Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:11, 2 September 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Geo Swan and AfDs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geo Swan here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replies and comments from other users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• We need to keep article creation somehow accessible to everyone. There must be other ways to stamp an article, other than AfD. When I read articles, I do notice the warnings on attribution and original research, and I do take them into account, readers are not dumb. But articles need to be able to have their existence awarded even in their rough form, even if it takes five years to get the article in it's final accepted form. I thought this was what WP was al about. I just hate seeing entire articles gone, even if they start out as all original research. Jdesmet (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental problem of Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strongly Oppose as being in direct opposition to fundamental Misplaced Pages values and policies. See my longer comment above. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose First my decision on AfD Solely depends on the notability and its adherence to the wikipedia policies and my WP:BEFORE not becuase an XYZ user had created it. The proposal wants me to check the article creator first which is simply ridiculous and will give a wrong message and set a wrong precedent, one should be more concerned about the content rather than the contributer. Its the over-emphasis on contributer that creates so much WP:Drama DBigXray 12:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram. The problem is the person who creates the articles after than they can defend them, not the person nominating for deletion. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If articles aren't encyclopedic need to go to AfD we shouldn't be forcing people to hold back. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with comment It seems to me that placing an arbitrary restriction on a user is a very slippery slope indeed. Any user should have the right to attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. However, it seems to me that a blitzkreig style nomination to AfD is problematic. Therefore, why not make it so that the creator or a significant contributor to an article, in combination with an established and known non-sock puppet user, can delay an AfD or the closure of an AfD upon request. Therefore, if a user needs more time to defend or improve his work, he can get it within reason. 67.0.130.248 (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the most logical proposal I can currently see here. Also strongly against Fram's proposal as illogical given the facts in evidence (specifically article age). --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support and a harsh {{trout}} to every opposer. I think there is a serious misconception and I've never been more disappointed in my fellow editors. These articles were created over a span of years at a time when they were in line with policy. Not that this justifies keeping the articles. What it does justify is time in deleting them. It will take time to bring these articles in line with today's standards if they can be. Nominating these articles for AFD all at once amounts to WP:GAMING the system. It is impossible, literally impossible given the hours in 7 days, to fix years worth of work. Every one of you needs a trout for not seeing this. AFD is an effective process because editors on both sides are given time to discuss, research, and come to a consensus. Targetting an editor's articles and putting them all up for AFD in a short amount of time is going to give you a biased consensus because the effort needed for the keep side is substantially greater and literally impossible to reach. Your going to be deleting articles that can be improved. And FYI, I fall greatly on the deletionist side and even I see how wrong this is.--v/r - TP 14:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • BLP trumps ANY claim of "gaming" and such issues must be addressed IMMEDTIATELY upon being discovered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • You've lost your mind. Gaming is the use of policies such as BLP and AFD in bad faith and requires a STRONG attention to what is going on. You need to look at what is going on before you blindly adhere to policy. Otherwise you're falling victim to exactly what they want you to do instead of using your noggin--v/r - TP 14:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Addressing problematic BLPs should not be delayed. Geo Swan or anyone else who wishes to develop the articles so that cease to be problematic should be allowed to request up to two or three articles to be userfied in their space at a time. As and when they develop these articles to a state where they can be placed in mainspace then the users can request copies of further articles to be made available for them to develop.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please look at the table below. DBigXray nominated 16 articles for deletion in a span of 7 days. What would you do if it were you? Fix them or tell the project to go fuck itself? The hounding nature of these AFD noms is going to hurt the project more than improve it. The task is made impossible to fix. Perhaps every one of these articles could be kept if given the proper attention. Perhaps Geo Swan might even be amiable to doing the work themselves. The delete and then ask questions later method isnt a viable method for a massive deletion of 6 year old articles that don't adhere to today's standards. If your concern is BLP, then point out specific BLP concerns to be addressed.--v/r - TP 20:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Two or three nominations per week seems generous. Why does he need to nominate so many? It is unreasonable to swamp the process with such frequent nominations. Everyking (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have more of an issue with the fact that these problematic articles were created in the first place. Onus is on the creator to make sure those articles are reliable, prior to submitting them to the article space. If that was in fact done in the first place, I don't think this thread would exist. -- MST☆R 06:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No special treatment for Guantanamo captives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support - Obviously. This usr has caused nothing but time-wasting grief for the project in this topic area. The majority of these detainee BLPs have had to be deleted over the years. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose You've got to be kidding me. This is just is disgrace. Do we, as adults, hold no better problem solving skills then calling for the other parties head? It's like a fucking game of "who can call for desysop first", "who can call for topic ban first", "who can call for site ban first." Really, I'm just sick at the way Wikipedians are handling this issue. No historical perspective at all.--v/r - TP 15:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The analysis below indicates that the problematic articles are old. Unless people show that there Geo Swan is currently producing crap articles, then the past issues are irrelevant.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no basis for a penalty. Everyking (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to refer to Arbcom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to allow Geo Swan To slow down the AfD process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of DBigXray's AFD nominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • You might want to do more research before saying I have no AFD experience.--v/r - TP 02:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing, if anything, you show that you do not currently grasp the effort that can be required to defend articles when in AfD (and possibly do not realize that life outside of Misplaced Pages can also consume time). This list supports slowing down the AfDs, and likely supports banning DBig from going anywhere near nominating an article for deletion. That would be due diligence. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • • Let me get this straight. I've got a bit over 5,000 edits at AfD, spanning seven years. You have about 120 edits at XfD, spanning three months. You may want to reconsider critiquing me or any other editor as to what effort is or is not required for defense at AfD. With what experience do you make any such crack, never mind as uncivilly as that? Ravenswing 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, Ravenswing, as I did not mean to be other than civil and I was. The edits at XfD have taught me (including through my own mistakes) that an article worth saving may take significant expenditure of time to defend, particularly if using something other than GNG to establish notability. Once an initial defense has been mounted, it can be easily evaluated (and often only takes a few minutes), but given that the author was tasked with mounting the defense of multiple articles in a short span of time, it seems counterintuitive to suggest that the same result is guaranteed as the more customary one to two at a time most commonly encountered.

• • • In fairness, Ravenswing's rather endearing faith in our XfD process appears to be shared by DBigXray. These are users who honestly believe that XfDs will lead to reliable outcomes, apparently in the belief that there's an inexhaustible supply of people who didn't write the articles but are prepared to do the work involved in coming to their defence.—S Marshall T/C 07:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (Slightly later) That's open to misunderstanding and I should have spelled out the conclusion I was drawing:- these are good faith editors. There is no justification whatsoever for banning DBigXray from XfD as suggested above. All that's necessary is a request to slow down and stop targeting this one particular editor.—S Marshall T/C 07:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
      • In response to the editors above, ahem. For one thing, we are all volunteers here. We devote the time we wish to devote - sometimes quite a lot of it - and I'm the least person to cast stones at anyone who wishes to spend time outside of Misplaced Pages. Feel free. There are tens of thousands of editors quite ready to carry on without your personal presence. For a second, sorry; I stand by my statements. Defending an article at AfD doesn't require filibusters, rebuttals of every Delete voter or endless plunges into the Internet. With very little effort, one can readily establish reliable sources and news reports on 99% of subjects. If I can't find ANY reliable sources talking about a subject in the significant detail the GNG requires in five minutes' time, odds are that no such sources exist. If I CAN find two such sources - and far more often than otherwise, finding such sources takes about thirty seconds, not five minutes - no other defense is generally necessary. Ravenswing 08:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• As Geo Swan's most recent work has been accepted by the community, I believe we cannot simply write Geo Swan off as an incompetent editor. Misplaced Pages's standards have changed over time, and those articles that were deleted under today's standards may have been (and probably were, although I do not have the experience to make that call) acceptable under Misplaced Pages guidelines when they were written. Additionally, it seems likely that Geo Swan could invest 4-6 hours in any given article to improve to the point where it could survive an AfD (Please correct me if I am wrong, Geo Swan). However, asking him to do this to 16 articles in a week is unrealistic, absurd, and impossible. (Note: I am not talking about a simple defence of the article, I am talking about a substantial overhaul of the article). Geo Swan needs the opportunity to do this work. Therefore, one of two courses of action seem plausible to me:

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

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

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

@Nick-D Friendly reminder to assume good faith.

@Fram I contend that if Geo Swan wanted to, he could update most to all of his articled to the point where they would pass an AfD after putting 4-6 hours of work into them. (again Geo Swan, please correct me if I am wrong.) Therefore what I propose as a test is that you select three Geo Swan articles that are representative of his contributions to Misplaced Pages. Then Geo Swan can select one of those three articles to improve to the point where it can pass an AfD. If he can do that, then my proposal, or other alternative proposals will have solid ground to be considered on. If he cannot, then we can proceed with a clear conscience to remove most of his work from wikipedia, and contemplate things like topic bans. We must allow Geo Swan time to improve the article, I suggest 3-5 days, but that is a matter for consensus. 174.28.43.114 (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim that the following are representative of his contributions: many remaining articles he created are about notable subjects and will never be deleted at AfD, so no point in listing those. Many other, more problematic ones have already been deleted of course. I gave above a few examples of relatively recent articles of dubious notability, e.g. Camp Five Echo (from December 2011), Hamidullah Khan (Bagram captive) (November 2011), Ehsanullah Ehsan (Taliban spokesman) (December 2011) or Mansour Nasser al Bihani (December 2011). Older, remaining articles of dubious notability include articles like Abdur Rehman (Libyan) (April 2008) or Designated Civilian Official (March 2008). These are just examples, not the best or the worst of his articles. Fram (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fram, are there any individuals connected with this general topic whom you do think notable? DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

