP:COI issue.--Caravan train (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Not Jewish - never have been - keep your knife off my penis, thanks. (Not that I'd think any less of myself were I Jewish.)--Scott Mac 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Scott MacDonald. That's an awfully Jewish name, isn't it? The Wordsmith 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This Caravan train account does not pass the WP:DUCK test, if you look at its edits. Enigma 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't quack? Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It means I'm saying the account is a sockpuppet and should probably be blocked. Enigma 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a bizarre comment out of left field from an account that's never edited here before, nor has this account edited any of the same articles Scott has during the two days of its existence (or the AfDs). I should AGF and say 'this is a new editor who doesn't understand our guidelines', but that would be hypocritical of me. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am finished with the Laura article. Period. Please see further comments on my talk page, where such comments belong in the first place, NOT on an article talk page, the newbie obviously does not know this. Namaste. DocofSoc

Personal attack redacted. Cut that out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsuccessfully tried to inject some humour. So yessir! Exalted Sarek ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait. A person is not allowed to remove personal attacks made against them? That's a first, as far as I'm concerned. And then a totally uninvolved person is not allowed to remove personal attacks made against somebody else? Since when? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. There was one or two words that two editors who were directly involved in the discussion thread construed as a personal attack - and deleted the entire otherwise useful comment as a result. And that has a rather a chilling effect on article discussions and isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If it feels like a personal attack and quacks like a personal attack...New user's comments were in no way valid or useful. Misconstrued and full of fallacious assumptions. As an admin, there should have been instruction to newbie, as I had requested, who had violated the 3RR by reverting what ended up being the final outcome, that I had done correctly in the first place. (clunky sentence, LOL) A 2 day newbie should not be editing locked articles. Mysterious to me. A deja vu nightmare, like SRQ was back.. I was totally surprised at the lack of support. Sigh...Fast forwardDocOfSoc (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I didn't support was deleting comments from a talk page. It's a talk page - there's rarely any need to edit out other people's comments on a talk page - especially comments that are on topic. Instructing, advising, warning the newbie are all fine. Removing a whole comment because one part of it may be questionable is not appropriate, especially when that removal is done by people personally involved in that threat. But I said that already in the restore summaries. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Please close an archived discussion

Resolved – Einsteindonut has been community banned; discussion so noted, he's added to the banned users list, and the tag is on the account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The ban proposal for Einsteindonut has been automatically archived along with the rest of the discussion. The discussion is here . The consensus was in support of a community ban. Can someone please close out this discussion and place the proper "banned" tag on the account, add to the WP:List of banned users and create a Long Term abuse page as requested by Hans Adler? Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Want to discuss Battle of Mogadishu (2010) (Personally thinking towards nominating for deletion)

This is a page created for a "battle" that is only 4 days old. The page is currently linked from the main page in reference to attacks occuring in Somalia. I've got to say that this feels like some kind of propaganda to give stronger notoriety to the conflict at hand. I take no sides, but I do not think that wiki is an appropriate place to advertise war. I want some discussion on this.Out of Phase User (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a current event. Usually, especially in terms of events that result in a number of deaths or large scale battles such as this, the articles pop up as created within minutes of information showing up on the airwaves. I do not seem to understand the point you're trying to make. Coverage of events is not "propaganda" and we are certainly not "advertising war". We're providing encyclopedia coverage of notable events in the world. I see no problem with that. Silverseren 19:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't require administrator intervention. Your best bet is WP:RFC. -- Atama頭 19:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Whatever happened to WP:NOTNEWS though? — Coren 19:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems likely to pass WP:EVENT, which helps interpret NOTNEWS. The Wordsmith 19:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I should of put it up in WP:RFC. Would of if I would of known about it. I'll make my own decision to put it up for deletion in a day or so. Every event included might be notable but it the grouping as a "battle" which might be POV giving the newness of the attacks or just straight up propaganda.Out of Phase User (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought you might not have known about it, that's why I suggested it. :) It's usually for content disputes, but can also help if you just want some opinions on an article where there's no actual conflict. -- Atama頭 20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy keep before you even bother starting an AFD -- Note the reliable sources in the references, the fact that it's almost certain to have historical significance, and then head on over to WP:EVENT. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(Although I would recommend a move discussion to determine an appropriate name for it, perhaps something like "August 2010 Mogadishu attacks".) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be against a name change, considering that it currently matches the standard of naming the other, related articles. Silverseren 22:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the other battles, and wouldn't be against an article in the future... I just think it's too soon to call a bunch of attacks over 4 days a "battle". It feels like advertising.Out of Phase User (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I havent seen any sources calling it the battle of mogadishu, and thus it seems liek a wikipedia invention. That said i originally create the page August 2010 Mogadishu attacks to deal with the attacks (and the name doesnt imply 1 word) but it was immediately moved without discussion that lasted at least 24 hours. I think 1 page would suffice. notable, yes, but doesnt seem like its going to even threaten to be too long.(Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC));