"This general topic" being...? I'll assume for the time being that this is a genuine, not a rhetorical question, and that you mean the general topic of Guantanamo / Al Qaeda / ... Obviously, someone like Bin Laden is notable. But also people like Baltasar Garzón, Alberto J. Mora and Neal Katyal, or Omar Khadr, Hamed Abderrahaman Ahmad or Abd Al Rahim Abdul Rassak Janko. Why do you ask? You may have missed my statement right above yours, "many remaining articles he created are about notable subjects and will never be deleted at AfD". This includes some of the articles I listed here, and other on the same or similar topics. Fram (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Support S. Marshall's request. It's both reasonable and right. (Discussion of Fram's request is too confused for this forum. Maybe a new discussion on that somewhere). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

A different tack

I think we're using hammers on screws here. It seems Geo Swan has created hundreds(?) of articles which some others feel don't belong on Misplaced Pages for notability and/or BLP reasons. Certainly, when many of these articles are taken to AFD, the consensus is delete. While Geo Swan agrees that some of the articles do not fit our current standards, there is disagreement as to what fraction need improving and what fraction just need to go. Unfortunately, this is being turned into a user conduct problem, with discussion of behavioural restrictions, when it is really a policy interpretation problem. Rather than user conduct RfC's, editing restrictions, or AFD nomination throttles, could we somewhere have a discussion on what are the right principles (based on content and sourcing, but fleshed out in more detail specific to this topic area) for which of these articles should be kept? Then, once there is consensus, there could be a time for interested parties to improve articles that can be made to meet the bar, followed by noncontroversial housecleaning of articles that clearly don't and never will meet the bar, and finally individual AFD discussions for the handful of articles where the answer is still unclear. I repeat: there is no user conduct problem here. Everyone is behaving reasonably according to their perception of the situation. It's just processes designed for evaluating articles one at a time or solving user conduct issues will not get the job done. That's why the issue is hanging around for years. Martinp (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for some common sense and perspective. As someone who has !voted on GeoSwan AfDs in the past, I've always Assumed Good Faith on his part, and on the part of those who were nominating them. Both sides are following guidelines and policies as they see them. There has been no bad behavior from either side, and I even notice that DBigXray has taken a break from nominating more articles while this discussion has been going on (without getting any credit for that)—only one in the last two weeks. Martinp, I'll repeat what you already repeated: "There is no user conduct problem here." All of the time spent discussing the editors should now go toward the broader discussion that you are recommending. First Light (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Close requested

I've requested a close of this discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Another issue

User:Geo Swan's userspace is a terrifying tangle of half-written articles, userspace drafts, userfied AFD casualties, and redirected nonsense. I had asked him (in October of 2010) to clean up his userspace. () Whether it is because he is unable to or unwilling to deal with the mess he has created, he has over 80 redirects, and most of them predate my query to him about fixing them. Some of these are to new targets within his own userspace, and some of the them are to article space. Many of these redirects are redirects from mainspace to his userspace on WP:BLP targets, including some articles which were deleted at WP:AFD. I would propose that at the very least that he be prohibited from creating any new articles (in userspace or in mainspace) until he cleans up the mess in his userspace, and deals with the BLP violations he is currently harboring). On some of these, he has promised that he will soon request a history merge (this one is from October 2010; still sitting in userspace. Others have been moved back to mainspace (Farah Stockman was moved back to mainspace in July 2010 , yet the redirect remains). On 14 April 2009, this link was moved from userspace to mainspace () and then to a new location in mainspace (), and yet the old redirect remains within Geo Swan's userspace. Here is another article redirected to mainspace on 19 May 2009, with the redirect still in place. This redirect hasn't been edited by Geo Swan since March 2010, and hasn't had a substantial edit since 12 September 2008. This article has been lounging around in his userspace since September 2007 with no edits from him; I submitted the redirect target for deletion(), and the redirect itself should be deleted at the same time as a CSD:G8. This page is the top result of a search within Misplaced Pages for a WP:BLP subject; the article itself was deleted in January 2011, and there have been no edits from any editor since October 2011, and no substantial edits since July 2011. (This is a WP:BLP issue, since it is the top result from the internal search engine in Misplaced Pages.) Here is another one, which he acknowledged is unsuitable for article space; the redirect target has not been substantially edited since October 2010. This BLP link was restored to mainspace on 3 August 2009, but the redirect still remains. This article was moved to mainspace on 8 August 2008; ignoring the likely BLP violation of the article (read the talk page, which notes multiple individuals with the same name), a cross-namespace redirect should not remain in place for four years. I won't bother listing all of the rest of the redirect nonsense; I trust that the sample I have provided is enough to make my point. Horologium (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non admin comment: Rather than carry on the fighting here, I suggest you three stop commenting at each other else this ANI is going to be ignored again. Blackmane (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Bluerim has just about managed to avoid any personal attacks in his last post, I'm indeed content to do so. To be clear though: I'm not involved in any of the content disputes that gave rise to this, and just happened to notice the behaviour via an FAC. bridies (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

user:Daviddaved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which ones? To me, most of the articles he's created look like fragments, not yet ready to be articles. @Eekster: I met him about ten years ago. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't be rash!

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

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

Is that the original source? It's available here with a CC attribution non-commercial license, but I have no idea if that's valid. http://www.scribd.com/doc/46658346/Matrix-Properties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.126.182.249 (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wikibooks might be another possible outlet. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've broached the subject on his talk page; see User talk:Daviddaved#What sort of material are you intending to write?. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at some of the userspace stubs. They're not gibberish and the ones I looked at are probably sourceable, though they tend to jump around within a topic kind of abruptly, so they're not all that good as exposition. Within the jumps, they are well written (I mean in terms of the mathematics, not just the English). I wonder if they might be cut and pasted from existing mathematical texts or class notes. They have an informal style more like lecture notes than like a textbook.

It would be nice if we could change the blocking software for this type of (recurring) situation, where someone is editing inappropriately but not maliciously, and hasn't figured out how to respond to talk messages or is ignoring them. Rather than the bureaucratic block messages we use now, it would IMHO be better to have the user's edit screen say "Your ability to edit is temporarily disabled because we have to discuss with you before you can continue. We're not trying to get rid of you, but we haven't been able to get your attention in other ways we've tried. The issue is and we'll be happy to turn your editing back on once it's straightened out. Please enter your reply here: ." 69.228.170.132 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't mind having those words in one of our bureaucratic block message templates. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Support creation of that template and admin use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

second the support. This is not the first time I see an incommunicado person, and there must be a generic, polite way to attract their attention. This is especially true in case of anons. (Registered users at least receive a message that they have a message.) - Altenmann >t 02:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@M.Hardy: "I don't think they should be described as "weird mathematish pages". I think they're legitimate mathematics" — Yet legitimate mathematics may well generate tons of weird math pages, and I stand by my description. A can take any book in maths, open at random and type half of its page into a new wikipedia page. I can repat this ${\displaystyle P=\sum _{i=1}^{n}(p_{i}-1)*2}$ times thus creating P genuine maththematich wikipedia articles. - Altenmann >t 02:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can he edit userspace drafts during the block?

Is this user able to edit userspace drafts during the time in which he is blocked? I've copied one of his deleted pages into a userspace draft and encouraged him to develop it further. I've also done so with an article for which deletion was proposed, which also might become presentable with further work. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked editors can only edit their talk page, I think, not other pages in their userspace. If Daviddaved is really trying to write a book though, he should use wikibooks rather than wikipedia. Wikibooks exists for that very purpose. Can you advise him of that? I still suspect he is pasting sentences from lecture notes without understanding them. The individual mathematical statements make sense but they don't hold together in larger units. 69.228.170.132 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately your suspicion that he is pasting things without understanding them is nonsense. His misunderstandings are about Misplaced Pages; not about mathematics. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No blocking is an incredibly blunt instrument. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC).

Unblock

For now, I have unblocked this user and put a statement explaining this decision on his talk page. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to jump in there if others think it unwarranted, so I'll note here that IMHO someone should manually archive User talk:Daviddaved, and move the userboxes at the top to the user page (which inexplicably is a redirect to talk, created by someone else). One problem may be that the bafflingly long talk page looks like a computer-generated log of arbitrary messages—the sort of thing that would be readily ignored. I would remove everything from talk except the last section (although it would be better if Michael Hardy were to rewrite a new section starting from scratch, and explain, in appropriate words, that communication and collaboration are required, and offer some way to get assistance—all the user needs to do is reply with a question, and someone will offer suggestions). Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like the efforts to explain Misplaced Pages to Daviddaved have worked reasonably well. He moved some of his sandbox stuff to Wikibooks. I support the unblock for now because there's no other way to see what he's learned from this incident other than by letting him edit. One thing that he should be cautioned about is to search Misplaced Pages more before starting a stub. There were quite a few duplicate topics in his previous attempts. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan and Cirt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

??? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 12:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Aug 17, 2012 2:30 am Off2delhiDan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm not sure if this is a point of order or a point of principle (I suspect the latter), but those commenting above that YRC should send emails are missing the fact that the break-enforcer logs you out immediately. It enforces a complete wikibreak and that is why I recommended it to YRC, no watchlist, no email access, no nuthin'. He would have access to my own address if he kept our discussion, and that's it. I haven't heard from him, and I won't be contacting him. Hopefully he really is having a happy break. Also, more on the point-of-order side of things, Prioryman is harassing an editor who they clearly know is unable to respond here. When was that ever justified? Franamax (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't know how the break-enforcer worked, but that's irrelevant as I simply said that YRC could email me, as we have had an email discussion in the past. I've realised that I could email him about this but refrained from doing so. Franamax and others, can I ask what you think an editor should do when they find evidence off-wiki that an editor here is asking people to out another editor here? Cla68, do you have evidence that anyone is trying to stalk YRC? You're a moderator at Wikipediocracy. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • First of all, lots of people do clean out their mailboxes, so it's never wise to assume someone still has your email address, and thank you for not sending an email yourself, as I do believe it's incumbent on us as a whole to give latitude for YRC to actually have a break. More pertinently, 1) no "evidence" has been presented, that could be you or me doing a good spoofing job; and 2) in any case, that is not "an editor here", since YRC is not currently editing here, keeping in mind the whole break-enforcer thing, remember? So save up your venom (not you necessarily, let's say your concerns) for when the editor actually does return to editing here. If they do, we can deal with the concerns then. If they don't, then they are just another crank at an external review site. But while someone is both voluntarily and script-wise prohibited from posting here, it is fundamentally unfair to begin enforcement proceedings against them in the manner Prioryman has done. It is a contemptible form of baiting in fact, since one salient outcome would be driving YRC to post on-wiki and thus violate a term. Or put another way, how often do you normally fly off the handle when you read usenet? Franamax (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Your point about him being an editor here right now is on the money, and I should have thought more about that earlier. And yes, we can, as I suggested, deal with it when and if YRC returns. So yes, we shouldn't be taking any action right now and my suggestion to block him, in hindsight, wasn't the best idea. I do feel very strongly that editors who choose not to use their real names have the right to privacy here and we should do what we can to ensure that. But am I wrong to feel that way? I note that an editor there (who seems to be an editor here) says "Setting aside the is-delhidan-riorob question, was there really anything that terrible about the initial "if anyone has anything on Cirt, expose it" comment in the first place? The Serens and the Dougwellers of that ANI thread act like he shat on the rug and hit on his grandmother while singing Springtime for Hitler." Is this becoming the general feelings around here now? Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Given the venue of the original comment; it seems more like a gripe/moan than anything else (if it is Rob, I don't know - but I did wonder if it was a spoof the first time he appeared). Because if info on Cirt's identity existed I expect it would have been published already! This is not doing anything except causing Cirt distress - which I feel Prioryman must take equal share of the blame. No outing appeared to be imminent and bringing it up here seems a) vindictive to Rob and b) attacking Cirt. The only admin action I could see left here is severe admonishment of Prioryman, but I am "involved" so won't do that. --Errant 09:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I've adviced Prioryman to try to stay away from YRC and not initiate new actions regarding him. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Cold fusion?

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

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

Wiki cold fusion is lost to paid obfuscators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The editor is only interested in the Cold Fusion article. He contributes nothing of value. He's inarticulate/incoherent (some sort of pseudo-Socratic style of question-and-answer). He's disruptive. Why is he here?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have removed the list of email addresses that the user posted to Talk:Cold fusion, and I have removed the off-topic material from Talk:Cold Fusion (disambiguation) (a copyvio had previously been removed by another editor: this is how the page looked before those removals). Gregory Goble (talk · contribs) has edited only topics related to Cold Fusion: 1 edit at Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion; 1 edit at Pathological science; 3 edits at Cold Fusion (disambiguation); 22 edits at Cold fusion. Given the problems surrounding this article, an indefinite topic ban of the user would seem warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he has ever made one single constructive edit on any of the articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I think Gregory goble is mostly harmless, but is completely incoherent (I don't think I am being mean to suggest there may be actual mental issues involved here). I think his response to Blade asking if his account was compromised says it all: User_talk:Gregory_Goble#July_2012 "gbgoble at g mail com or 415 seven two 4 6702... Hi it is me uncompromised lovevolvestillovevolvestillovevolvestillovevolvestill learningregoble--Gregory Goble (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)", and User_talk:IRWolfie-#Get_Over_It; I asked him if he was a native English speaker and instead I received a 13 thousand character reply about cold fusion . IRWolfie- (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Harmless or not, he keeps dropping vague legal threats about suing "wiki". --Enric Naval (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Request to an admin The user has been blocked by The Blade of the Northern Lights but their message said they were unable to edit ANI or put in the block template. Would an admin mind handling that? (And given the rest of his posts on the talk page, absolutely support the decision. Just ... odd.) Ravensfire (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have inserted a block notice to make it easier for the user to appeal. Good call by The Blade of the Northern Lights.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible abusing multiple accounts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By all means check these accounts and you will find no link.Nasir Ghobar does however, have a history in terms of WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR and WP:LAWYER. He has been warned by Administrators for such behaviour. I really do hope this editor changes his aggressive behaviour. Thanks SH 11:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Accounts

• Theman244 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thejatt (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Desijatt1 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

are  Confirmed indistinguishable based on technical evidence (although there are some oddities). Two of them were also created on the same day.
Sikh-history is from another continent.
Amalthea 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is an admin going to block the sock puppets? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like someone is making a bunch of sock puppets deliberately impersonate another editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Block on what account?. I was never involved in any edit war except for Ranjit Singh. Nasir Ghobar is adding misleading information in the article Ranjit Singh. In the discussion on the Talk:Ranjit Singh no other user is agree with Nasir Ghobar. User:Profitoftruth85 and User:Sikh-history disagree with claims made by Nasir Ghobar. This guy Nasir is adding highly misleading information that was rejected by almost all historians. Verified by reliable sources provided by me and other users.

Nasir Ghobar has a history of disruptive edits. Already mentioned by User:Sikh-history. Nasir Ghobar have a history in terms of WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR and WP:LAWYER. I never get a single warning in these terms. All my edits are done within the policies of Misplaced Pages. Most of my edits are done after July 2011 and i never got a single warning, note etc after July 2011. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

On the account of WP:SOCK. The use of multiple accounts is only acceptable under certain, tightly-defined criteria; these accounts do not meet those, and the fact they all have edited Harmandir Sahib - recently - and two of them have edited Sunny Deol indicates that these were made to circumvent policy. Thejatt and Desijatt1 are blocked. Theman244 is warned that sockpuppetry is against Misplaced Pages policy, and any further use of multiple accounts by him will result in his main account being blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Plastic surgeon using Misplaced Pages as an advertisement for his services

Please note today's press release, :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• While it's true he hasn't edited since November, is there any reason this account hasn't been indef'd as clearly WP:NOTHERE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure that is really needed. If they haven't edited since November, they are already not here, so blocking seems improper and ill-timed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • He may not have edited since November, but he posted a press release about the advertorial a couple of days ago. Someone should at least keep an eye out on any future activity by this account. JN466 23:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Potential legal threats at Sharyl Attkisson

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

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

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

It has a chilling effect, in that it is explicitly mentioned as a "Warning" rather than simply saying "content is libellous". Looked at a different way, it's not an instance where someone is remarking on the potential content of an article being libellous, but rather an instance where someone is using the argument that the article contains libellous content as a tool to prevent others from editing. I think that falls on the side of a blockable legal threat, personally. ⇒SWATJester 10:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Stale, comments were made over a week ago; lacking any stated intent to pursue legal action (as per Basalisk), there's nothing to be done. Nobody Ent 13:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

the comments tossing around libel on the article talk page are stale, but they had resumed today with the edit summary here -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

Probably nothing but ...I will seek council if I read such libel again." is clearly a concern per WP:NLT. Maybe a block will not be needed after an admin explains it and the editor shows understanding. Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:DOLT, especially seeing as the comment was made in response to what looks at first glance to be an egregious BLP vio. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger warned them, I revdel'ed just the summary itself and made a note on their talk page as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of AfD template even after warning

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

This ip has been warned for abuse. Now he has resorted to deleting the AfD template on Nishikant dixit even after having been served a notice. He deleted the template before closure of discussion, thrice>>here. I request that this IP be blocked from editing as soon as possible. Harsh (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, should be done, but next time, just list it @ the vandalism noticeboard. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

211.26.243.102 (talk)

This edit by 211.26.243.102 (talk) placed Nazi imagery on another user's talkpage.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• This should go to WP:AIV - but before that you should just try plain reverting and then discussing it on the IP's talk page. The vandalism has been reverted, so I don't think there's anything else to see here for the mo. --Ritchie333 13:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked that IP for 31 hours. There is no conceivable way that any person could have thought that was an appropriate thing to do, so I don't see the point in giving a warning. They can explain themselves if they want to edit an article. --Jayron32 13:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I had given them a single final warning, but I don't have issue with the block either. It could have gone either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have issue with the ANI post, the warning, and the block -- it's all troll feeding. Edits like that should simply be reverted, it's just vandalism.Nobody Ent 13:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Nobody Ent. A revert was all that was required here. I can't tell easily from a WHOIS if the IP is dynamic, but the fact this IP has only one other contribution years ago, and came straight in knowing how to link images correctly, suggests that it is - so all the block's probably done is aggravate somebody else needlessly through collateral damage. --Ritchie333 14:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That's why the block was a short block (only 31 hours). Long enough to stop the current user, short enough to minimize the possibility of collateral damage. If you believe this person is a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages, you can argue that and unblock them. --Jayron32 16:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
• Maybe so but I was lead here by WP:PA.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to mention an important additional point: This anon IP, under similar IP addresses, has consistently vandalized my page with Nazi imagery for probably a year now. I'm afraid reverting in and of itself has never worked: He simply keeps coming back on a given day, over and over, until he is blocked. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I've got my stories mixed up, and I don't want to say too much... but is this the guy who was constantly violating BLP rules about a particular public figure? I think he hit me with the swastika a time or two also. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

203.134.140.48 (talk · contribs) I didn't dream it, but I don't know if it's your same "friend". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 07:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Both in Melbourne. Maybe they are just like-minded "pals", in the same city and with eerily similar interests, completely unrelated. Doc talk 07:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise this. In which case - yeah, multiple offender, block and point towards WP:DOOR which explains carefully how to avoid hitting it on the way out. --Ritchie333 19:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I'd suggest semi protection of the page. Nobody Ent 23:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem editor

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

Settdigger (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Settdigger created an account on August 24, 2012. Since that time, he has made 84 edits, of which precisely half are to articles. He appears to be interested in political articles and, in particular, whether a person's death is a targeted killing or an "assassination", by the American government or by the Obama administration. See Anwar al-Aulaqi and Barack Obama. In addition to editing contentiously at the al-Aulaqi and Obama articles, he has also edited similarly at the Targeted killing article itself. This edit gives you a flavor of his agenda.

He has edit-warred on the Obama article (and I should have blocked him at the outset for the violation but chose to engage him instead). He has butted heads with many editors on other articles, both in the articles and on the article talk pages. His communication style is non-collaborative. He is clearly contemptuous of Misplaced Pages. He engages in personal attacks - at least I think he's calling Tarc a Nazi (Settdigger's style is often oblique and/or opaque).

He created a new article for an apparent friend ().

Overall, my concern is that his purpose in being here is not constructive. Some of his behavior borders on trolling, and very few, if any, of his edits enhance the project. I thought about blocking him for edit-warring. I thought about blocking him for the personal attack, but my instincts tell me there's something more going on here, and I figured with more input we might achieve a longer-term fix.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your first instinct is probably going to be the correct one.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, trying to engage first is always the best solution. It doesn't always work out, but it does often enough that the rewards far outweigh a little free effort. To put it bluntly, the editor seems to think he is clever, but he needs some clue as to how we accomplish things here at Misplaced Pages. Let's see what he has to say here at ANI, assuming he is wise enough to engage here, and perhaps we can offer a little assistance. He seems plenty bright enough, but his communications skills are lacking and I can see why it might look like trolling to some. On a forum, this would be typical, but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and perhaps he can be convinced that a little more decorum is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been attempting to discuss things with the SettDigger on my talk page. I think he has the capacity to make helpful contributions here, but I think a cool-down period is in order, at least as a first step. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't block for cool down periods, however, and when an admin mistakenly does, it tends to have the opposite effect. So, persuasion is the order of the day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Settdigger (talk · contribs) for 24 hours. To be clear, it's not a "cool-down" block - he violated 3RR and engaged in personal attacks, and most of his recent posts are disruptive and unhelpful, if not outright trolling (e.g. ). I think there should probably also be some discussion here of how to work with this editor in the long-term, but just wanted to notify participants of his short-term block for edit-warring. MastCell  20:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I support the block, particularly because it relies not just on the edit-warring violation, but also on the other issues this editor has. I am not anywhere nearly as sanguine as Dennis or Jethro that Settdigger can be transformed into a constructive editor. However, to the extent that people want to hear his side at ANI, that, obviously, won't be possible until the block expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything that can be done to calm down all the Obama/Romney pages until after the election? We need a way to handle new editors who turn up wanting to insert outrage into the lead (or anywhere), and who dominate the talk page with opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest looking at the editing habits/patterns of socks/disruptors past such as Gaydenver. I'm quite used to negative reactions from POV-pushers when I tell them that they suggestions about Obama's Kenyan birth certificates don't go in the article, or their OpEds about "assassinations", or whatever the conspiracy-theory-of-the-day is. There is a world of difference between a genuinely new-to-Misplaced Pages editor expressing frustration at not getting his way and this. That is a uniquely visceral and personalized type of aggression that a returning old user uses when he is trying to get around the same editors that have opposed and stymied him in the past. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If not him, then maybe Grundle2600 is worth a check for a connection. This isn't exactly Grundle's prior edit war of choice, but he's long tried to force in anything critical of Obama, and perhaps he's trying a new tactic as he's learned his old tactics are recognized and not working. I'm not 100% tied to this being Grundle, but it's been a month or so, and we haven't heard from him, so it may be worth checking out. --Jayron32 05:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
    • We hear from him all the time, e.g. just yesterday, posted on a few hours before settdigger's block. I'm just an armchair shrink, but IMO it'd take quite a drastic personality shift to go from polite yet persistent POV-pusher to vitriolic Nazi-name-calling bomb-thrower. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Shonuff. Just thinking out loud mostly. Carry on. --Jayron32 19:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Settdigger came off of his block. He made some uncharacteristically temperate comments on two talk pages. He then went against consensus and added his agenda-like edit to the Obama lead (), which was subsequently reverted. He also made this change to the Targeted killing article. I haven't looked at his other edits, but I note he has also not come here to defend himself.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not really convinced now that settdigger is looking to edit more constructively per this all-or-nothing attitude. He might be trying to engage editors on the talk page now, but trying to own the article in this manner by exclusively deciding what is and isn't important before consensus is built on a highly-watched article is disruptive. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 21:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• After being properly reverted by Jethro, Settdigger made this edit, which reads like a nah-nah-nah from a child who didn't get what he wanted. I have blocked him for one week for resuming his edit-warring on the article after MastCell's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute with Esc2003 in Turk's head brush article

Esc2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Turk's head brush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Here's a summary of a change I made in the Turk's head brush article:
Removing link to "anti-Turkism" because there are no sources to prove that this brush was called "Turk's head brush" for "anti-Turkish" reasons. Also removing sources in the Turkish language. Sources must be in English.

Later, Esc2003 undid my version and restored the foreign language source and anti-Turkism link.

I don't think this user understands that Turkish language sources cannot be used in English language articles because we wouldn't know their contents. Also, he adds an "anti-Turkism" link to the bottom of the page even though there is no source which states that the Turk's head brush is an attempt of expressing anti-Turkish sentiments by those who originally came up with the term. This might turn into an edit war if he keeps undoing my edits based on his poor understanding of how to provide links in a wiki page. Would be nice if an admin monitors the situation before things get out of hand. I didn't post this in the edit/warring noticeboards because technically it isn't. He and I only undid one revision each, mine of which was based on the above reasons, but I think the user needs to know that his understanding of the page and its sources is incorrect, and his failure to understand it might lead him to undo revisions with no grounds. The user will be informed of this in his talk page. Qatarihistorian (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page. And I'd like to add that non-English sources are perfectly acceptable when there is no equal English content available. See WP:V: "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." I.e., it is considered good editing practice to provide a translated quote for questionable statements. De728631 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Implicit threats of violence

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

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

Nienk started a thread on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Humanities#Is it true that the Columbine massacre took place during the Clinton firearms ban. After some discussion, he identifies with the IDF and claims to be handy with his guns. Following some more discussion, Jayron32 (talk · contribs) closed it as trolling, to which Nienk responds "Wish you were a Palestinian." Given that the Palestinians are enemies of the Israelis, I was concerned that he was essentially saying that he wanted to shoot Jayron32, so I inquired about the edit on his talk page. He then takes it to my talk page, claiming he has no respect for "land thieves". I then explicitly asked him whether he was threatening violence, and he did not deny it but instead stated: "He deserved that response...." What should be done? Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you add the homophobic part which caused my response? Nienk (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Having also felt like I was threatened recently, I don't think anyone deserves to come on Misplaced Pages and even have to question whether someone means to be violent or not. My opinion: Indef Nienk until he decides that threatening others is not acceptable whether it's explicit or implicit.--v/r - TP 17:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just block the idiot and be done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am exceeding the shits I have to give about this issue just by commenting here. This thread gives more import to this person that they deserve. Do whatever you all want. Don't involve me in it one way or the other. --Jayron32 17:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User Kaz and Crimean Karaites/Karaims POV Fork

• User:Kaz moved the article on Crimean Karaites to Turkic Karaites on 27 August 2012.

• As this was turned out to be a contentious move, it was reverted, so on 28 August 2012, Kaz initiated a move discussion.

• Also on 28 August 2012, Kaz edited a redirect page Karaims, so that instead of redirecting to Crimean Karaites, it redirected to Turkic Karaites.

• Then on 29-30 August 2012, Kaz edited the redirect page Karaims into a content fork of the article on Crimean Karaites complete with merger proposal.

• On 30 August 2012, Kaz placed a merge proposal notice on Crimean Karaites, proposing a merge with Karaims.

--Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting the procedures correct. I don't know what a POV Fork is but will be happy if someone can explain it to me. I still find the wikipedia editing protocols inaccessible due to a mental disability. At any rate, it seems the discussion is going along well now and I only reverted the changes because peoples comments were being deleted and moved. The issue is simple really. Karaims are not Karaite Jews, and Crimean Karaites is a misnomer and should never have been started. It should now be be merged into a relevant section on the Karaims article. The majority of voters seem to be in agreement with this. Apologies if I have not been able to access the wikipedia editing protocols correctly, but a disability is something society unintentionally causes in an individual, so it is not my fault really.Kaz 21:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Then please restore the redirect page to a redirect page, and allow the discussion of a move to runs its course.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But Sir, as I have tried to explain to you, Karaims was originally an article before the Crimean Karaites page existed. It should never have been redirected there in the first place, and was only done so by some user who did not understand the difference between Karaims and Karaite Jews. If you like you can delete whichever article and talk page you like. as long as the votes of the people involved are not undermined and the end result is a Karaims article with a sub-section about Crimean Karaims to which the Crimean Karaites page points. I do not have Admin privileges to do all this by myself but if I did I would certainly have fixed it all from the very beginning through a slow process of consultation without anyone's opinion being lost. Kaz 22:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

'The votes of the people'? Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to know that. Facts should never be decided by Majority vote. But then I am confused why such voting proceedures exist. Thankfully the majority in this case agree with the facts. Kaz 05:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A vote (usually known as a "!vote" or "not vote") exists to try and judge WP:CONSENSUS. The admin who makes the final judgement will not look at numbers, but the strength of the policy-based arguments. So, a 12-5 "vote" may actually lead to "no consensus to change" if the 12 were WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes, and the 5 were strongly-rooted in policy dangerouspanda 11:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The return of Mziboy

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

The quacking is piercing.Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Bushranger had opened an SPI] on this after I pointed the situation to him, but considering that the ban discussion is still above and hasn't scrolled off, there's no reason it can't be handled here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I reported him to AIV half an hour ago, but apparently they're asleep at the switch there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the fact I've gone deaf from the quacking now I've blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! (Thanks) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"OUR TOP STORY TONIGHT..." Oops, I was channeling Garrett Morris for a second there. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, I as channeling Stan Freberg above: "It's shrill, man, it's too piercin'" Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Daaay-O! ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. If his IP is static (I don't recall), maybe a lengthy block on it would help. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's likely that he has regular access to at least two IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Comcast is a rather static ISP despite being listed as dynamic. Elockid 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And obviously blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and to T.Canens for semi-protecting the AfD for a week, and GB Fan for deleting the AfD talk page created by the sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks due to Beeblebrox as well for semi-ing Black science fiction, another Mziboy target. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's telling that he thinks we would be dumb enough not to notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Every block-evader seems to think that they're the first ones to try it. I think you should add a couple of days to his indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Bugs, I don't think that's going to help much, let alone be any type of deterrent whatsoever. --MuZemike 05:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Revert attacks

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

Clearly someone has a grudge?