I put up a merger proposal from Battle of Mogadishu (2010) to August 2010 Mogadishu attacks and will be wanting a suppression of the redirect from Battle of Mogadishu (2010). If anyone here wants to comment or help wikifi the process please feel free.Out of Phase User (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Zombie433

Previous ANI discussions related to Zombie433: User:Zombie433 keeps on original research, Users User:Heritagesoccerpro and User:Zombie433

Further information: ], and ]

Again, is him. The guy never reply. Through out the days i OFTEN found his hoax content, from adding a content with cite, but the cite is irreverent to the content. to now i find his article Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira contain half of the hoax career in Brazil. Seems he never want to correct, or he work for a company to write fake CV for the footballers. He made lots of edits, i did not count the percentage of hoax in his total edits, but did wikipedia want a people that not willing to correct his behavior to not adding hoax? Matthew_hk t c 20:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you are concerned about some of the contributions that Zombie433 (talk · contribs) is making. Can you be more specific? It seems that English might not be your native language. Perhaps WP:Diffs would help illustrate the situation. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Worth noting: Zombie433 is complained about at WT:FOOTBALL (see archives), with the most recent archived discussion being this. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I work not for any company over football, i only layman and football fan. I collect only football magazine like Extra Liga, A Bola, Liga Polska, Luxemburger Fussballmeisterschaft, Voetbal International etc. few stats based on the stats in this magazines. (Zombie433talk | contribs) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Many concerns about Zombie433, in my opinion, them being: 1 - his appalling grasp of English, even tough he gives himself a "level 4"; 2 - the fact that he NEVER replies to people, NEVER, unless they write to him in German and not even then always, removing messages, friendly or not, minutes before they arrive at his talkpage; 3 - his continuing overlinking in football articles, even tough it is not necessary (this is indeed a by-product of his struggles with the language); 4 - even though it has been stated that foreign sources are OK with the site, he has NEVER supplied one single source in English, even going as far as removing the English source and insert a foreign one (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=On%C3%A9simo_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=354291436&oldid=354210835); 5 - the overcategorization in which in indulges, creating cats for 4th, sometimes 5th division clubs, and several expatriate ones, really not needed; 6 - i am not familiar with this one, but it seems he has begun inserting spam links to articles, which was the primary reason for which he was blocked.

Attentively (speaking of which, i WILL pay close attention to this!)- --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Zombie often use fake stats. to claim the footballers were notable. Just like Diego Aparecido Ferreira Oliveira, Azian Innocent Tano (most recent?) ~~Ergün Berisha (deleted and recreate after he truly turn notable)~~. As i was not a reviewer of Zombie, i think there is some hoax still not yet discovered.

For Danilo Pereira da Silva, i can't find any source that he played for Chivas USA. (there is another Danilo da Silva in NLS for another team, not Danilo P. da Silva). AND Brazilian FA record did not said he moved to US.

And i asked again and again that please provide citation for the content he submit. He improved in new edits, but he either provide a irreverent one, or his cite did not sufficiently support his content.