Special:Contributions/109.76.115.151

Ma®©usBritish 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked by Black Kite, mass rollbacked (or is it mass rolled back?) by me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on this remark I can only suspect User:Sheodred - there has been no other Irish Vodaphone IP editor ever crossed me before, in such a manner. Checkuser? Ma®©usBritish 01:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to open an SPI. That ISP is very dynamic though. Black Kite (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. Ma®©usBritish 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Block Request of user Gabirro

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

This user has carried out personal attacks, provocation and slander to my person, as you can see here, so I request urgent measures. Zorglub-PRV (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that

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

I was reading this section at You didn't build that and close to the bottom of that section there are several editors hurling about invective. Can an admin please bring a hose in and cool everyone down before things get even more out of hand?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of bringing this here myself, in the context of asking an admin to have a word with Kenatipo (talk · contribs). This editor treats Misplaced Pages as an ideological battleground at baseline and dismisses the Associated Press a partisan left-wing source (that's par for the course). But really, when he explicitly describes his role on Misplaced Pages as "shovelling shit against the liberal tide, one teaspoonful at a time" (while addressing another editor as "you hypocrite"), we're probably at the level of battleground behavior that's disrupting constructive efforts to improve the article.

I should add that ideologically driven edit-warring is also out of control at the article; I've filed two WP:AN3 reports in the last two days (, ). Given the prominence of this article subject in partisan election-season politics, sustained administrative attention would probably be useful. MastCell  04:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as the article presents the complete statement, and not the truncated and purposely misleading version used by the Group of Old People, that should be sufficient. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Group of... Oh, I get it. I'm reminded me of what that young whipper-snapper Bentsen said to old codger Quayle back sometime last century. --Shirt58 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've given Kenatipo (talk · contribs) 48 hours respite from his shovelling shit enterprise. I think if he returns and continues the next block should be indefinite. Thoughts? --John (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If there's an escalating pattern to this behavior (be it from him or other political ideologists) that's leading up to election day, the brakes definitely need to be put on, or things in general are liable to be worse than they were in 2008. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 05:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Good call, John. And I agree that this needs to be kept at bay between now and November. Those with the block botton shouldn't be too squeamish about it in both directions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Argument on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Lecture Fund

I'm coming here to report an argument that's starting to get heated on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Lecture Fund. User:Thom-293 is one of several users that have edited an article about a lecture fund for Georgetown University. The article lacks in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, so it was nominated for deletion. I voted for it to be deleted based upon this and a search. I'm in the habit of checking back with AfD discussions because you never know when something could suddenly find sources that pass notability and Thom-293 had added sources that they claim shows notability. The issue with the sources in the AfD and on the article as a whole is that the coverage is trivial at best, being comprised of passing mentions. Other sources are primary (the fund website), sources that would be considered primary because they're released by Georgetown University student newspapers, articles that do not mention the fund at all, and non-reliable sources from non-notable blog entries. I pointed this out in the AfD discussion, as well as mentioning that the piling on of sources will not show notability for the article because none of them show notability for the fund. Multiple trivial mentions do not give notability. I gave a list explaining why the sources weren't usable. (It was rather lengthy, being over 60 links.) I was then accused of having a vendetta against the group and against the user because I asked them if they were involved with the group in any way. The user is a "member of the speech and expression committee at Georgetown which governs Georgetown's free speech policy on campus" (I'm quoting this because it's just easier this way). I've tried to explain that being a student at GU and part of a group that reports on the fund could still be considered a COI because by being a student in a group that still has ties to the fund indirectly, it's easy to see notability where there is none. It's not as strong a COI as if he or she was part of the group, but there's still a concern of COI, just as I'd have a COI if I were to edit articles about my college or any of the groups they run. This is pretty much just bickering back and forth now, so I thought I'd just cut it to the quick and bring it here. I'm trying really hard not to bite the newbie, but I've explained why the sources are unusable for notability and I've suggested a compromise by having the article mentioned on the larger GU article and redirected there. It's just coming down to baseless accusations at this point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As no admin action is needed until Monday when the AfD closes, I assume you are here for advice: My advice is to let the normal processes deal with it. I think their declared purpose and COI is so apparent, that there was no particular need to emphasize it, there or here. You've explained things well enough at the AfD , and that's the time to stop. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pretty much spot on. I just wanted advice and for an admin to keep an eye on everything, as well as for others to come in and monitor the situation and get some fresh eyes on everything. I'm going to try to walk away at this point, as I can't do much more than I already have. Thanks! Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Having looked at the page, it's pretty mild as far as AfDs go. The closing admin will have little trouble with the one or two SPAs who posted repeatedly and somewhat vehemently over there. As for advice, Tokyogirl79, you've stated your case quite clearly, so you should stop responding to them unless they bring up some new & independent sources. (And COI arguments are rarely decisive in any content discussion on Misplaced Pages these days.) Tijfo098 (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Whitelist request == unanswered

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

Per Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive766#Whitelist_removal_for_Paralympic_table, could someone (admin) whitelist the link on the table? The Games are ongoing and we need the table..Lihaas (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

yes? WilyD 07:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. WilyD 07:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Stylops melittae

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

Someone translated my german article. In german Misplaced Pages usually the history is imported in these cases. Maybe here is an admin who could do this now? --Kersti Nebelsiek (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a precedent for transwiki history importation. The history of the en.wp version includes a mention that it was translated from the de.wp edition, which is usually good enough for Misplaced Pages's GFDL and CC copyrights.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

While it's not a widespread practice, it can be done if desired: I'll import the dewiki history and do a history merge in the next hour or so. Graham87 (talk · contribs) and I have been the most prolific importers, I think. Acroterion (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Linguistics

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

We need a block, possibly range, on the IP that's having fun at linguistics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected Linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for 2 weeks, which should solve the problem more handily than a range-block. MastCell  17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless the joker decides to have fun elsewhere. Thanks though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Slash and burn on New York City

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

History of New York City is being repeatedly hit by user 208.103.76.62 -- I count eight major vandal attacks by this IP in the last 10 minutes. Rjensen (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User: 173.174.159.84

The IP editor Special:Contributions/173.174.159.84 despite already having been blocked twice for disregarding Misplaced Pages policy in regards to WP:MOSFLAG is now moving onto disregarding WP:MOSBIO and adding in speculative original research into boxer articles that appears in some cases to be at best biased and selective. They have already had two new warnings: User_talk:173.174.159.84#New_warning. Despite these warnings they continue to carry on regardless and has been reverted by 3 different editors:

1. - unsourced ethnicity
2. - unsourced ethnicity
3. , - removing or altering nationalities
4. - this one intentionally tries to classify a Northern Irish boxer as Irish
5. , - over-categorisation by adding in parent categories alongside child categories
6. - changing flag of country boxer fought for - another biased change from Northern Irish to Irish
7. - going quite frankly overboard with adding in unsourced ethnicities into article ledes
8. - more unsourced ethnicities

These are only some the edits this editor is intent in pursuing with. The fact this editor once their past two blocks expired goes straight back to being disruptive, and as such i think a longer block of maybe a month or more is needed to help deter this editor from persisting with it. Mabuska 14:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Urp-frontdesk

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

Urp-frontdesk (talk · contribs) keeps on removing copyvio tags from University Research Park - Madison Wisconsin, even after a final warning. Can an admin please intervene? Thanks, Electric Catfish 18:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC).

I've blocked them because of the username, you aren't allowed to have a username which closely matches that of an entity like this. I also deleted the article per WP:CSD#G12, as unambiguous copying. Anything else? --Jayron32 18:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing else. Thanks! Electric Catfish 20:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:sheena.mundra

Sheena.mundra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This SPA editor seems to do nothing but create articles about Dah Yu Cheng, only one or two of which seem likely to survive. Many have died through WP:PROD as copyvios or as blatant advertizing. He has appeared again to de-PROD CLN (technology). His talk page testifies to his lack of response to numerous notices. I raised this COI/N issue and discovered today that Sheena Mundra could only have a stronger COI if he were named "Cheng". I would request some administrator action to get his attention as he seems to have little interest in playing by our rules. Mangoe (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick sock block needed please

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

212.187.45.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a sock of Misternumber1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who also edited as 24.132.2.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Only edits from the current IP are BLP violating ones, so if someone could do the necessary it'd be helpful. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. IP blocked and tagged. --Kinu /_c 22:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Here of this work, after I warned them before. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Freedomcali7 notified. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And he's still going. EDIT: Upon further examination, he is changing it some, but that version still contains at least two verbatim lines from the uh.edu. I think it may only be necessary for another editor to talk with him about this, to get the point across that it's not just me but the site that's against copyright violation. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

They're new and they're referencing the author of the material, so I'm going to assume they just doesn't understand they can't do it. I've left a personalized message on their Talk page. Hopefully, that will help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing low-level harassment

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

Hey there, I just logged in to make a minor edit to a page and noticed a new message on my own page. Hooray! Unfortunately it was this. I am not going to try contacting the user at this stage because they posted anonymously, leaving only their IP address, and it would be ineffectual.