Matthew_hk t c 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those really difficult situations where it appears that an editor can't really communicate with us and address/understand concerns. Zombie seems to have been raised as an issue a number of times now and I think we really need someone to open a dialogue with him. Perhaps approach someone in one of the German Wikiprojects who is able to talk to this person and translate our issues. Not perfect - but perhaps an opening step? --Errant 21:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for volunteers to speak to this person here. I think it is in the best interests of WP to try and get this editor talking in some way --Errant 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It was done here man (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Zombie433&diff=374905578&oldid=374904428), what do you think happened? He removed the message, without answering the other user... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ergün Berisha is another case, i mixed up. Matthew_hk t c 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem people are having with Zombie is that he makes a lot of contributions (many of them are verifiable) but doesn't communicate well with other editors. I don't know what types of sources he is using for some of his edits (there were several edits he made to football players from the Ivory Coast that no one was able to verify, so we had to remove them), and it's troubling when information is added to BLPs that is not verifiable. If Zombie didn't make so many edits, it would be much easier to deal with verifying the unsupported additions and reverting the edits that are unverifiable or inaccurate. However, with the volume of edits he's made, it's an enormous task to go back through more than a years' worth of them. I'm sure he can help us verify many of those old edits, but I don't know how to explain it to him (or even get a reaction on his Talk page). Jogurney (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Vasco for the link. I think some action needs to be taken here. Perhaps a 24 hour block? Just to get the point across & try to get this person to communicate? --Errant 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I briefly looked at contribs and usertalk history of de:Benutzer:Zombie433 on de and didn't see obvious problems of this magnitude, but a better German speaker than me might want to take a closer look. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but be aware that de:Benutzer:Zombie433 has about 2000 contributions while User:Zombie433 has about 83000. The comments on his talk page are mostly warnings not to put unconfirmed information in articles, warnings about copyvios, advice about the need for sources, advice about grammar errors etc. It's also obvious that he mostly ignores the advice on this talk page; this was among others a reason why he got blocked . I'm a native German speaker, so if you need a translation I think I can manage. --Jaellee (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yow, I missed noticing that he was blocked 6 times on de. Is his German as bad as his English, even though he says he is a native German speaker? 67.119.3.248 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Think of the BLPs

Basically, the reason this is ANI-worthy is because we've got an editor who is relentlessly plugging away with the addition of material which is either dubious or outright false to hundreds or thousands of BLPs. This is not a good thing, and can't continue indefinitely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really relevant but your subtitle reminds me of this :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's too late to get rid of his dubious edits completely. Even when all his contributions are deleted, there are edits by other users in the text of BLP's based on previous contributions by Zombie433 and many other language wiki's have copied the English page. You can even find his contributions on official club-sites now Cattivi (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's shut off the faucet of dubious information, then, especially with what Chris said about BLP. This editor has popped up too many times to not take action. Considering the lack of dialogue, as the editor removes negative notifications from his own talk page, we should consider a preventative block to protect Misplaced Pages from further misinformation. Is there any criteria we need to follow to pursue this course of action? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Indef

Based on Jaelee pointing out Zombie433's block log on de (6 blocks in 2000 edits) I think it's time for indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE. We're not dealing solely with a language issue. Block notification should indicate that it's not a ban and that the block can be lifted if he discusses the situation and can work out an agreement to improve his editing with regard to sourcing, accuracy, communications, etc. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Patrice Martinez

Resolved – user blocked indef by Ioeth

Please, note that the page is being addressed by someone User:Pppedia who stated

“

Please take note: I represent Ms. Patrice Martinez and if this article has no lead section written, it is because Ms. Martinez has chosen not to write one at this particular time. Also, if any intro, lead, editing or altering of this profile is executed without my client’s authorization, we will prosecute.

”

The article however does not seem to breach any personal information beyond the professional career of the actress (Privacy Act of 1974). It is unknown whether Pppedia is or not really the representative of the actress, but instead of addressing the problem to the Misplaced Pages administration the user chose simply to vandalize the page including his threatening notice. It seems that there is some problem of association Ms.Martinez with her formal husband Daniel Camhi mentioning of whom I removed from her article, however that information is still available at IMDB where I drew most of the information in the first place. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You neglected to notify the user of the fact that you'd put a notice here. I've done that for you. David Biddulph (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case of legal threats. I left a good faith talk page note just in case this can be salvaged, but an admin may want to block --Errant 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I rather stupidly rushed to report the legal threat without checking that this had been previously reported. An indefinite block has been imposed for the legal threat. See two sections below. I apologize for the duplication. Figureofnine (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Patrice Martinez

See . It speaks for itself. This was originally reported by another user at Wikiquette Alerts. Figureofnine (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just noticed this had been previously reported. Sorry for the duplication. Figureofnine (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved this up to be with the other report & marked resolved :) --Errant 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary needs redaction

Resolved

Is this the proper place to ask for someone to use the magic mop and clean up this nonsense? Active Banana ( 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

ewww, need a big mop and bucket for that one lol BritishWatcher (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

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

Resolved – No. -- Atama頭 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, anybody could restore my twinkle rights back? Cheers --NovaSkola (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to us why you lost them in the first place? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 21:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

See User_talk:NovaSkola#2ns_warning_and_ANI. Exxolon (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the relevant discussions... I think you will need to show/explain you understand why the rights were removed and what you got wrong. --Errant 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see, you had them removed because you were labeling good faith edits, and edits you disagreed with, as vandalism. Reading your request to the admin who removed it, it seems you think this was a normal, okay thing to do. I see nothing that suggests you understood it was wrong, it was bad, and it shouldn't be done again. I see nothing that suggests the tool should be given back to you.

Indeed, this kind of request with with this background requires more than just asking nicely.— Dæ dαlus 21:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought you had to remove good faith edits due it is vandalism. Therefore I removed it. Apparently, you can't remove vandalism?--NovaSkola (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

An edit made in good faith is one where the editor was attempting to improve an article, an edit which is vandalism is one where the editor was intentionally trying to harm an article. Reverting vandalism is fine, reverting a good faith edit and calling it vandalism is not. -- Atama頭 23:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good faith edits are not vandalism. You've been told this repeatedly.— Dæ dαlus 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't get it, or maybe he doesn't get it. Twinkle was removed due to his abuse, and now he casually strolls in here with "hey, peeps, just restore it, cheers!" -- facepalm, major facepalm... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in other words, because doesn't get it and doesn't get it he's not going to get it. HalfShadow 23:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

...and you can thank me for setting up Today's Lame Pun :P. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Drumroll, please. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you meanRimshot 69.181.249.92 MarnetteD | Talk 00:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well thank Christ you didn't say rimjob... HalfShadow 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have notified NovaSkola that their request has been denied. Exxolon (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, be arrogant. I will find way to deal with it. Misplaced Pages is surely working on system - Majority Rules, Minority Controls. No wonder, site is loosing it's popularity when they don't help editors who is trying to help. I will retire, but of course, armenian articles as for this will suffer a lot :). Enjoy your day and clean our mess. --NovaSkola (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Two notes:

1) NovaSkola, you still need to think about why the rights were taken away, it's not clear that you understand what you did wrong (and might do wrong again, without Twinkle, using manual edits). Calling things vandalism when they're just bad editing is abusive. Please don't abuse other users - cleaning up articles is great, and we appreciate that. But there's a huge difference between bad editing and vandalism. Thanks.

2) Everyone else - The tone at the end there was uncalled for. Abusing novaSkola wasn't helpful at all.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Er exactly when did I abuse them? I posted two links for informational purposes, then notified them of the decision and posted to that effect. I don't appreciate you tarring me with the same brush. Exxolon (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Brushsize--;

(Sorry; you did nothing wrong, Exxolon. My apologies for implying you did. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC))