The backstory to this is pretty obvious - once upon a time (five years ago and longer) I very briefly maintained a games-related website, and one person seems to believe that I have done some grave disservice to the world by ending my support of it. Talk about your flies and vinegar! I've been offered assistance before on this, and seeing that this individual is still continuing to randomly edit the page, I think some measure might be helpful here. --Edwin Herdman 23:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwin Herdman (talk • contribs)

I fixed your link. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have hardblocked the IP for a week. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

71.56.38.166 sockpuppet?

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

24.131.61.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making similar edits to 71.56.38.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which is currently blocked for disruptive editing. Trivialist (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Also, said user is persistent in editing List of television spin-offs to say that Sweet Valley High is a spinoff of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers ( ) which is either deliberate vandalism or utter cluelessness. I'm almost at 3RR, so if anyone else wants to revert the latest edit, please do. Trivialist (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Probably not a sock, but very likely to be dynamic IPs of the same user (Geolocation) - something that you too can easily check up on. IPs are now blocked for a short time for disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Abusive change of the name of an article

War of the Ragamuffins is about a 19th century Brazilian rebellion known in Portuguese as "Guerra dos Farrapos". An unregistered user has changed the article's name to "War of the Farrapos" without bothering to discuss with other users and even less asking for a move request. I reverted him but he has reverted me. See here. Now here is the thing: "War of the Ragamuffins", that is, the name in English most used by English sources has 21,100 results on Google books. "War of the Farrapos" has 2,070 results. Could someone do something about this? --Lecen (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BRD, and continue to discuss on the talk page. Not (yet) a matter for ANI.--ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I know the rules, but they are worthless when an editor does not care about them. --Lecen (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• User talk:Imnotkeller warned for edit warring. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but Lucen was the one reverting my edit. He decided completely by himself to change the name of the article some time ago (a major change), even though there was one objection by an experienced editor in the talk page. Give the discussion had happened a few months ago, I changed the name of the article back to "War of the Farrapos" and gave multiple rationales in the talk page. Lecen ignored the talk page and simply started everting my edits.

I don't give a rat's behind about warnings, but, at the very least, he deserves one too --I. N. Keller (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Explained on my talk page. No admin action required here, take to WP:DRN if necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This has progressed to a substantive and polite content discussion on the article's talk page (including the participation I. N. Keller), so I don't see what administrative intervention might be needed except closing an eventual WP:RM, but that's for another venue. I suggest closing this incident thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

COI accusation

Hi, my editing activity is currently under discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Issue is related to the Michael Servetus article and its Talk page. I would like that neutral Administrators or volunteer users would monitor this case and would participate and/or resolve on the discussion. I have exposed my defense arguments but still no feedback from neutral users, and I would prefer the issue to be fairly settled and resolved. Thanks. --Jdemarcos (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

173.71.215.219

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

173.71.215.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), after numerous warnings, continues to add false information about "Little Einsteins"/"Justice League" crossovers to Little Einsteins and List of Little Einsteins episodes. Trivialist (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I gave him a 1-month vacation; this IP address is obviously static given the long-term nature of the vandalism. In the future, you can use WP:AIV for situations like this. --Jayron32 05:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This has been sitting at AIV for almost an hour

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

Could someone block the above, please? It's a sock of this guy. Thanks in advance. Evanh2008 06:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

82.4.43.10

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive746#82.18.191.248 for full background on this editor's previous IPs and behaviour.

With current IP 82.4.43.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) we've got the same problems, no user talk posts, no talk page posts, adding unsourced categories repeatedly (since those diffs are just recent ones and the tip of the iceberg), adding fictional Irish names and so on and so on. They've had many warnings on their various IPs and many blocks too, a 3 month block (fourth block on that IP as well) when editing as 82.16.122.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has done little to curb their appetite for disruptive editing. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 10:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sawtooth National Forest

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

Unfortunately, there is original research with the acreage, vital information. It was obtained in an honest way, peicing sources together, but it is original research. There are other examples on the page. Us441 (talk to me) (My piece) 10:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not really an ANI matter, not an incident that requires admin intervention. Normally, I would just make an appeal on the talk page of the article with specifics, or just dig up the sources. This isn't really contentious, and if it any part really was contentious in some way I don't get, you would just remove it it, copy over the to talk page and discuss, but you don't need an admin to do any of that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The revisionists are back

The Nazi revisionists from Croatia (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#IP-hopping_vandalism_of_articles_related_to_Nazi_Germany) are back: see User:78.3.46.88, on the 1 September article here , the Timeline of World War II (1939) article here , Mile Budak (again) here and Switzerland article here .

After I range-blocked them earlier, they have moved from editing via Optima Telekom (AS34594) to Croatian Telecom (AS5391). While their leitmotif is the changing of the term "Nazi Germany" to "National Socialist Germany", they have in the past made much more serious revisionist edits, generally aimed at exonerating the acts of the Nazis. Since I have removed almost all of the occurences of the words "National Socialist Germany" on Misplaced Pages (except for the few where it is actually warranted from context) I hope their footprints should be fairly obvious. Be on the lookout! -- The Anome (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that they've IP-hopped once already on their new ISP: I've softblocked that range for a short time to prevent this. Hopefully this won't be too intrusive. -- The Anome (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also: I just performed a revdel, for what I hope (for those among you with admin permissions) are obvious reasons: can someone please run this past the oversighters to get it expunged properly from the record? -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFO, or you can ping an oversighter by email. — Edokter (talk) — 11:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I know: but can someone else do it for me, please, for reasons too gnarly to go into here... -- The Anome (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Newsletter

As part of Steven Zhang's dispute resolution fellowship, we've created a newsletter to update interested community members ongoing developments and research into dispute resolution. I'm asking about to whom we can send the newsletter without it being considered spammy. There are two potential lists:

1. List 1: These are editors directly involved in dispute resolution
2. List 2: These are editors active in dispute-resolution related noticeboards

Here's the draft of the first newsletter, just so you know what it involves: Newsletter

Question: Are either/both/neither lists ok to send out. There is an opt-out mechanism, but, it's opt-out not opt-in. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks! Ocaasi 15:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it opt-in?--Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Lack of awareness - if no-one knows about it, they won't know to opt-in. Having the first issue as opt-out creates this awareness and anyone that doesn't want to receive it on an ongoing basis can let us know. Steven Zhang 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A blurb about it could be mentioned in the Signpost, on the Mediation Committee's talkpage, the Dispute resolution noticeboard's talkpage, and other related talk pages. This seems better to me and could increase awareness of the newsletter, without anyone getting unwanted posts on their talkpage.--Rockfang (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What would be posted on a user's talk page? A brief note with a link? Normally I would oppose anything like spam, but I can see there is a good reason to send out at least the first of these to as many editors as possible (however, please do not post the whole newsletter on multiple pages—far too big). My preference would be for the first newsletter to have a clearer aim: Why are you sending this? Are there likely to be any proposals for significant change? Any overview of future directions? What is the purpose—to make everyone happier? to more easily remove problem editors? to assist good encyclopedic content and resist POV pushers? If sending these unsolicited, please have some method of switching them off for users who have not contributed in the last month. Search for "forum, with" to see there is some missing text. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Cloverfield Page - Vandalised

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

I've been reading the page to clear some points up after watching the movie, and I saw that there is the word "Slenderman" a large number of times in the plot, seemingly replacing words that are supposed to be there. Cloverfield is absolutely not related to the urban legend Slenderman. I'm not sure if it's considered spam or vandalism, but it's obviously not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.136.190 (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It was already fixed before you posted here. Thanks for noticing and letting us know. GB fan 17:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

EdelweissD's ownership issues

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

As can be seen at List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins: Revision history, EdelweissD (talk · contribs) has been reverting in opposition to consensus as to the format of the article. He has failed to respond to comments on his user talk page, and has also twice reverted the addition of a link to the history portal, as can be seen here and here. AutomaticStrikeout 17:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As an involved admin, I've witnessed in the same article that EdelweissD has also been changing the name of Grover Cleveland Alexander from his WP:COMMONNAME. Discussion with three editors at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_pitchers_with_200_career_wins#Grover_Cleveland_Alexander on August 28 supports the name to be listed as "Grover Cleveland Alexander". Editor was warned on August 28 about edit-warring on this issue . Here is EdelweissD history of changes regarding the person's name:

1. September 1 Changed to Old Pete Alexander
2. August 28 #1 Changed to Pete Alexander
3. August 28 #2 Changed to Pete Alexander
4. August 27 Changed to Grover Alexander
5. August 7 Changed to Pete Alexander
6. August 4 #1 Changed to Grover Alexander
7. August 4 #2 Changed to Grover Alexander
8. August 3 #1 Changed to Grover Alexander
9. August 3 #2 Changed to Grover Alexander
10. June 15, 2012 Changed to Pete Alexander

Another issue with the editor on the same page is the entry criteria for the list. Consensus at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_pitchers_with_200_career_wins#List_entry_criteria was declared on August 28 that the list should be pared from the players with the 500 highest win totals to only include players with 200 wins. The user has still reverted three times thereafter. Here is EdelweissD's history of changes keeping the list with 500 entries:

1. Aug 7 EdelweissD adds entries to make the list 500 entries long
2. Aug 7 Discussion started on article talk page regarding list entry criteria.
3. Aug 28 00:46 Consensus declared that list should be pared from 500 entries to players with 200 wins
4. Aug 28 06:23 EdelweissD makes list 500 entries long again.
5. Aug 28 16:05 EdelweissD notified on their user talk page of the consensus
6. Sept 1 13:57 EdelweissD makes list 500 entries long again.
7. Sept 1 20:16 And again

EdelweissD has elected not to participate in the aforementioned discussions related to their reverts. Editor has 0 talk page edits in their editing history.