Apology accepted - sorry, I'm a little touchy at the moment. Exxolon (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody abused anyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There was a certain rudeness here. People need to not be a dick. Tommy! 02:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all, who is pro me. I just don't understand why people instead of helping me to understand how to deal with good faith edits, are attacking me?--NovaSkola (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Being sarcastic, making jokes at another's expense, and generally not taking something serious that is bothering any editor is uncalled for, rude, and should not be tolerated as much as it is around here. How about if someone brings a problem to AN/I it be taken serious, people HELP, EXPLAIN, and offer suggestions kindly and do not brush them off, insult, dismiss, or badger. Yes, NovaSkola did something wrong and yes he does not seem to understand that, but that does not mean it is ok to hit him over the head the way it happened here. To kindly explain NS's mistakes and then leave it at that, if that means then ignoring NS after NS still doesnt get it, ok then. But this extra crap is ridiculous. Stop with the dismissive arrogance and instead be helpful or don't comment. Any comment that is not going to HELP an editor resolve an issue is one that should not be made and if made should have consequences.Camelbinky (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I seen the comments not as insults, brush offs, dismissals or badgering, but as well-deserved ribbing. The dude honestly expected the community to say "sure, here's your TWINKLE back" after completely misusing it. The dude practicually walked into those jokes and facepalms, but most of it was done after the user was told "nah, ain't happenin'". So, put the pitchforks, torches and speeches away, mind the "Resolved" sign and move along, please. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the sarcasm etc. was inappropriate. A user who has made this many mistakes with twinkle is pretty seriously confused about its purpose and may have to have it explained at some length. Go by "don't bite the newbies" in this situation, even if the editor is experienced. Anyone can find themselves doing dumb stuff if they've just started using a tool or procedure that was previously unfamiliar to them. I think there was also an error on the part of the admin who enabled twinkle for NovaSkola in the first place, without a bit of prior one-one-one discussion about how to use it. It's just like any other tool or computer gadget where everyone is supposed to read the instructions before using but nobody does. It's unrealistic to expect anything different. 67.119.3.248 (talk) 06:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - My, you know much about this, 67.119.3.248; but this is only your fourth edit, and you started editing yesterday, it appears. No talk page yet, even. Let me guess: static IP/I've been editing here for years/don't feel like registering? Cool. This thread was resolved already, and is now "archived". This isn't intended to be "bitey", even though you're clearly a newbie... Doc9871 (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

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

TheClarfs100

Can someone block TheClarfs100 (talk · contribs) please? This user has a history of creating bogus articles, and just created another, Moral Minority — the chart positions are all bogus, for one. He was given a level 4 warning shortly before creating this article and clearly doesn't seem to be here in good faith. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to {{subst:ANI-notification}} them... I have done so.

If they can't explain the deleted articles and provide references, there are enough of them that it's a serious problem. Perhaps not permaban time, but time for action.

It's not immediately urgent, though. I support giving them some time to respond here and explain themselves. No harm done waiting a bit. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge and delete?

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn was deleted despite some of the information having been copied into the history column of List of bus routes in Brooklyn in the past. Shouldn't it have been turned into a redirect with the history preserved? --NE2 01:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If my calculations are correct, yes, even though I am not an administrator. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Should all be fixed now. Protonk (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --NE2 03:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

Could someone IP check user:Hnbkd vs. user:Tmhm please? The former appeared in a thread begun about the actions of the later just when the later got blocked.

Diffs of users being notified: ,

Thank you.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:DUCK to me, but since it was I who blocked Tmhm in the first place, I would like a second admin opinion. Favonian (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I have adjusted the block settings for both accounts. -- zzuuzz 19:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker violation of British Isles topic ban

As well as editing warring at Terminology of the British Isles Triton Rocker has again violated his British Isles (Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log) topic ban here. Bjmullan (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This matter was being dealt with in other locations. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the correct location - the Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log is a log for recording sanctions not discussing them. This is the appropriate venue.--Cailil 15:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the text on that page be archived because thats what that page has been used for since its creation and it should clearly state that is not the place for such matters. Seems pointless bringing everything here when there is a separate page for the thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of violations of the topic ban, the recent block for disruption, violation of 3RR this is a serious problem. I'd suggest an indefinite block with conditional unblock when and only when Triton_Rocker recognizes what they've done wrong, accepts site policy and agrees to edit within it. At that point the topic ban should be reset to the date of unblock as per normal practice for repeatedly disruptive editors serving topic bans--Cailil 15:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

An indef block is totally unfair compared to the treatment of certain other editors who have been involved in this dispute for many years. People here voted for sanctions to be applied to an editor, those sanctions were not imposed, he then went on to remove British Isles from another article with no punishment at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's an irrelevant discussion BW. And I'm now warning you not to bring up extraneous issues in this discussion it is disruptive and will be dealt with as such. We are assessing this matter on its merits not in relation to others. If you want to bring up other editors behaviour do so where appropriate (and you are genuinely invited to do so).
Triton Rocker is subject to a ban and violated 3 times previously - this is a 4th violation. They clearly aren't getting the message. It's time they did--Cailil 15:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not just the failure to abide by the sanction or the 3RR its the persistent refusal to ever engage in discussing any edit and the abuse of any editor who opposes him/her. We had accusations of meat puppetry this morning (links on Triton's talk page) which just builds on a persistent pattern of AGF and NPA violations in the majority of edits. I agree that something needs to go in place which forces Triton to acknowledge that something needs to change. --Snowded 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The bloke has become a bore. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We are all responsible for our own edits here, and trying to muddy the water by saying that other editors in the past have done similar doesn't hold any weight. A process was started to cease these type of edit wars and this editor has refused to accept that this is the case. So unfortunately I would support a topic ban, instead of an indef block. If they breach the topic ban and going by this editors previous ignoring of sanctions they will then indef block is what needs to happen. Mo ainm~Talk 16:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Mo's views, it's time for a topic-ban, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose A topic ban is totally inappropriate here. Triton's so-called transgression is absolutely minor; adding a relevant template to an article is just run-of-the-mill article improvement. Maybe it was a technical breach but it's clear to me that those with an anti-BI agenda are trying to capitalise on this technicality by attempting to force the removal of a knowledgeable editor whom they disagree with; it is quite scandalous behaviour on their part. BTW, any claimed incivility on the part of Triton is not relevant here. LevenBoy (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've no probs with TR arguing on the talkpages & even being uncivil. But, edit warring is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  - Who was the other party to the edit war, just out of interest (and this debate is not actually about edit warring). LevenBoy (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    - If one is outnumbered, one shouldn't get into an edit spat. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to Cailil, you seem to be suggesting that Triton Rocker is more than one person, if you've an accusation to make let's have it out in the open. Thanks. LevenBoy (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where Cailil suggests that; can you please substantiate how you came to the conclusion that Cailil made any such suggestion or accusation? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No I haven't. Strike that comment LevenBoy and stay on topic--Cailil 17:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Triton Rocket IS topic banned and has been blocked 3 times in the last month for violating that topic-ban.
As a general warning to all the involved editors at the WP:BISE page - if you haven't got anything pertinent, on topic and policy based to say about this matter then stay away from it - disruption of enforcement threads will be prevented.
LevenBoy you wont get another warning to assume good faith. This is a very simple matter using it to make a point is not a good idea--Cailil 17:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if he is topic banned then the next step is indef block. Mo ainm~Talk 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cailhil, your veiled threats are out of place and verge on hilarity, but I'm getting increasingly annoyed by your carping and threatening others with sanctions that would be an abuse of your powers as an admin were you to impose them. This is not the first time you've waded in here issuing you ultimatums. Your warning to BW above is pathetic! Regarding my remark - quote "They clearly aren't getting the message. It's time they did". That sounds remarkably like you think there's more than one person operating that account. Now maybe your're not sure if the account holder is a man or woman, but that's a bloody strange way of putting it, that's all I can say. LevenBoy (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

LevenBoy you've been warned to stop disrupting this thread - these were not veiled threats but administrative warnings.
Perhaps you were confused by a gender neutral pronoun - then all you had do was say you were confused by 'they' but instead you responded with incivility and spurious inferences of admin misconduct. It is entirely within my duties and powers to block for disruption or impose topic bans as I amn't involved in any area of this dispute. Now, I've asked SarekOfVulcan to review my conduct here and unless they contradict me I will prevent this thread from further disruption by block if necessary--Cailil 19:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Einsteindonut/WPYellowStar/David Appletree is back despite a community ban,

Please do a Block, User:DavidAppletree is Quacking very loudly! All the time using the same mantras of denial and rhetoric. He claims he is working through stuff with Arbcom but he does not need a user account for that. Pending any statement from arbcom its is time we enforce the community ban Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This gives some context and an admission: ]. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh i missed the admission! that is very handy! Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I never admitted to being Einsteindonut/WPYellowStar. I said that *some* of the accused sockpuppets *might* be me, as I have logged on from time to time from various IP's to make an edit here and there. There's currently a witch hunt on, falsely accusing me of being behind at least 56 suspected socks over the past couple years. I'm tired of being falsely accused, and constantly attacked on WP, so I have created this account to defend myself, and my organization, to answer general questions about my work, and to edit a few articles here and there as I do feel I can abide by the rules and contribute to this project in a meaningful way. It's a shame and unfortunate that anyone remotely pro-JIDF is automatically accused of being me and a sockpuppet. It's time that this stops. I can actually help put an end to at least some of the problems that might be coming from JIDF supporters, but I would hope that the witch hunt, false accusations, and personal attacks against me would end. As I have stated, one of my goals with the JIDF was to find and unify likeminded people. The JIDF has over 37,000 fans on Facebook and nearly 54,000 followers on Twitter. Don't you think some of them might come to Misplaced Pages from time to time to defend the JIDF from constant attacks? Yet anyone who does this is accused of being a sock of one of the most pro-JIDF accounts, who is then accused of being me. If you look at my website and my posts elsewhere, you'd see that I really don't have time to do all that I'm being accused of doing here. It's quite a witch hunt you have going on. --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If this user is claiming to be a living person of some note they need to identify and be verified through OTRS or get a new username. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that they have been in touch with OTRS already. I have been in email contact with David and believe he is who he says he is. I emailed cary to check if OTRS had anything to contribute this afternoon as well Spartaz 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, great, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC). Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I referred the matter to the arbitration committee this afternoon. Please let this be until they respond. David has agreed to avoid controversial edits while waiting for them and dragging this out before then is simply going to induce a dramafest. Spartaz 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This user has already been Soapboxing across Jimbo's user page, His SPI page, his own page among others and thats just his allegedly only account. Block him for now we can always unblock him later. He is here to promote his cause not to build and encyclopedia. The IP edits in the last thread were enough to prove he working under proxies. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Patience, we also have a self identified person who is regularly mentioned on JIDF and wants to seek balance. This is a difficult issue because BLP requires us to be reasonable about that. While they are not currently causing major trauma, why not let them be while the committee consider this? I admit that the timing, shortly after a community ban on Einsteindonut is unhelpful but i suspect that if we don't bait David we may have a chance to put this long running problem to bed once and for all. Spartaz 18:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe I am simply responding to various allegations and attacks. If I'm doing any soapboxing or anything against the rules, please notify me on my talk page, and I will revert, if necessary. Again, my goal here with this account is to fully adhere to the rules. However, I admit I am not a Misplaced Pages expert and do not know all of them. I could use a hand in learning the system, so I don't something against the rules, unknowingly. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz, I will sideline myself for now, the BLP issue is an aspect of this issue I did not consider and you are absolutly right that this is no causing major trauma at the moment. I do think regaurdless of what we do not much will make him happy. Which judging his by Dialog with Ironhold, we have a true believer and dialog with him will be be as hopless as dialog with CoS was. Considering his Website goes to Great lengths to Out wikipedians I am not holding my breath Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, my website does not go to great lengths to out wikipedians. If any Wikipedians have any issue whatsoever about articles that were written about 2 years ago, they are free to contact me directly to discuss: david@thejidf.org. Being that privacy and security is of the utmost importance to me, personally, I fully try to respect the privacy and security of others. Despite getting to the root of the person behind the anonymous IP who attacked the JIDF article several times with swastikas and jihadist symbols, I never released his name, or the company he worked for. When the article about the JIDF first arrived, I admit I was hyper sensitive about it, and bothered, as I didn't know how Misplaced Pages worked, exactly and I felt a lot of unfair things were happening, such as repeated nominations for the article to be deleted. Despite over 2 years of decent media coverage, that's still happening, to this day! Those are just a couple examples of the abuse my organization and I have suffered on WP since the first article arrived. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you call this an Outing list Which is why I have a little bit of a time AGF here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not an outing list. Who is being outed there, exactly? That's a list of people we felt had an extreme anti-Israel bias at the time and we documented some of their edits and some of their other online activities which helped back our points. I think only one editor listed there ever bothered to contact us directly about any problems they had on our site, and if I remember correctly, we accommodated most of his requests out of respect to his privacy/security concerns. I believe most of the editors listed there voluntarily made their names available on WP itself. Either way, the list was not created to "out" people (unless they were trying to hide their anti-Israel bias), which, from their edits, they were not. --DavidAppletree (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My two cents, I'm uninvolved but haven't looked into it that deeply so that's about what it's worth, but here goes anyway. If the identity of the user is established by OTRS he should be allowed to edit the talk page of the article in question provided he is using no other accounts and is not disruptive. I checked his contributions and it doesn't appear that he has directly edited the article in question. If he is disruptive he should be served the standard notices until he stops or is blocked. If he used socks in the past b/c he wanted to protect his identity it should be forgiven unless he has socked since the creation of this account. If that's proven, by all means let's shut him down. Again, I'm not familiar with all the aspects of the case, but I agree we should make some allowances due to the BLP issue. Yworo (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems very fair minded. I have not engaged in any sock activity since the creation of this account, and do not intend to do so. I also plan on keeping main page editing, especially about my organization, to a bare minimum. However, at some point I may like to get involved in other articles, as I do have wide-ranging interests. I feel this will help the perception many WP editors have of me, and the JIDF, as this witch hunt and wide-ranging allegations and personal attacks against me and my work have troubled me. --DavidAppletree (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

David, was your account created..today?!? So you haven't socked...today?!? I guess its like AA, one day at a time :). Also, why would you want to have an article on Misplaced Pages? I am so glad I am not notable to have a page here with everything that goes on. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. No comment. Who said I wanted to have an article on WP? It just happened and it's been a bit of a nightmare. I just think if there's going to be one, that it might as well be accurate. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a real issue here? Nobody seems to be arguing that a specific item in the JIDF article is factually wrong, uncited, or violates WP:BLP. There's been considerable drama associated with this article over the last two years, but not over content. This looks like another attempt at attention-getting. The JIDF is no longer getting press; they've dropped out of Google News. There's not much more to be said about them at this point. WP:DRAMA applies. --John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. While I didn't raise this issue, or any of the issues others I've witnessed on this noticeboard, there's actually been plenty of edits throughout the history of the article and other areas of WP that I believe have been in violation of various rules. For example, there have been many claims as to my whereabouts, as well as my living conditions, as well as my political views. There have also been personal attacks against me and my organization and a wide variety of false allegations. I'm not seeking any drama, but I do believe I have a right to counter the problems I have been witnessing on this platform over the years. Despite your claims that I'm seeking attention, I've actually tried to keep myself not notable and have tried to keep personal details about myself to a bare minimum. I've even turned down huge media opportunities in order to protect my privacy and security. With regard to you the link you provided, and contrary to your claims, the media coverage of the JIDF has been fairly steady. --DavidAppletree (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at the light side. DavidAppletree, to judge by the day and the way it's been spent, can't be him. Far too much melakha, sitting out there bashing away on a computer keyboard. Must have roped in a Shabbos goy. :)Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be an observant Jew. I rest on Shabbos in my own way. I hope to be more observant again, one day. --DavidAppletree (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So serious! Well, it's late here, so I must decline Ночьмужик.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

SuperSonicx1986 (talk · contribs) and his sockpuppets continue to cause disruption at football articles (especially South American ones), such as this one. Is it possible to use a rangeblock for this situation? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

InaMaka

I'm running into some trouble with User: InaMaka. He frequently makes edit summaries and comments which are rather uncivil, and has repeatedly bitten the newcomers:

Calling other editors' contributions "hogwash", even if you disagree with them, isn't good form.
(here he appears to compare Alveda King to Fred Phelps; I warned him about it here, and InaMaka replied angrily here)
Here he accuses an IP user of adding "racist hate speech" to King's article: . The thing is, while the edit the IP made was definitely vandalism at worst and POV at best, it had nothing to do with race: . I removed that warning, added a more appropriate one, and then warned InaMaka not to bite the newcomers: , to which he once again replied angrily, .
A violation of AGF, making a testy response to an innocent question: . Here I explain why InaMaka's response was uncalled-for:
Accuses another IP of making a "racist" comment: . In fact, while the IP's comment was definitely sexist, and vandalism, it wasn't racist.
Yet another case of accusing an IP of making a "racist" comment which, while obviously POV and inappropriate, had nothing to do with race: . InaMaka's edits also implied that this IP vandalized King's article more than once, when the IP in fact made only one edit to King's article. .

Full disclosure: I've clashed with InaMaka before (I ran into him over at Mike Pompeo under two weeks ago and found him edit warring; he was blocked for 72 hours as a result. He doesn't appear to have learned his lesson, and still appears to view Misplaced Pages as a BATTLE. So I thought I'd ask for help. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:

Misplaced Pages noticeboards