Edit history comments by EdelweissD have included:

• "Major changes should be done in a new page. This is top 500 wins list."
• "unjustified major change of no real value"
• "Page has been formatted thus for years. Drop the know-it-all attitude please."

—Bagumba (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

See also this recent warning by Baseball Bugs. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

EdelweissD took out the portal link, again. Note the very polite edit summary. AutomaticStrikeout 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This issue was discussed on the article talk page, a discussion EdelweissD ignored. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this user has any intention of discussing the situation. AutomaticStrikeout 21:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not, except for comments in the edit summaries which make it clear that he thinks it's his own article. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, look through his history, and you'll discover he's been on here for 2 years and that is essentially the ONLY article he's worked on. No wonder he thinks it's his. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's very likely the reason for his behavior, but it's not an acceptable excuse. He doesn't own the article regardless of whether or not he thinks he does. He had his chance to make his opinion heard during the discussion and he didn't. Now, he wants to push his way over the consensus. I think he's going to find that consensus will push back and will push harder. AutomaticStrikeout 21:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, it started in 2005 as a "Top 100" but was essentially what it is now, 200 wins or more. For reasons unknown, an editor (apparently not the one in question) changed it 4 years ago to the top 500 pitchers. Recent consensus is that that quantity is overkill. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest topic ban

Instead of blocking them right away I propose a topic ban regarding all article pages related to baseball. Given EdelweissD's editing history this will probably have the same effect as a block but they would still be able to edit elsewhere if they so desire. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. If nothing else, it might compel him to communicate directly with other editors. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Bugs. It wouldn't have to be permanent if EdelweissD was willing to stop the edit warring. AutomaticStrikeout 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems severe as editor has never been blocked for edit-warring. Recommend block for edit warring and with hopes of effecting a realization that discussion is essential in disagreements..—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Either one is liable to get him irritated, and blocking would be easier, i.e. it could be done immediately. But for what length of time? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say a week for now. Something short might not have much of an effect. AutomaticStrikeout 21:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Support a week block. The editor has refused to engage or educate themselves on the changes the article has incorporated within the past few weeks. The editor continues to think reverts is the way to go about this, rather than posing questions, listing their reasons for support on the article's talk page, or project's talk page. Latest edit summaries include these two: (20:16 1 Sept) "This completely changes the page. Make a top 200 page without destroying this one. Nothing stopping you from doing that" and (20:19 1 Sept) "You are making a new page. Destroying this one serves no value other than to make you know-it-alls feel important." The editor appears intent on carrying out their vision solely by use of reverting, and now the edit summaries are starting to get a bit uncivil. Zepppep (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While this is being hashed out, I have submitted a 3R report here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:EdelweissD reported by User:Zepppep (Result: ). The editor's 4 reverts within the past 24 hours need to be dealt with speedily, although I understand it may take a little while for a ruling to be delivered here. Zepppep (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I support a one week block as well. I just finished cleaning up his latest work. The edit summaries are here and here . Clearly the message is not getting through, so maybe a week long vacation will help. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that I've blocked the user for the edit warring. This shouldn't effect any of the above and I don't necessarily think a longer block/topic ban would hurt. Swarm 05:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT

A swathe of technical articles at AfD today (I think eleven so far), all with simplistic boilerplate nomination, "Overly technical, nothing but a dicdef. Does not seem expandable. No sources found. Deprodded for no reason by an editor who seems to get his jollies by deprodding me without ever explaining."

Whilst these articles are indeed highly technical, mostly poorly explained and difficult to understand in their present form, there is no indication that this makes them a WP:DICDEF - and IMHO, these issues make them rather the opposite of what DICDEF and a presumed transwiki to wikt: would be appropriate for. Nor is the nominator calling for transwiki, but (as always, it's TPH after all) outright deletion.

I know that WP:BEFORE is considered to not apply to TPH, past calls for an AfD topic ban of him having been rejected. However these nominations are no more than WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• They're overly technical stubs and I see no way that any of them can be possibly expanded beyond their sub-stub, sourceless state. It's not that I don't understand them; it's that I don't think they're notable. All they do is say "An X is a Y, here's one example" and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• What is an "overly technical stub", in terms of a valid reason to delete, as against a need for improvement by editing?

You have twice used the rather insulting comment " Don't expect the house to build itself." against editors today (both of whom have contribution records that aren't simply dominated by AfD nominations). Yet here you refuse to "build the house" yourself, and you assume the impossibility of anyone else building it either, by deleting articles to make sure there are no foundations left to build upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not that I refuse to build the house. It's that I have searched to the best of my abilities and not found the equipment to even build the house. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone who is concerned about keeping the articles actually found any RS or expanded the article? Because if not, TPH is only stating fact - the article will not improve itself. It is incumbent on those wanting it kept to improve it. Besides, if one is of the position that the article should be deleted, why would one build it themself? GregJackP Boomer! 04:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• i have just reviewed the first 5 and 2 seems fine for AFD the other 3 i can see the point the OP is making some do seem bit over the top for nomation one of them does have a source and i could find one more source, i think the problem is ones i looked at are about new technologies so might get coverage in teh future so it hard one to call. i think both editors are in the right and wrong--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Why is this an administrator issue? What specific policy is being violated which requires administrator action? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Good bloody question. The only nit I would pick is TPH's assertion that Warden's mass deprodding is anything personal. Warden doesn't trouble himself to give reasons for deprodding as a matter of course, whomever the original prodder. That being said, I understand that for inexperienced users, coming to ANI -- and, moreover, coming to ANI without bothering to attempt any other resolution, including notes to appropriate talk pages -- is a hallmark of "OMG SomeGuy Is Doing Something I Don't Like!" Andy is neither an inexperienced editor nor unfamiliar with ANI, and so I am baffled. Ravenswing 20:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Because the repeated nature of this issue, with this editor, means it's time to discuss sanctions, hopefully including a topic ban. Or at least, application of the clueiron and a reminder of his previous agreement to only AfD according to policy, rather than effusive whim. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• If Warden is stalking TPH round removing prods with no explanation then, given that he was warned to use proper procedures in the RFC/U about him, we made need to discuss a separate topic ban for him as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the nominations in and of themselves, though I'm not necessarily sure they should be deleted. Personally, I think this should be closed without action. However, removing prods without explanation is definitely against policy, but Colonel Warden did leave explanations on the article talk pages, so there doesn't really seem to be anything there either. AniMate 21:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• You left a "not" out of the previous paragraph. To object to and therefore permanently prevent a proposed deletion, remove the {{proposed deletion}} tag from the article. You are encouraged, but not required, to also... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• To answer Psychonaut: I think the reason this got brought here is that TPH keeps getting repeatedly brought here for his actions at AfD. Whether those are valid actionable concerns or sour grapes I'll leave to others to decide. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• AniMate: he's simply putting a boilerplate "I think this article has merit" note on the talkpage. There's no explanation as to why that might be the case. (I'm not saying these PRODs were correct by the way, merely that following an editor around reverting their PRODs without any real explanation when you've been censured for it before is probably not a great idea). Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• So you're complaining about boilerplating, and breaching previous RFC/U terms? This is an issue about TPH, not Warden. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oh for pity's sake. Once again, Andy, you're not an ANI rookie. That disingenuous "You're only supposed to discuss the editor I want you to discuss!" statement would receive a calm correction if a newbie delivered it. You ought to know better. Ravenswing 02:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Beginning to notice a pattern here. Warden goes mass-removing prods of mine without explanation. I nominate the article for AFD. Warden says "speedy keep, Hammer didn't do a WP:BEFORE." I say that I did. Regardless of outcome, I get tattled on at ANI. ANI discussion closes because all anyone can do is question why it was brought to ANI in the first place. And finally, no one but Warden and Dingley ever seems to think that I'm doing anything wrong, or at least wrong enough to be ANI-worthy. Hmm... Ten Pound Hammer • 05:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• I patrolled AFD this morning, as I usually do. I came across three similar AFDs and found that the articles had all been written by the same editor. I went to that editor's talk page to see what was going on and found that it was covered in PROD and AFD templates. TPH has now rolled back most of these templates; I'm not sure why. Anyway, as all these articles formed a related group, I followed them all up to ensure that they received proper attention rather than being silently deleted by the PROD process. It would have been a lot simpler and less burdensome if a group nomination had been made for these rather than having 11 separate discussions. And, as there isn't much of a case for deletion, it would have been better yet if TPH had just engaged in discussion on the relevant talk pages rather than stirring up all this fuss. See WP:LIGHTBULB. Warden (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• So all of these articles were created by the same editor? And in a spirit of purest GF, TPH just happened to find that each and every one of them needed to be deleted without further discussion (and when that was rejected, deleted a second time to make sure), for exactly the same reason?

Please, if you have to, you have to. But don't tell us it's raining. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• We really need a tool that measures how successful ones AfD nominations are. I mean, TPH is known for nominating ridiculously notable things for AfD, largely because it seems he doesn't actually look for sources. And I just remembered that there is a way to measure that. Scottywong's AfD Stats tool can be tinkered to just show nominated articles. And so I did that. Out of his past 250 AfDs, 85 (36.8%) were actually deleted, while 117 (50.6%) were Keeps/Merges/or Userfys, though the amount of the latter two were not that many. And then 29 (12.6%) were No Consensus. What concerns me even more is the high number of Speedy Keeps, because that just shows an outright not understanding which articles are AfD material. Silverseren 02:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Do note that you should disregard the five April 1st AfDs. Silverseren 02:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• He says "I see no way they can be expanded.", or words to that effect. The fact that there's one person who doesn't see doesn't prove much. Look at this paper. One of the proposed deletions is on the topic of that paper. If nothing more than a dictionary definition could be written on this topic, then how could that paper have been written. I know that this is the kind of topic on which much more than a dictionary definition can be written. The fact that one particular person doesn't see how it's possible tells me only that that person doesn't understand much, a fact that is not interesting. I don't know why this is a matter for the Administrators' notice-board, unless any user who's a fool and goes around unreasonably annoying reasonable people is such a matter. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• ....and one of the articles is about visualizing tensor fields, and he calls it "overly technical" even though it doesn't go into mathematics! How could anyone say that something like _that_ can't be expanded beyond a dictionary definition? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It does smell very much of WP:IDONTLIKEIT... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Not at all WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I saw a bajillion unsourced stubs by the same author. They all looked pretty equally dire to me, and a little WP:BEFORE work showed nothing that looked like it could fix the article's problems. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe he's visually impaired (as well)? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Again, what is there for an admin to do here? Every time I'm dragged to AFD, it's always a.) by Dingley and/or Warden, and b.) results in absolutely jack shit happening but people bitching. If anyone should be topic banned here, it should be Dingley and Warden for constantly wasting ANI space for tattling on me for things that are ultimately not raising a stink over. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Your rate of AfD nominations that don't result in Deletion is actually of concern to the community as a whole, since it's us that have to take the time to vote and discuss in the nominations. If they are clear keeps, then it is a waste of said time. Silverseren 05:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not convinced. How's about sampling some other editors to see their keep/delete ratio? I'm definitely not the only one who's ever had a lot of AFDs closed as keep. Ten Pound Hammer • 05:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

alrite

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

Alrite bitches. Who wants some fucling ice cream then you prrrrrrrrrrrricks! 92.15.0.71 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like Pidgin-English for "Please block me, NOW!" ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they may be alluding to The Great Toasted Almond Shortage of 2012 which we woefully don't yet have an article for:) Ditch ∝ 21:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that appears to be a tragedy on a cosmic scale. Life without the right kind of ice cream is not really life, it's just existence. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs

Would an uninvolved admin assess the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Geo Swan and AfDs? There are four proposals there: (i) Proposal to slow down a bit at AfD, (ii) Proposal to topic ban Geo Swan, (iii) Proposal to refer to Arbcom, and (iv) Proposal to allow Geo Swan To slow down the AfD process. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

IP 89.131.11.103 Needs Blocking

IP

89.131.11.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could someone please block the above IP? S/he is violating our rules on WP:CHARTS, particularly our principles on not including airplay charts where normal charts are used. This month the user was warned lots of times for non-constructive editing, the for adding a disqualified chart and now for violating project rules on airplay charts. I've left multiple messages throughout the day but s/he has continued adding charts at a widespread scale and level. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 23:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war disruptive activity

Not actually straight-up vandalism or content warring this time on this very contentious page, just a rogue editor (User:Oxycut) bound and determined to create a content fork of Syrian civil war even if no one else agrees with it. The editor repeatedly has moved content to the redirect page Syrian uprising and refuses to discuss the issue on Talk or heed warnings from editors who have reverted him. Perhaps it's time for someone with a bit more authority to tell him his behavior is unacceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens

Could some kind admin step in and knock a few heads together at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Australian Greens. The two leading participants in the debate (User:Welshboyau11 and User:Timeshift9) seem to be having a competition over who can demonstrate the least understanding of Misplaced Pages policy. I've tried to explain the need for proper sourcing (which shouldn't be hard to find), but one participant seems to think that Google-mining is the answer to everything, while the other seems to be on some sort of postmodernist "there's no such thing as facts" trip. Given the subject (which surely interests contributors with a little more clue than these two), I don't think it would be any great loss to topic-ban the pair of them until they both demonstrated at least a basic understanding of Misplaced Pages policies regarding NPOV, sourcing, civility (yeah, I know, I should talk...) and what the heck Misplaced Pages is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the sources issue to Reliable sources/Noticeboard Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The 'sources issue' isn't the reason I raised this here. It is a basic failure to comply with (or even apparently understand) basic Misplaced Pages policies. Anyway, I've had enough of this nonsense - hopefully someone else can make them see sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I take offence to 'seem to be having a competition over who can demonstrate the least understanding of Misplaced Pages policy' and 'some sort of postmodernist "there's no such thing as facts" trip' especially when other Australian editors and an Australian administrator appear to agree with me. I'll let the pages speak for themselves. Timeshift (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That you seem to think that the nationality of contributors is somehow significant is one reason I raised this here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, you shouldnt be offended, as Andy is 100% correct.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the other editor seems to think editors are agreeing with him when they aren't. Australians don't own the article but they do hold the most sway out of it based on editors involved because that's where most of the interest comes from - this goes for any article of any nationality. It almost comes across sounding like it's being said that we don't count. Little green rosetta, so does that apply to others who are of the same view as me? And if not, why not? Timeshift (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ROPE is cheap tonight.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you respond with relevance rather than glibness? Timeshift (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, BDuke worded it perfectly here. I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because it's now consuming too much time and energy, and realise that left-wing won't be allowed to be added any time in the near future, the status quo and majority of the article's editors are on my side. Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering you think Austrailains hold more sway over this topic area than others, leads me to belive you have not a clue as to how this place is supposed to operate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If more non-Australians have views on this than Australians, then guess what, Australians would no longer hold sway. I'm over this debate. Timeshift (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The views of editors are not what determines anything. The views of Australian, or any other nationality's editors, indeed do not count. The views of reliable sources do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not looked into Timeshift yet, but this misquoting of the Greens magazine by Welshboyau11 (also here and here) where the Greens argue that they do not fit in a left-right schema (Welshboyau11 uses it to say they're "clearly left-wing" quoting a part that indicates he had to read and ignore all the stuff saying they're not left-wing) screams "POV-pushing" to me (ignoring problems with WP:NOR and that that Greens magazine cites Misplaced Pages). His accusations of POV with anyone who doesn't support him (like this) goes against WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue with the Greens article is silly. Yes, I took out a quote. I think that's reasonable. I used other sources which can be found on the discussion pages, including an Encylopedia. The article does say the party is left-wing. I sugested we take the other part into account too, in the article. Welshboyau11 (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Orvilleunder

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

This appears to be a SPA created for the express purpose of Wikihounding me:

Based on a couple of the edit summaries, if I were a betting man I would say the account belongs to this IP-hopping user: , , , . But, since he normally edits during working hours from a government IP address, and it's currently a 3-day weekend, there probably isn't much point in launching a SPI.

Nevertheless, it should be quite unacceptable to use a new account this way. It's a very, very clear example of WP:NOTHERE. Belchfire-TALK 02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Please disregard, it's already been handled per the note at User:Orvilleunder. Belchfire-TALK 03:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Cinque stelle

Cinque stelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) despite multiple warnings keeps attacking me personally. He came today to my talkpage with a personal attack because I had objected to his/her refactoring the talkpage at Tenedos:

• Your game is clearly to obfuscate the issue as much as possible, and therefore make it more difficult for an admin to make a sound judgment on the naming dispute.

After I gave the editor a level 1 NPA warning, s/he attacked me in their edit summary:

• Your passive-aggressive edit warring is quite transparent

I tried to explain that I rearranged the talkpage of Tenedos to true chronological order before s/he came to my talkpage with their insults and that therefore s/he failed to assume good faith, only to have my edit on their talk reverted and be attacked again in their edit summary:

• Dr. K again being passive-aggressive. Thanks for your visit.

I would appreciate admin intervention to stop this tendentious and disruptive way of editing. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  04:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment refactoring does not look good, though I might not agree on those edits being personal attacks worthy of a block. However, what I do see is something ominous with this, which seems to be a real personal attack. The minor edit wars are not good because it takes two to edit war. I do not suggest a block yet, but I will say that the escalation of this issue won't do good.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I objected to their rearranging of the talkpage of Tenedos away from chrono order. I actually put it in true chrono order and that untangled the flow of the discussions. This account is a single-purpose account. In and of itself this should not be a problem. But if you add personal attacks and aggressive editing on their part, this becomes a real problem. Δρ.Κ.  04:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think it's too early for a straight-up block. If one's needed it's going to have to be 24 hours or less. I feel a block would lead to further disruption; the user has not edited since you posted here, and that's why I do not think a block is necessary. However I share your concerns and this edit summary seems to imply that "I'm not going to assume or edit in good faith unless..."--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please note: Their edit: Nice to see that Dr. K admits his fallibility. Good faith restored! is still a personal attack. This editor keeps attacking me any chance s/he gets. It is also a lie that I admitted any mistake because I made no error. I actually restored the chrono order of that page and they did not. I don't think that it is proper for this disruption to keep happening. This is obvious battleground behaviour by an SPA. Δρ.Κ.  04:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, they stopped after you opened this thread. However, one more personal attack + more WP:BATTLEGROUND would = 72-hour block, probably.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not big on civility blocks, but I do think Cinque Stelle has crossed the line. That talk page stuff, that's ridiculous, and CS should know a bit about talk page behavior, after an earlier complaint they filed. They are a self-professed SPA (judging from their edit history and their user page) and do treat this as a battleground. Tenedos itself is one as well, of course: it's a mess. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Δρ.Κ.  05:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards