Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 29 August 2012 (Robot: Archiving 3 threads (older than 24h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive766.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Does User:Shrike have sufficient competence in the English language to be a worthwhile contributor?

It is not an easy decision for me to make as I have worked with Shrike for a bit at resource exchange, but a right choice for the entire community often requires a difficult decision. Shrike's competence/fluency in English was raised numerous times and he was given multiple opportunities to correct it (the latest opportunity given to him was only a month ago, in late-July 2012). Despite the fact that the community gave him more chances and time to improve, many users seemed to believe that he has exhausted the community's patience at the last opportunity particularly when Shrike edited in highly controversial areas. Furthermore, a lot of Shrike's troubles were self-inflicted, , demonstrating battleground mentality and unwilling to drop the stick.

Some editors in this discussion defended Shrike for his work in resource exchange as evidence of his competence level. Through my experience, I don't believe it to be a valid demonstration of his competence because Google Scholar could have done the job for everyone. After carefully evaluating the positives and negatives of Shrike's contributions, I believe that Shrike belongs in the net-negative spectrum of the project.

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

As recently discussed in another AN/I thread, there appear to be serious grounds to doubt whether User:Shrike has sufficient grasp of the English language to be a useful contributor. Shrike has just replaced a statement that "There is consensus among Jewish and Christian scholars that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status", with "Big part of Jewish and Christian scholars agree that dhimmi is supposedly inferior status". . Even before the edit, the text was grammatically poor, but this is just plain garbage. Note to that this is in relation to a contentious article, where a clear understanding of what sources say is a prerequisite - it isn't just Shrike's writing that appears to be the problem, but also an inability (evident from discussions on the talk page) to be able to read English at the level required. Can I ask uninvolved contributors to address this matter, not in relation to any content disputes (this is a contentious subject, but that is another issue, and if it is to be discussed, it should be addressed separately), but with regard to whether, per WP:COMPETENCE, it may be in the best interests of Misplaced Pages to prevent Shrike from editing articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked other editor to help to c/e the article before that I am not the first not the last wiki editor that does grammar mistake.But what is clear that User:AndyTheGrump use it as pretext to remove editor that oppose him in this contentious issue instead fixing the grammar error like other user did he goes to WP:AN/I I think it clearly showsWP:BATTLE behavior.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, you do a lot of good for Misplaced Pages, but you should be selective with your edits. I speak a good amount of your native language of Hebrew and carry on a conversation, but I can make only the most basic edits to an article on the Hebrew Misplaced Pages. You should only make edits that you are reasonably sure can be understood by everyone. --Jprg1966  20:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit was concerning the words "Big part of Jewish and Christian scholars" instead of "A large part of Jewish and Christian scholars." Mistakes happen all the time in regards to grammar, we have plenty of editors here from every country, and I've seen far far worse mistakes, but it's silly to file a report everytime someone writes, "And she told, "we won"" (one example of something I saw). These types of mistakes can be easily fixed, instead of requesting that an editor who can make contributions to Misplaced Pages get banned for making a silly grammar mistake that can - and was - easily fixed. This is too overblown. --Activism1234 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234, are you suggesting that you think "A large part of Jewish and Christian scholars..." is proper English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting we don't all need an 800 on the English SATs to edit Misplaced Pages, and suggesting that the way it's written makes the sentence perfectly clear and a large number of editors won't even notice any grammar mistake, if there is one, and that certainly doesn't disrupt the page, and anyone who does feel there is a grammar mistake can freely change that mistake. I'm furthermore suggesting that regional dialects do differ from editor to editor based on the region or country, and it would be inappropriate to ban an editor for writing "color" instead of "colour." Similar things would be putting a period before a quotation mark, which doesn't change the meaning of the sentence, and which can be easily rectified without getting so upset over it. Lastly, I'm suggesting that an editor like Shrike with over 5000 edits on Misplaced Pages who has been contributing since 2006 should not be banned due to a grammar mistake that doesn't distort the meaning of the sentence and that can be easily rectified instead of going to ANI over this. --Activism1234 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another example would be the article 2012 Gaziantep bombing. Consider this sentence, "Bombs that were exploded through remote-control system were planted in a low truck near Karşıyaka police station in Şehitkamil district that is one of the most crowded areas of the city." Will we go and ban the Turkish editor that put in that sentence because of a grammar mistake? Of course not. Instead, we'll be a bit more mature and fix that mistake which doesn't change the meaning of the sentence in any way. --Activism1234 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. The topic here is whether Shrike shows sufficient competence in the English language to edit articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I was able to understand what he wrote. It was not very fluid, but it was not "nonsense." --Jprg1966  20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a talk page, not an article, and even there, the only difference is he didn't put a period or perhaps one other word is wrong, but that doesn't change the reader from understanding what he is referring to. It's understandable that certain editors won't use full grammar markup on a talk page, especially if they're in a rush. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't qualify a comment on a talk page as "nonsense." And Shrike seems to be referring to this, which does give the impression of canvassing. On an article, the story is different, but I explained this above. --Activism1234 20:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I read the initial comment, Andy isnt asking that you (Shrike) be banned from editing, but that you not edit articles directly. This is the English language encyclopedia, and it is expected that our articles be in, you know, English. If you are unable to write at a high level in English, then it is not an unreasonable request that you make suggestions on talk pages and have others correct the language before it makes its way to an article. nableezy - 20:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No-one minds the occasional grammar and spelling error, but you consistently write English that isn't comprehensible (for example the first sentence in the above paragraph, or this diff where you took 7 edits to write something that makes no sense at all). It is not fair to other users for them to have to clear up after pretty much all of your writing. Andy is correct - if you're going to write content here, WP:CIR applies. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As I rewrote the article I asked other editors to c/e it.I have asked several times how the best to rephrase but didn't recieved any meaningfull answer so I tried to fix it myself anyhow in future I will consult other editors how to best rephrase a source.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that is an acceptable solution. You need to demonstrate that you understand the sources in the first place, which seems debatable to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is about a grammar mistake, and I don't feel that a grammar mistake demonstrates a lack of understanding sources. --Activism1234 21:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This ANI is not about "a grammar mistake". It is about repeated demonstrations by Shrike that he/she fails to display the competence in the English language required from a useful contributor. 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

With regards to understanding sources written in English, I'm not sure that's a valid rationale for excluding someone from the project. Certainly, many articles on the English Misplaced Pages cite sources that aren't in English, and we wouldn't say that editors that can't understand non-English sources are incompetent. That being said, I would certainly support Shrike restricting his editing in mainspace to wikification, citation of sources and other tasks not requiring him to formulate prose. Any other changes that he thinks need doing should be requested on talk pages so a user confident in the formulation of English prose can add it. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Incompetent" might be slightly strong, but this is still the English wikipedia, in order to edit it it's merely WP:COMMONSENSE that one should be *ahem* resonably competent in English. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• We've tolerated pretty severe abuse of the English language from a number of contributors on here over the past few years. And Shrike is a veritable William Safire compared to most people who write stubs about Pakistani villages. Off the top of my head I can't recall seeing someone sanctioned for poor grammar, although there certainly are some insufferable pedants around here who would wholeheartedly support taking that step. In any case, certain parts of the project call for greater precision than others--when dealing with controversial or disputed information, clarity and precision are very important. Prose and grammar issues are less likely to lead to controversy if found on Water polo articles than on the Israel/Palestinian conflicts. It might be a good idea for Shrike to seek out less controversial topics to edit, or to propose changes on talk pages before adding them to articles to get more feedback on English issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

_{My "insufferable pendant" remark earlier wasn't directed at any specific user, and was meant as a joke since I tend to be fairly pedantic myself. Sorry if anyone was offended. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)}

No prob. I, for one, may be an insufferable pedant, I'm sure I am, but I actually do have a sense of irony. Well, most of the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• • One does not have to be an "insufferable pendant" to prefer that the English Misplaced Pages be written in recognizably English sentences that can convey meaning efficiently and cogently to English-language readers. I'm certain that there are many, many people who can contribute valuable information to this encyclopedia, but don't have the ability to do so directly in a way that is useful for our purposes. When that is the case, it hardly seems onerous to ask them to contribute the information on the talk page and allow other editors, more conversant in English, to integrate it into the article. The alternative – bsdly written English – is not one that we should allow, if we are to continue to shape this project into a quality reference work. Let's allow people to help in the best way they can, and to discourage them from attempting to help in ways that are not beneficial, and, by the way, perhaps we might also ask for a little less scapegoating of "insufferable pendants" who would simply like to see this be a quality product and not a linguistic mish-mash. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with Beyond My Ken. I work in controversial areas, and am constantly dealing with editors that can't even communicate effectively on a talkpage, let alone comprehend the sources and actually make sensible edits. There has to be a limit. Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am one of those insufferable pedants who actually have not only advocated such sanctions, but imposed them. And if I remember correctly, I already gave Shrike an official warning to that effect. Shrike lacks the competence to participate adequately in talkpage discussions about subtle points of NPOV and proper treatment of sources; and he lacks the competence (either linguistically or intellectually) to adequately summarize academically demanding sources about the fields he tries to edit in . Moreover, as you rightly say, linguistic competence is the more important the more controversial an area is. The attitude of "I'll try to write something first, and then if there are grammar errors let others correct them" just won't work, when what you're writing is perceived by others as tendentious and wrong on top of being ungrammatical. People don't like to spend time correcting material that they think shouldn't be there in the first place. Which is the reason why his errors very often remain uncorrected for a long time. The only thing they lead to is edit-warring – some people simply remove the whole thing, and others, in a knee-jerk reaction, restore it in full, but they often don't bother to correct the errors either. This passage, which I finally took out of an article after several weeks, is an example. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to reinforce what FPaS has written above: mistakes in grammar are not necessarily trivial - I'm sure we've all seen instances where sloppy, unfocused writing has actually said somethinbg very different from what is trying to be conveyed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If he's confined to talk pages he'll lose his daily one revert per article limit, which is largely the point of his presence here. That, and making Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in general look as bad as possible. Shrike fits in the topic area like a hand in a glove.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point, attention needs to be drawn to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance#Altetendekrabbe, where shrike makes out that drawing attention to his/her (self evident) POV-pushing is a 'personal attack' and a 'BLP violation' (?). If Shrike is going to engage in such battleground behaviour in non-article space, any restriction confined to article edits is likely to result in further problems. Frankly, I think that Shrike's comprehension problems extend to Misplaced Pages policy - and if someone can't understand the basics of such policy, they aren't competent to contribute, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I decided to refrain from commenting here. I could detail the mess he made at The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man. He jumps into pages I edit mainly to add his weight to reverters, but his comments, when he does explain what he's doing are often incomprehensible. On that page, I added alleged as per policy. He wanted an allegation to pass as a fact, and denied that the source used 'alleged'. He hadn't read the source, it turned out, despite in obscure waffling implying he had. See here and here.

Since he's doing the same thing, jumping in to tagteam a revert pattern, on the article I just created, Zion Square assault, I've dropped my distaste for 'dobbing' other editors in. His objection there is not argued, just (inexact or irrelevant ) policy waving that, nota bene, shows a complete estrangement from policy guidelines. He actually believes, to judge from his syntax, that WP:RS prints who is notable (The sociologist in question has a doctorate and is published in RS, if that's what he means), and thus the American Israeli academic sociologist I cited cannot be used because of WP:UNDUE, without linking up the dots for the bewildered reader as to what the connection is between RS and undue. The point seems to be simply to back editors he agrees with who are more familiar with this kind of article.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything I only stated my objection that you used not WP:RS and not WP:UNDUE source in talk as you brought it yourself in ARBPIA area.What exactly wrong with that?.Also what is have to do with my grammar?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Shrike's editing, but I'd like to put in a good word for him based on his generosity at the Resource Exchange. He has made 246 edits to that page since April, and has several times made academic papers available to me that were behind a paywall, which is a really invaluable service. He appears to do this regardless of the subject matter or whether he knows the person requesting help, so I hope that kindness is taken into consideration. SlimVirgin 16:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes. Being "kind" in areas that are irrelevant to one's aggressively pursued agenda is a good way to try to build social capital that will ultimately assist in pursuing that agenda. Who cares? "Kindness" to fellow insiders is far more important than what happens in the actual articles, right?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, kindness is not irrelevant. :) He is making scholarly sources available to people who don't have easy access, and that's helping to improve content right across the board. The editors who help out at the Resource Exchange are a godsend. I'm not arguing that it cancels out all other issues, just that it's worth taking into account. SlimVirgin 17:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So ban him from articles, where he's a complete detriment to quality and neutrality, and he'll have more time to devote to the "resource exchange." Your argument amounts to "I know he's a terrible musician, but he's a decent cook, so let's keep him in the band." This is a very, very bad argument.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whether the band is struggling hand-to-mouth and needs to keep all possible resources in-house, or is successful enough to be able to concentrate primarily on music. I think Misplaced Pages is successful enough to think mostly about the music, and not about the cooking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Slim has a point. I'd be happy if he just was denied his 1R revert right in the I/P area for a fair stretch. I've seen him revert instinctively, even without reading what he is reverting.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Interjection about that "resource exchange" activity: how is what that board organizes even legal? Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request encourages people who have access to research databases – whose terms of service typically specify material is only for the user's personal use – to take copyrighted material and make unauthorized uploads of it on public web sites. How is that not simply copyright piracy? I am rather amazed I find activities of that sort openly organized on Misplaced Pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Topic specific sanctions regarding I/P might be the way to go then, especially since it seems several editors have already mentioned that the editor have NPOV-issues on that subject.--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone think that I am biased I suggest that they should go to the WP:AE with evidence but the accusers themselves and not exactly neutral or uninvolved--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Shrike—if you have any questions, or you would like me to read source material, especially to see if it seems to support language potentially for inclusion in article space, don't hesitate to post an inquiry to my Talk page. I think this is a way to proceed to gather more information on the questions raised in this thread. I am reluctant to jump to conclusions of a negative nature about an editor in good standing who just doesn't happen to speak English at a level some deem to be minimal. Perhaps after a period of time—one or a few months—it will become clear whether there is a problem or not. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will certainly consult with you -- Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Great. Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I note that in spite of Shrike's earlier assurances, he is still editing in article space. I'd also like uninvolved opinions as to whether "WP:DENY" constitutes an adequate edit summary for this edit: . Note that this article is right at the core of the contentious Israeli-Palestinian topic area where Shrike's previous topic ban was instituted, for amongst other things "inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete edit summaries". ] is a link to Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition - an essay on the appropriate means to deal with vandalism and trolling. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Shrikes edit was a reversion of either. On this basis, one can only reasonably conclude that either the edit summary was intentionally misleading or offensive, or that Shrike has once again demonstrated a gross lack of comprehension. Either way, it seems to provide further evidence that Shrike should not be editing in Misplaced Pages article space at all. (Note also that this 'WP:DENY' edit summary has been recently used by Shrike in relation to several other articles - this seems to be a pattern) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted Strike's DENY edit since there was no sign of trolling or vandalism to be undone by him. De728631 (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please self revert. One of the problems in the I-P conflict topic area is dishonesty, which comes in many forms, but in this case, it was in the form of sockpuppetry. The WP:DENY in Shrike's edit summary was referring to a sockpuppet (Special:Contributions/Rusko_skins). Shrike reverted a sockpuppet. A better link in the ES would have been Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Evasion_and_enforcement and to name the sockmaster. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I will do so in the future, thank you Sean.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Apparenly I have only been looking at the BBC reference which was actually reliable but missed the deleted part. Activism1234 has already reverted me, so we're back at Strike's Shrike's version. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had minimal interaction with Shrike in the article space, but we have interacted at the resource exchange and his language skills are more than adequate for interacting with other editors on technical subjects. I can't pass judgment on Shrike's article work, since I don't have extensive knowledge of it, but I would point out that Misplaced Pages's general philosophy when it comes to good faith contributions is to consider them as works of progress that the community should improve rather than to reject the editor. If a new editor doesn't understand wikifying and submits a large block of text we tag it, stick it in a backlog and eventually someone comes around and wikifies it. Same with sourcing, categorization, etc. We should consider that the Foundation and the community have larger goals of reversing editor decline and expanding the pool of contributors from outside the English-speaking world and we're not going to succeed at meeting these goals if we turn away editors who have the willingness and skills to contribute but aren't perfect writers. GabrielF (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We have WP:COMPETENCE for a reason - some people, despite the best of intentions, are just not capable of contributing constructively.

That said, this case seems to be tangling up language competence (demonstrated problem, but not sure if it's severe enough to sanction) and topic / issue / editor point-of-view conflicts (which are somewhat of a problem, but haven't seen evidence or investigated enough to see actionable issues per se).

I do agree that eventualism helps deal with many problems. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some editors just don't have the skills to work on this project - for instance I've seen some users who can't comply with our copyright policies even after many notifications. However, if we want to work towards this goal of greater editor participation we can't set the competence bar too high. The specific instances that have been presented above strike me as things that could be easily fixed - akin to a user who can't quite get his head around our syntax. The net gain from Shrike's contributions seems to be greater than the cost of grammar fixes, which is often done by casual IP users and doesn't require taxing our most experienced editors. Unlike problems with close paraphrasing, which are really tricky to untangle, these language issues don't rise to the level of fundamental problems with the contributions that render them worthless or too time consuming to fix. The POV stuff doesn't seem to be unusual for that topic area. GabrielF (talk) 02:41, 28 August 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)

Genre dispute on a specific articles.

For a long time, there has been considerable fighting, edit warring, arguing etc. over the genres listed in the infoboxes for articles related to the band My Chemical Romance. I don't know why it's this band in particular, but over the years that I've been watching the pages there have been countless, unsourced, undiscussed genre changes, while users involved have fought and fought, sometimes getting blocked. Personally, I'm against even listing genres in the infobox, seeing as only bad things tend to come from it. I would be lying if I said that the amount of "genre-warring" going on on this site doesn't drive me crazy out of its sheer meaninglessness, but in the interest of keeping the articles consistent and well-sourced, I've been trying to, firstly, keep the genre parameter as general and inoffensive as possible, and secondly, make sure any additions to the parameter are reliably sourced and verifiable.

Anyway, the reason that this has escalated is because over the past, say, month-or-so there have been several editors (who I'll mention later on) that seem to believe these three points:

Point #1. Despite being sourced, the genres listed in the infobox are too vague,

Point #2. Anything listed as a musical "style" on the website Allmusic should be considered a genre,

Point #3. Anything listed under "genres" on that same website is unreliable because it is too vague.

In my opinion, the first two are acceptable seeing as they clearly have consensus, and have seemed useful in stopping the edit warring. The third one, in my opinion, throws WP:V out the window entirely. If something is backed up by reliable sources, it's subject to inclusion. Personal opinions or interpretations are irrelevant, as verifiability makes the content usable. That's the entire purpose of WP:V.

But the reason I'm bringing this topic to this particular noticeboard is because what should be a fairly basic discussion has become very strange recently. The main user who began all of this was Musicstuff0324 (talk · contribs), who frequently edits anonymously as 72.89.197.34 (talk · contribs). (The user has never denied this or abused it in any way, so I'm not claiming sockpuppetry or anything.) They started claiming point #1 without any source, while changing the genres on various pages repeatedly without sources. The user and I exchanged messages over talk pages, in which I tried to explain why I was reverting their edits. Eventually the user, apparently frustrated, asked another user to "explain" to me, in essence, that I was wrong. They did this without telling me. Then, when that apparently didn't go as Musicstuff0324 wanted, they contacted Noreplyhaha (talk · contribs) without telling me, and asked the user to lock the article so that I couldn't revert their edits. Eventually, on this talk page, thanks to the more civil edits of Noreplyhaha some consensus was reached that we should allow point #2. Noreplyhaha even opened a RFC over the subject. I would like to point out that this is how I would prefer these situations to be handled, and so far Noreplyhaha has been the only one who has tried to be, in my opinion, both civil and reasonable about this. However, recently, Point #3 has been brought up with yet more reverts and unsourced edits. A fourth user, Ericdeaththe2nd (talk · contribs) was then contacted, again without telling me, by both Musicstuff0324 and Noreplyhaha. It was the discussion between pages that basically brought me to the point of bringing the subject here, and not on a content or reliable sources noticeboard:

Noreplyhaha: "Hello, I saw your recent edits to My Chemical Romance albums; putting "post-hardcore" in the genre box. I agree with you, but a user keeps reverting all of those genre change attempts. :/"

Musicstuff0324: "I agree absolutely as well, your a huge help in this little fiasco, friginator edits like a robot without any regard to interpretation, its insane! Thank you for all your help! and can you fix up the genre for the ghost of you that song still says pop/rock for some reason."

Ericdeaththe2nd: "No problem, every time he changes it we should revert it"

Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking this, but going behind an editor's back repeatedly and eventually planning on starting an edit war to resolve problems clearly seems like the wrong way to approach such a situation. Hopefully now that it's here we can discuss this without the sneaking around and fighting like children. I'd appreciate that. This whole situation further reinforces my view that listing musical genres on Misplaced Pages is a bad idea and a waste of time. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I hate genre warring as well, and it is a serious problem, especially on Misplaced Pages. I have an idea for this type of situation: all affected pages should have their genre fields removed permanently. Keep in mind that you can't please everybody in terms of genre description, so don't try to do that. Some people will have to remain unpleased, and that's the way it is, and that's the way of the world. Nonetheless, I agree that what you are describing here is canvassing. Several people are simply making too big a deal out of the genres, and it needs to stop yesterday! As I said earlier, I would support having all the genre fields be removed from relevant pages, and maybe even some pages getting equipped with temporary full protection, if there is enough editing activity on such pages to warrant such a maneuver. Also, edits like this, which removes what is considered by Misplaced Pages to be reliably sourced content, I cannot support.

This does make me wonder if Allmusic really is a reliable source for determining genres of music, because Allmusic is somewhat controversial on Misplaced Pages in this regard. Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 06:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing, tag-teaming, WP:GENREWARRIORs. Ugh. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So, if I were to remove the genre parameter from the affected pages like Backtable has suggested, would either of you support it? And would this be an appropriate place to gather consensus on the subject? Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If Allmusic categorised a thrash metal album as pop music, would you blindly add "pop" to the infobox? In the case of Allmusic, they have an extremely broad and unpecific music categorisation for their database. It lists every rock album as "pop/rock" for THEIR categorisation purposes. For example, look at Slayer, an American thrash metal band. They are apparently "pop/rock" according to Allmusic http://www.allmusic.com/artist/slayer-mn0000022124, but do you see that on their wikipedia page? Do you hear people refer to them as a pop band? Meanwhile, pop bands like maroon 5 are also classified as "pop/rock." Allmusic has "indie rock" on My Chemical Romance's page, but My Chemical Romance is obviously not "indie rock," as for starters, they're signed to a major label and have a large exposure in the music industry. Thus, Allmusic's genres listed in the side bar can be both incredibly vague and sometimes wildly inappropriate. Noreplyhaha (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If a reliable source calls Slayer Pop/Rock, it can be included per WP:V. This is a very fundamental policy on this site, and one which you don't seem to understand in the least. I say this because if you did take WP:V into consideration, you wouldn't make arguments like this one, or the half-a-dozen others you've made. Content on Misplaced Pages is not about interpretation or opinion, no matter how widespread it is. It is about facts. Verifiable facts. Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I actually kind of disagree with this. WP:V really only applies to statements likely to be challenged. For instance, we don't need a reliable source to say that the human hand has four fingers a thumb, do we? And if a reliable source mistakenly said otherwise, that human hands have seven fingers and a thumb, it doesn't mean we need to add that just because a source said it. Verifiability is important, but so is common sense. Calling a band like Slayer pop/rock is not common sense. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User talk:OohBunnies!'s rationale. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting. Firstly Pop/Rock what is that is it really.

'Rock' stylistic origins Rock and roll, electric blues, jazz, folk music, country, blues, rhythm and blues, soul music, please tell me how that matches My Chemical Romance's genre

'Pop' Rhythm and blues • Jazz • Folk • Doo-wop • Dance • Classical • Rock and roll, yet again doesn't meet the genre at all, but don't get me wrong its not always about styles but adding Pop and rock is useless you've listed 'pop punk' and 'alternative rock' so why have it at all. Also i've been told numerous times by countless admins that sidebox genres aren't reliable, you need sources that discuss the genres. I've been told that by User:IllaZilla , see this link here Talk:Blink-182#Genre_(again). Also where I said we should revert it everytime he changes it, is simply not an attack but correcting mistakes the way pop/rock and indie rock/alternative rock is so....I'm not sure how to describe it. Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

The "mistakes" you're referring to are not mistakes. They are simply sourced pieces of info that you dislike. Also, other Misplaced Pages articles do not constitute Misplaced Pages policy. Yes, they hold precedent, and sometimes held up by consensus, but just because the Misplaced Pages article on "Rock music" says something, or the wikipedia article on "Pop music" says something, doesn't make it any more relevant when discussing policy. And like Noreplyhaha, most of your argument is simply based on your particular opinions, which are also irrelevant when discussing policy. Friginator (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why you feel the need to add pop/rock to this page friginator, it't not helping the page at all and you don't do it to any of the other bands you edit, so your reasoning for adding pop/rock to the my chemical romance album pages still makes absolutely no sense to me, it doesn't add anything of use to the page, i mean if you can give me a good reason i'll be satisfied. --Musicstuff0324 (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

1. If a genre identification sourced to an RS is still disputed by editors (that basically means there isn't consensus that the viewpoint in that particular RS is necessarily the neutral point of view), it should stay in the article but have WP:INTEXT attribution rather than be presented as an uncontentious fact. It should probably stay out of the infobox in this situation.
2. If an identification is really dubious, like some source saying Iron Maiden is classical harpsichord music, it's ok to ask for multiple independent sources per WP:REDFLAG.
3. Self-identification (genre tag from officially published mp3's, for example) might be helpful in some cases, though not definitive. In principle they're supposed to be treated as inferior to sources independent of the subject, but use some common sense here.
4. I think independent, full length reviews should be preferable to Allmusic tags (they may even originate from publisher metadata or something like that) as sourcing.

69.228.170.132 (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ah yes, the Genre wars. What it comes down to is some genre's aren't "cool", and fans don't want their hipster sensibilities offended by being associated with liking bands that are uncool, or with their bands being labeled with genre titles which are uncool. The truth is most bands overlap genres considerably. Is The Police a punk band, a ska band, a reggae band, a pop band, or a rock band? Yes, and more. What's more is most bands fall into the same problem, you can't define any band well into a single genre, especially since some genre's get so specific as to be silly (take a look at the various subgenres of Heavy Metal; I think the total number of genres actually outnumbers the total number of bands...) What's the solution? I don't know. I'm not happy with the scorched earth approach of banning all mention of genre in an article, but I am becoming resigned that such Solomonic solution is the only way out... --Jayron32 06:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I stated above that I would be for such a solution as to remove the mention of genres from the infoboxes of affected pages. I will not retract from that stance, but I don't recommend this action as a first resort. I would recommend, before such a maneuver should be determined, that other sources be involved with determining the genres and the genre line-up. Other sources, such as websites listed here or websites and magazines devoted to music news, should be consulted, as opposed to hanging around what Allmusic says. What do those sources say about what genre(s) the music of My Chemical Romance is? While I'm not going to actively seek out such sources to help resolve this issue, since My Chemical Romance doesn't particularly interest me, I can say that this type of action is at least a considerable avenue.

However, if good sources have their information on the affected Misplaced Pages pages, yet fighting and feuding still exists over this über important topic which never wastes anyone's time, then I would have no reservations for resorting to the "scorched earth" method for at least the most affected pages. In one case (or two, depending on the perspective) where I was dealing with people editing genres without discussion, with such shameful activity happening on a long-term basis, I decided to remove the mention of genres from the infoboxes of Judgement (Anathema album) and Alternative 4 (album), both of which are albums by Anathema. This controversial info has been taken away from the pages since June and July 2011, respectively, and from what I've observed, the pages have been doing relatively well since then. Also, for a while, Night is the New Day, the article for the album by Katatonia, had its genre field removed, although it's been restored since then with sourced content (it's important to note that the content is sourced with Allmusic and Sputnikmusic).

Concerning Allmusic, I have significant reservations about it being a source for genre determination (not necessarily as a reliable source at all, but merely for genre determination at least). The habit in which Allmusic lists genres of albums or bands is strange; in the column to the left, there is one extremely general genre description listed in "genre", while "styles" describe some styles which are official sub-genres, and some that are not. When I source genres, I don't try to source that area, and instead rely more on the review or band biography. Should this factor about Allmusic warrant an in-depth discussion elsewhere or would that not be required? Backtable _{concerning my deeds.} 08:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments towards Allmusic's genre classifications. I don't actually listen to My Chemical Romance myself, but I would like them to be accurately classified, that is, not as "pop/rock," but more along the likes of "alternative rock" or "post-hardcore." Consulting sources other than Allmusic would be best, but like User:Backtable, MCR doesn't interest me enough to pursue some more in depth research. Furthermore, rather than the sorched earth approach as a final resort, we could consider putting the genre as simply "Rock." Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, I have been told by numerous admins not to use Allmusic's Sidebox genre as a source since its not reliable, I would let this go just remove Pop/Rock is it really necessary? I'll say again 'Allmusic is not a reliable source for Genres' Ericdeaththe2nd (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)ericdeaththe2nd

Possible compromised account

User:Annatto posted on my talk page out of the blue about a random topic that doesn't seem to be related to me. I checked his contributions and this user hasn't edited since April 2012, and after that, about a whole year without editing. He also seems to have cleared a lot of his userpage as well. I'm not sure if this account is compromised, but it seems like it might be. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Noting that this account does not have any additional userrights (admin, rollback, etc.). --Rschen7754 19:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "a random topic that doesn't seem to be related to me" - it's clearly a (belated) response to this thread. Although I agree resuming the debate after a two-year hiatus is peculiar. Mogism (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

And I note that it was only after opening this thread and notifying the user of it that you went back and tried just asking them, posting it above the ANI notice as though it had come first despite the obvious discrepancy on the timestamps. I assume that means you realize maybe you should jave tried that first and we don't really need an ANI thread about this? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

So do you think his account is compromised, or was it just a very late reply assuming that he checked Misplaced Pages but didn't edit? You can archive this section, but maybe a CheckUser could confirm. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth. Just returned after a lengthy WikiBreak. The first thing I did was check on "old business" to see if their were any dangling conversations. Then I eased back into it. I think it would take time to compare writing styles and edit histories and that unless anything untoward happens welcome the prodigal home. Dlohcierekim 02:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Amadscientist

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

I've noticed a pattern of disruptive editing by User:Amadscientist and request the community consider a topic ban or other action as appropriate.

1. User refuses to "get the point"

The user has been urged by three experienced editors—Rschen7754 (dif), Homunq (dif), and myself (dif)—to relinquish his position as reviewer for Talk:Paul Ryan/GA1 since he is a significant contributor to Paul Ryan, ranking #1 in terms of talk page edits and #9 in terms of main page edits. Editors are not allowed to review GANs related to articles in which they have been significant contributors, in order to ensure the integrity and fairness of the review.

After being notified that according to the significant contributor tool, he has made 275 edits to the Paul Ryan talk page and 52 edits to its main page, he requested, "Please demonstrate how this makes me a significant contributor in comparison to the other editors now. I would also request you show exactly where the definition of what "significant contributor" for a GA review is outlined" (dif). He was then made aware of the WP:GAN guideline that "You cannot review an article if you... have made significant contributions to it prior to the review." His response: "In the past 7 days prior to this review, I have made 1 edit. That is NOT a significant amount" (dif).

What's more, the user put up a similar fight after his nomination for Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Mitt Romney/1 was speedily closed by Hamiltonstone (dif), even accusing the GAR steward of assuming bad faith (dif) on the GAR talk page.

2. User continually rejects or ignores community input

In response to requests for him to step aside as the GAN reviewer as mentioned above, the user defiantly stated, "There is no consensus, no vote and no committee to a review. As such I am not bound by discussion to withdraw." (dif). He has since proceeded to prepare for the review. In his introductory review comments, he intimated that things that need to be addressed in Paul Ryan include "obvious like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately" (dif), which is troubling since a lengthy discussion already came to consensus on the current lead of the article—a discussion Amadscientist was involved in and with which he was one of the lone dissenting voices with regards to expanding the lead further.

Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

He should recuse himself. He broke the rules by taking on the GAN. Just because there are no dedicated GAN police does not mean he can stand his ground and declare victory. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Which goes to show you believe that he can not be a GA reviewer, but does not show any violation of Misplaced Pages policy, nor that he is "disruptive" in his edits. Perhaos you can catch more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar -- complaining here is, by the way, considered very sour vinegar. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, refusing to get the point and rejecting or ignoring community input are both violations of WP:DISRUPT. I and others have tried to reason with the editor in other forums to no avail, so coming to ANI seemed prudent. —Eustress 23:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You may view his conduct as disruptive, I suppose (YMMV} but the specific charge of "disruptive edits" is not bron out by your material presented. The proper place for all this is on the GA talkpages themselves - this is not really the best forum for your dispute. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Amadscientist should step down as a reviewer in this nomination, but I think a topic ban (other than excluding him from the GAN discussion) is somewhat overzealous. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 23:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support Amadscientist stepping down as review for this nomination. Excluding him from the GAN discussion seems to be reasonable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support removing Amadscientist from the GAN, either voluntarily or by force (CSD G6'ing page if need be). --Rschen7754 23:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• This all sounds quite drastic, and doesn't sound like an incident as much as a desire to have him not review the article. It would seem that WP:RFC/U would be the proper venue, not ANI. As for topic bans, again quite drastic and this need thoughtful deliberation, not the kneejerk "fireman" routine we are forced to do at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with others that a topic ban is unwarranted. My preference would be for Amadscientist to acknowledge that there is a sufficient number of editors who believe it would be inappropriate for him to do the review and withdraw. That would accomplish two things. One, it would satisfy those who believe he shouldn't review the nomination. Two, it would demonstrate that he is willing to defer to the community's wishes. I also liked Homunq's suggestion, i.e., that if the editor who reviews the nomination wishes to rely on Amadscientist, they can.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Homunq (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with the other editors here it would be improper for Amadscientist to review considering his past contributions. I don't understand the 7 day comment; if someone is a heavy contributor and stops contributing for 7 days it's not like their internal biases disappear. I believe it's always pertinent to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and the fact of the matter is if one person drops a task someone else will pick it up. Contrary to popular belief we have more than enough editors to handle this sort of a thing. Additionally, I completely reject that a topic ban is warranted at this point but would be willing to change my mind if more compelling evidence were introduced. Sædon 00:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree per Saedon. As the editor mentioned above in relation to the Mitt Romney review issue, thought i would comment further. I slightly mishandled the close of the Mitt Romney GAR, which I regret and for which I apologised. However, I took another look at actions there. Amadscientist's actions didn't make the best use of the various WP processes. For example, Mitt Romney is obviously a contentious subject at the moment, and being very actively edited. This includes constructive contributions from the original GA nominator, Wasted Time R, working to keep the article at a high standard, and with regular debate with other editors. On 16 August Wasted Time R put the article up for Peer Review. There was active discussion on the article talk page. There was no more edit warring than I would expect on the page of a presidential candidate in an election year. I did not, and still don't, see what was to be gained by starting a GAR page (without going through the individual reassessment stage either) on 21 August. Amadscientist was making constructive suggestions on the article talk page, but when I came along as an uninvolved and closed off the GAR, consistent with the views of other editors, Amadsci (in my view) overreacted and made accusations that didn't square with my actions at all. I just think the editor is making some constructive contributions on substance and talk, but needs to take a closer look at the spirit as well as the letter of GAN/GAR. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I've had some conflicts with Amadscientist over content but he never struck me as particularly unreasonable. While he should be excluded from being a GA reviewer when there's a conflict of interest, even discussion of a topic ban seems premature. This may be a teachable moment; let's treat it as one and see if it helps. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support forced withdrawal from Paul Ryan GAN. 276 edits to the talk page and 54 edits to the article before taking the review makes him ineligible. That he refuses to acknowledge this fact makes a topic ban in the future likely with my support. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Apart from being among the article's 10 most active editors (with 52 non-minor and 2 minor edits), Amadscientist has conducted polls regarding the article's content, expressed strong opinions about it, and has participated in discussions on the talk page more than any other editor. It should be clear that they can not be considered an uninvolved editor and the GAN should be reviewed by someone else. Deliberately trying to interpret "prior to the review" to mean "seven days prior to the review" seems like pure wikilawyering. Despite several people telling him that he should not be reviewing the article, somehow Amadscientist is still arguing that there's no consensus for their withdrawal. Jafeluv (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support "forced withdrawal", whatever that might entail. There's unanimous opposition to the GAN in question both here and on the GAN talk page and he's still providing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT exemplars both there and on his talk page. bridies (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• There is no set in stone procedure for forcibly removing a reviewer. I have moved the GA1 subpage to OldGA without redirect, which should trigger the bot to change the status of the review. Hopefully, this resolves the situation. --Rschen7754 16:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And now User:Cwobeel, who is also a significant contributor to Paul Ryan (#8 most edits to article, #4 most comments on talk), has inserted himself as reviewer of the GAN (dif). What is going on? —Eustress 19:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that forbidden? If so, please let me know on my Talk page and I will remove my comment. Cwobeel (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, folks... I changed my edit to "Comment" which I hope I can still make. Cwobeel (talk)

• The editor appears to be awaiting for this thread to close before officially withdrawing: I suggest closing it now with the decision that the editor not perform the review as the reviewer. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • ANI is not a jury. There's pretty obvious consensus above that Amadscientist isn't an appropriate reviewer in this case, but a random admin sticking a purple box around the discussion doesn't make it binding. Just... do whatever it is you'd normally do if a GA reviewer was unsuitable. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tea Party movement 1RR violation

Reverts by User:CartoonDiablo Article: Tea Party Movement under 1RR clearly marked on talk page and on editing page

Reported by User:Collect

18:51 26 August 19:25 26 August

Warning and request to self-revert at 23:28 26 August

Response by CartoonDiablo at 23:39 26 August with content:

that aside the reverts were done in response to his reverts and everyone at WP:EW/N will see that.

I did not think that violating 1RR because one does not like edits from others was a valid excuse, but I suggest that this excuse be weighed as he wishes it to be weighed. Collect (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice given of this at 23:48

Report made here per clear instructions at saying Violations can be reported at WP:ANI.

I suggest that when one editor has violated 1RR and been given a polite opportunity to self-revert, that such an editor is seeking to test the rule. Collect (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For anyone interested in this issue, here's what took place, with numbered diffs in sequence:

1. Back in November 2010, User:CartoonDiablo adds three sentences to the article's Media Coverage section which become longstanding content in the article.

2. Today, on August 26, 2012, User:North8000 removes the three sentences originally inserted by CartoonDiablo.

3. Next, User:Ian.thomson reverts North8000's removal of the material, adding the three sentences back to the article.

4. Next, North8000 reverts Ian.thomson's reversion, removing the three sentences a second time.

5. Next, CartoonDiablo reverts North8000's reversion, restoring the three sentences he or she originally put in the article, and asks that its removal be discussed first.

6. Next, User:Collect reverts CartoonDiablo and removes the three sentences again from the article.

7. Next, CartoonDiablo reverts Collect's reversion and adds the three sentences back again a second time.

By my count, in the span of 6+ hours today, that looks like 2RR by North8000 in removing the three sentences, followed by a 2RR by CartoonDiablo in returning them. As Collect points out at Template:Editnotices/Page/Tea_Party_movement#Further_points, the article is on 1RR restriction and point #5 says violations can be reported directly to WP:ANI. Although North8000 and CartoonDiablo have exceeded 1RR, and may deserve to be blocked, I would like to bring up the fact that point #3 of Template:Editnotices/Page/Tea_Party_movement#Further_points says that more leniency will be given to editors who act in the spirit of WP:BRD. If you look at what was happening, it suggests that North8000 and Collect were not following WP:BRD by repeatedly removing the three sentences after the removal was objected to, whereas Ian.thomson and CartoonDiablo were following WP:BRD and expected that the deletion be discussed first. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that only one editor was given proper warning of the 1RR violation with an opportunity to self-revert, and that opportunity was specifically rejected by that editor in the apparent belief that 1RR does not mean 1RR absolutely. Had North been warned and not self-reverted, I would hold him to the same standard, but Misplaced Pages believes that people should be given a clear chance to self-revert. AFAICT, however, North hit 1RR -- his first removal does not count as a "revert" under customary Misplaced Pages standards defining "revert." As it is, CartoonDiablo is the one in clear violation of a brightline rule imposed on that article. As for the problem -- the material was specifically under discussion on the talk page, which you appear to elide, and there was no apparent consensus for inclusion (mainly - the material is of exceedingly tangential relationship to the article topic, and was totally unrelated to acts or positions of the TPM, but only related to how the "nedia" covered the topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the 1RR rule served its purpose by stopping y'all from edit warring before it could get really nasty. My advice is to withdraw this ANI and go discuss on the talk page. You're all established editors and you know how BRD works, so get to it; getting an editor(s) blocked here will solve nothing. Sædon 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If CD had self-reverted or acknowledged that 1RR is applicable - fine. CD not only did not self-revert, his post to me indicated that he would edit war again in the same situation, and that is what is the problem, in my view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Collect's analysis. If notice is required and it wasn't given, you can not legitimately block someone. As for CartoonDiablo, if he (I should say all) takes a deep breath and does not repeat this offense, and edits productively, a block should not be given here. PumpkinSky talk 01:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Approximately 22 minutes after North8000's second edit removing the material, I posted a polite note to him about self-reverting here, as I didn't want him to stumble into a block either. However, North8000 hasn't made any further edits today since that last edit, so in all likelihood he may have left his keyboard after his last edit and had no chance of seeing it, hence no chance to self-revert. Academic as far as I'm concerned, as I had no intention of pursuing a block and only got involved here when I saw Collect's ANI posting. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Saedon just about sums up my opinion of it and yeah in retrospect it wasn't the best idea to violate the IRR even if it was with regards to someone else. Also for future reference to Collect and AzureCitizen, AN/I is generally used for vandalism while 3RR is for edit conflicts like these, it's not a big deal but it's good to keep in mind. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR notice page specifically states to come here. So much for your "interpretation" of process -- when a specific process is called for, that is the process I use. Cheers -- and I still find your refusal to self-revert when given a very polite note to be the problem here. --Collect

Collect, the Template doesn't "specifically state to come here", it just says that you can (but not that you must) - something to consider when we speak of interpretation of process. Looking at the timing of your contribs (your conversation with CartoonDiablo about reporting him if he didn't revert, followed by your ANI post), it's also apparent you didn't spend a lot of time considering whether or not this ANI post was really necessary. Lastly, please consider that you ignored WP:BRD when you joined the fray between North8000, Ian.thomson, and CartoonDiablo. Many editors find that sort of thing discourteous on contentious articles that have 1RR restrictions, thus your polite demand to CartoonDiablo that he self-revert was unlikely to be well received. Maybe it would have been better to just go straight to the Talk Page and start working out the issue instead of trying to have him blocked? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the place it says to use. Yes -- I could have ignored the absolute refusal to self-revert -- heck I could ignore every infraction, I suppose. But when a report is made, it is rational to fgo to eht place the notice says to go to. I did not post here until after CD made clear his position what he would not only not revert, but that he would defend what he had done as the only clear 2RR person on the page (North's first edit is not a "revert" per Misplaced Pages usage). And I absolutely did use the article talk page so much for that absurd aside. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the place it says you can use; restraint can be a virtue. Also, you absolutely did use the Talk Page, after you reverted, right? Revert diff, Talk diff. You have to keep the sequence of events in mind when considering what WP:BRD means in this context and how you approached the situation. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate 1RR, I only reverted once. The one note that raised this question made the error of considering an edit to material added 1 3/4 years ago (November 2010) to be a "revert" of that addition. By that standard, ANY removal from any article would mistakenly be called a "revert" which is not correct. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR defines a revert as " Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." It says nothing about a time scale and I've never before heard the argument that an edit doesn't count as a revert based on the time differential since the material was added. Sædon 03:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying that every instance of removal of any material, even the oldest item in Misplaced Pages is a "revert" for the purposes of 1RR ? ! That's unimaginable. And doubling up on that, we're talking 1RR not 3RR. Frankly, I think that I was being used to obscure the report here which involves someone who did two reverts within hours both on the same hours-old edit by trying to say that my first edit, the first one on 2-year old material was a "revert". How would anybody even know that it came about by some method in ancient history which the current edit would be considered a "revert" of vs. going in some way where it wouldn't? This isn't a report on me but if someone is trying to raise the question about me this would certainly need a broader discussion on this which is only a side-topic on this current one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the policy seems pretty clear and mentions nothing about a time period. If you are going to assert that removing material isn't a revert if it happens after a certain time period you need to be able to point to a policy that says that, otherwise you're just stating your opinion on what the policy should say. Additionally, it appears to me to be in line with WP:STATUSQUO which is an essay that makes a lot of sense. And of course it's in line with WP:BRD which is exactly what should have happened instead of an EW. Sædon 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I'm sympathetic to your rationale, and don't think you should be blocked here either. Since the 3RR rule doesn't make exceptions for time frames, however, it's probably better to err on the side of caution on hotly contested articles. The Tea Party Movement article sees a lot of edit warring and continues to be on 1RR restriction for 1 and 3/4 years now, during which time you've made many edits and comments. We also both know that for the past few weeks, removal of content has been especially contentious. If you make an edit on a 1RR article, and the edit quickly gets reverted, it's more appropriate to follow WP:BRD instead of promptly reverting it back to the way you just changed it, touching off a mini-edit war today with those three sentences flip-flopping back and forth six times. Just something to think about going forward from here. Peace, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: It is not infrequent to see an editor under "0RR" -- the definitin being used by some would mean the poor editor could never emend any articles at all, ever. The customary usage is that it means undoing an edit from the recent past. Any other meaning is indefensible.

A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it

Does not posit that the bold edit is also a revert. In fact it appears to state that the bold edit is not a revert. Period. Collect (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had some significant content disputes with North8000, but even if he's technically in violation, I don't think a block is in order. He acted under the good faith belief that he wasn't violating 1RR, so punishingblocking him for not being a wikilawyer would be punitive. 08:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...punishing him...would be punitive." Huh? 149.135.147.1 (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken and I'm off to bed! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The interpretation promulgated by some (i.e. both claiming it it such for 3RR and then transferring it from 3RR to 1RR and 0RR) is very unusual, and that's putting it mildly. By that standard, 0RR would mean that an article could NEVER be edited, period. There is no exception for discussed or consensus edits because it is clear that it is not intended for the first edit on ancient material to be considered a "revert". Again, I think that this side discussion where it takes a tortuous creative unusual syntheses of policy pieces to come up with this is a diversion on a report which is not on me and which is about a clear 1RR violation. 2 edits within hours, both reverting hours-old edits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that that interpretation promulgated by some would mean that just editing four different parts of ANY article in one day would constitute a 3RR violation. That is preposterous. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You are assuming all edits are reverts. They are not. For example, if this page was under 0RR, my edit posting this comment would not be a revert. ⇒SWATJester 11:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant 4 edits that involved modifying or removing existing material would be considered a 3RR violaiton under 3RR. That is clearly not what it is about. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It may sound preposterous but I have had that exact interpretation levelled at me before while editing a page. I have also had a wide ranging thread on Wikiquette where basically some users were backing up that position. That discussion can be found here. Sport and politics (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing or altering content is a revert. Tiderolls 12:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the wording should be clarified to prevent that mis-interpretation. But the intent is already clear. Simply editing ancient material is not intended to be considered "revert". Again such an interpretation would lead to preposterous situations. Under that interpretation 0RR would forbid ALL edits to existing material, and 3RR would prohibit 4 edits on one day to even ancient existing material. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

How is my statement a mis-interpretation? That is what the policy states. Tiderolls 13:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think North8000 missed the "within 24 hours (more or less - don't game the system)" part of the 0/1/3/9001RR rules. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how 24 hours even comes into play on this. The implausible interpretation (counting the first change to ancient material as a "revert") aside, I only made one revert on it. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether an edit of something which was there a long time counts here as a "revert" - no one asserts that North removed material which had been there a short time. And AFAICT, the "first edit" does not count as a "revert" under normal meanings - ese a person who is on a 0RR restriction is enjoined from ever editing at all <g> which would be absurd. The only person who expressly refused to abide by the 1RR is, alas, CartoonDablo, who would not have been reported had he not made a rather odd post on my UT page saying that he thought he did nothing amiss. The claims that others were "edit warring" is absurd - the extensive discussion on the article talk page belies that excuse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

He wouldn't have been reported had he not said what he said? I thought you told him that if he didn't self-revert, it would be reported. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Tide rolls, I meant contrary to the obvious intent and to the way the Misplaced Pages works. (in good faith in your case) A clarification in the wording is obviously needed. E.G. 4 edits to ancient material in one day is not a 3RR violation, and 0RR obviously does not mean that existing material is uneditable. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0RR means exactly that; and 4 edits can very easily be construed as a 3RR violation. I can see where the 4 reverts could be explained, but it had better be a very good explanation. Tiderolls 13:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh? That is completely contrary to how Misplaced Pages operates. What you just said is the 0RR means that (even ancient) existing material is absolutely uneditable, and that 4 edits to existing ancient material on an article constitutes a 3RR violation which might be given a pass! North8000 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, edit wars are completely contrary to how Misplaced Pages operates and the edit restrictions are used to divert editors to the talk page. Tiderolls 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are changing the subject, but on the new topic are saying something I agree with. :-) Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

0RR almost always, and 1RR frequently, define "revert" differently than 3RR. 0RR almost always says that you cannot revert to restore your own edit, and 1RR almost always applies only to reverts of the same material, and frequently applies only if the the first revert is that of a recent change to the article. I haven't checked the specific edits here, and I would be considered "involved" even if I had. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I realize this argument supports what I think should be in the article. Sorry about that, but the reasoning makes sense to me, anyway. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What is revert, again?

I see no real progress on defining this in two years or more. The standard definition is that a revert is whatever the (non-)blocking admin decides it is. That's how Misplaced Pages always worked. Check the archives of 3RR, going at least two years back on this issue. And I admit to sometimes reading this page for the lulz nowadays. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The overall report was on someone who clearly violated 1RR. They did two reverts. I did ONE. The "creative" work regarding myself (going back ~2 years to find and list when the material was originally put in, calling the first edit on ancient material a "revert", an interpretation that would lead to chaos as described in detail above) derailed/diverted the conversation, hopefully unintentionally. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you check the times on the posts and edits North8000, you'll see that my note to you about 2RR was a couple hours before the next 2RR, lest you think this was all some sort of stunt. I gather that by the way things played out, you wish that the conversation here had been solely about a potential block for CartoonDiablo, but when an editor brings an EW complaint to WP:ANI, everyone who is involved comes under scrutiny for their role in facilitating the EW. I hope you can see that, and I hope you have also reflected on your own actions as well. If you remove three sentences from a contested article on 1RR restriction, and someone reverts you, is reverting them again yourself really such a good idea? etc. In any event, I'm glad that nobody was blocked and people went back to discussing it on the Talk Page. Also, I agree with Tijfo098's comment above as well, this is an issue that would be useful to settle. Should a better standardized definition of revert be adopted in the WP:3RR rules? Should there be a time limit specified for 3RR? Should there be separate subsections added to include rules for 1RR and 0RR as well, if there are key differences about timing that should be specified? It makes all our jobs here easier when the lines spelled out in bright line rules are as bright and clear as they can possibly be in every conceivable scenario, and this scenario has obviously come up plenty of times before. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Very busy today, just a quick note. I don't understand your chronology note; I only reverted ONCE on that content. Not once in some time period, just once ever. I didn't have ANY wishes for this report, I didn't even know it existed. And, to be honest, my first guess is that somebody came up with the creative interpretation to try to involve me to cloud the issue on the actual clear-cut 1RR violator. I'm not too happy about that. If it was you, I'll note that my "first guess" is nothing more than that and I'd be happy to forget it and move on with zero hard feelings. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:FS Italia

This editor keeps reverting additions to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:FS_EMUs_and_DMUs&curid=15721842&action=history stating "it doesn't exist". I have repeatedly explain that the article Frecciarossa 1000 does exist, and is clearly verifiable, and tried to explain the purpose of navigation templates Misplaced Pages:Navigation templates. See also User_talk:FS_Italia#Don.27t_edit_tendentiously. Oranjblud (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've put a message on the user's talk page. I hope this helps. In the future, if you could try to steer discussion to the talk page rather than communicating via edit summaries? Even templates have a talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave a explanatory note on the talk page to see if that helps.

(Now an IP address is reverting the addition) - will see if a talk page note solves the issue..Oranjblud (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Concordia University move dispute

Hi, despite long, settled discussion on whether to keep Concordia University (Quebec) at Concordia University, someone decided to move it again. Can you please help resolve this dispute? --The lorax (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• The move may be contested but I don't see any discussion yet that addresses this. Have you tried to talk to EdwinHJ who moved the page? Editing against consensus is not necessarily something we here need to deal with from scratch. See also WP:CCC. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Concordia University in Montreal has been determined to be the article to use the primary name via WP:RM discussion in 2005, an WP:RFC in 2006, and another WP:RM discussion in 2010. Consensus has been established three times as of 2010.--The lorax (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Have a chat with EdwinHJ first of all to see if you can resolve this with him. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also remember that consensus can change - but the way to tell if it's changed it is through WP:RM, not unilateral moving. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lorax, could you link to the actual discussions? The only one I can find is the 2006 RFC, which was founded in the notoriety of an incident which may not be all that (in)famous anymore. That said, EdwinHJ has a history with trying to determine the article naming here, and he really should be going through channels here, as BR says. Mangoe (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Gross incivility from two editors

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

I have been attempting to remove the unattributed and pov term "terrorist" from the introduction section of the Anders Behring Breivik article. My justification was the Misplaced Pages guideline here

Rather than arguing against my point, a number of editors who seem to think they own the article have simply resorted to a tirade of incivility on the article's talk page that pushes the extreme end of foul language and personal insults.

Examples include:

From User:AndyTheGrump
"fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit. Sociopathic scum like you shouldn't be let within a mile of Misplaced Pages."
"I suggest you take your deranged POV somewhere else"

From User:Ian.thomson
"Just leave, sicko, we don't need your trolling here"
"Take your Breivik-excusing and get out of here"
"Go away, nasty person."

Meowy 20:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't see someone who argues that the mass murder of 69 people (mostly teenagers) wasn't an atrocity getting much sympathy round here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Will I add your name to the incivility complaint? Where did I argue that the murder of 69 people wasn't an atrocity? Meowy 20:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you did not want the word atrocity used, see and it is pretty clearly one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That reply really does reveal you inadequacy as an editor. Do you think that the Misplaced Pages guidelines that advise against using pov terminology like "terrorist", or heated wording like "atrocity", are there because lots of terrorist-loving atrocity-supporting editors wrote those guidelines? Meowy 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

My inadequacy as an editor? I invite anyone here to check my blog log, and then yours . As can be seen on the talk page for Brevik he has been called a terrorist (and frankly is one) and it was an atrocity. Personal attacks about my "adequacy as an editor" are uncalled for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As multiple editors have pointed out (and you so violently responded to), the terrorist label is considered NPOV in that article, as he has been sentenced for terrorism, is called a terrorist by various RSs (which the guideline you cite says allows us to use the word terrorist).

And you've been trying to argue that Breivik's actions are not an atrocity, and that his bigoted manifesto was not Islamophobic or anti-feminist (based on what? You do know that editor interpretation of the manifesto is original research, since there's a giant banner explaining that whenever one edits the article). You tried to argue that Breiviks attacks be given more of a social context, after having complained about the sourced and accurate labeling of his beliefs as Islamophobic, anti-feminist, and far-right. You called everyone who disagreed with you "self-righteous" while making rather asinine generalizations about everyone there (how the hell are we supposed to have edited the Breivik article before he showed up on the news for his crimes? He wasn't notable before then). You threatened me with a block (not your authority) when I pointed out that Breivik is a murderer, and that there is no positive way to describe his actions. Not once have you even begun to concede that Breivik is a terrible person, which anyone concerned with maintaining NPOV would have done. Your Breivik-excusing is not welcome here, and I'm not the only person who will not tolerate your threats. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "The lead is full of pov wording! "Terrorist" is a pov term and should not be used in Misplaced Pages articles. "Far right" is a pov term that should also not be used (and the meanings of "far right" or "far left" vary greatly from country to country). "Militant ideology" is also pov. Brevik’s manifesto was not "Islamophobia, support of Zionism and opposition to feminism" – that is just the opinion of certain commentators who have characterised its content thus. "Attrocities" is also pov." (my emphasis) at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#The lead (And you can put my name wherever you please, I've not been uncivil to you - I'm just suggesting you might want to reconsider who you think might be likely to be on your side considering your apparent opinions on Anders Breivik). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that puke-brains is still trolling away, trying to make out that Breivik isn't a terrorist: . (P.S. if you are going to report me for incivility, please quote it in full next time. I was rather pleased with my effort...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Puke-brains" is all very well, Andy, but Meowy's own words are much more damning. I just glanced at his/her talkpage, and was struck by this statement: "..I consider Misplaced Pages to be an intrinsically evil concept and a malevolent entity, a cancer on truth and on legitimate academic studies. Its concept of verifiability is the core of its evil. I am not here because I want to contribute to Misplaced Pages - I am here because I oppose everything Misplaced Pages stands for." My bolding. Why is this, uh, contributor, still allowed to edit Misplaced Pages? WP:NOTHERE is admittedly only an essay, but it's my impression that it enjoys wide approval in the admin corps and is often quoted in indefinite block reasons. HINT HINT. Bishonen | talk 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC).

• If I hadn't already commented here, taking a side in the content dispute (making me WP:INVOLVED), I would be taking the hint - anyone who does will have my support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, it looks like the M.O. for Meowy is:

• make a bold edit. -- Usually ok.
• call everyone who disagrees with him (no matter how many people there are, or how much they try to help him) incompetent, self-righteous, POV-pushing article-owners, and threaten to have them blocked. -- Last I heard, that's not exactly encouraged, or even tolerated around here.

The second part alone is troublesome enough, but in this case, the bold edit was trying to excuse a murderer of dozens of children, who he still has yet to decry.

Seems to me the only reason to keep this open is to find enough WP:ROPE for this WP:BOOMERANG case.

Oh, and Bishonen found some more. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, while everyone enjoys piling onto the 2-Minute Hate against Meowy here, this user does have a point; we should avoid the "...is a terrorist" verbiage in the lead. We don't even do that for Osama bin Laden. Introduce the person in the lead, describe what he is infamous for, but avoid making declarative "he is a terrorist" statements; that is simplistic/sensationalist tabloid writing. I also find it amusing that some hold me as some sort of paragon of incivil behavior around here, but the antics and words of Andy and Ian Thompson above are well above and beyond any stunt that I have ever pulled on-wiki. Is there a particular reason why they are not blocked yet? As the puerile name-calling shows no signs of abating, I think we'd be clearly in the "preventative, not punitive" territory here. Tarc (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have now indeffed Meowy because I find his edits at the Behring article to be intentionally provocative and because of the self-confessed opposition to the project. There's also a long history of sockpuppeting and disruptive editing. De728631 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • That was just about the worst possible decision to make in this matter. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • What, you support the continued presence of someone who has openly declared their opposition to Misplaced Pages and says "I am not here because I want to contribute to Misplaced Pages - I am here because I oppose everything Misplaced Pages stands for"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't know Meowy from a hole in the wall and am honestly not terribly interested in their past. What I am looking at here is an editor filing an ANI against Andy the Grump and Ian Thompson over this affair. His opinion on the addition of "terrist" is IMO correct, and his assessment of those two editors opposed to him is also correct. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
        • You're telling us you really don't care about someone's declaring themselves to be an enemy of Misplaced Pages, and you support their continued presence here? You may well agree with him over "terrorism" and believe that the incivilities require action, but to simply not care about an openly declared troll is appalling, in my opinion - and if you genuinely don't care and have not looked at his trolling or his past, then I'd say you're in no position to oppose his block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
          • What Tarc is saying is that the original subject of the thread is still valid even if the author has his own problems (namely, having engineered the misbehaviour he reported). Sometimes that is enough to consider just dropping the whole thing: sometimes it isn't. In this case, there is merit to pursuing redress on the original parties even after the original poster has been indeffed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

With respect Chris, I think Tarc can speak for himself. Tarc's response was specifically to Meowy's block, and he appears to be telling us he opposes that block without having bothered to even look at the reason for it - he has not looked at both sides of the dispute. If he actually doesn't oppose the block, or has indeed investigated Meowy's behaviour and does not think it deserves a block, or wasn't meaning to say he opposes the block, then I will withdraw my criticism. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• • • To be fair, I got involved in the content discussion right before blocking Meowy. But my main motivation is not this dispute but Meowy's overall conduct. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tarc that the behavior reported here by Meowy was inexcusable. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to accept Ian Thompson just got carried away, and should be trouted for getting so readily trolled. ATG should be facing a month off for this, though, with the instruction that it's the last time he'll be let off with a time-limited block. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (ec) As to the incivilities by Ian and Andy, this is certainly unwarranted and has hereby been recorded. However, preventative measures don't seem to be necessary to me since their gross name-calling was clearly related to this one user and their questionable edits. Other admins (Thumperward) may however take action in this area. I for one issue a warning to Ian.thompson and Andy the Grump to not repeat this kind of incivility, no matter what caused it. De728631 (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)The indef block is probably a good idea, Meowy would blatantly rather be writing editorials than an encyclopaedia, and there are other places for that. As for AGT...I don't know if there's any possible reason not to block. His intentions are good and I like his direct style, but this kind of response only ever inflames the argument and makes the whole situation worse (which is exactly what happened here - and now we have an editor indeffed). It has to stop. Basalisk ⁄_berate 21:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Tarc, if someone is pushing a POV, especially if that POV is so inhuman, it's perfectly reasonable and within the guidelines to ask them to stay away from the site or at least articles they are have problems with. That's what I did. I also called him sick, but I cannot and will not describe excusing Breivik in any other way. As evidenced by recent edits to the article, attributing and following the MOS is not a problem, it's reshaping the article into a praise piece for a mass murderer that is a problem. Notice that never, even after prompted, did Meowy once begin to agree that Breivik's actions are deplorable. It is an example that polite POV-pushing can be rude elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda your problem, editing a topic in which you obviously feel passionately and personally about. Breivik's deplorableness isn't relevant to the discussion here. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What I'm getting is "You shouldn't overreact to trolling," instead of "Meowy shouldn've have trolled," which is blaming the victim. Denial of Breivik's deplorableness was Meowy's motivation. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Meowy's motivation was probably getting a rise out of people. Polite POV pushing has long been known to be an extremely effective method of trolling here precisely because it elicits responses like yours. Given that we allow anyone to edit articles on Hitler, the KKK, cold fusion, Jesus's pet brontosaurus and pretty much every other hot subject in modern culture, it is extremely important that editors who wish to work on these topics learn how to deal with it without getting baited into acting improperly. This appears to be an anomaly on your behalf, but it's gotten to the point where ATG seems to be actively pursuing a course of doing the right thing in the worst possible way. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fine. I was also going to point out (but edit conflicted) that the attribution issue, when brought up by editors who weren't trying to excuse Breivik's actions, was fixed. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to block me, block me - it seems self-evident that cognitive dissonance will continue to rule Misplaced Pages, and that rules against 'personal attacks' will be enforced rigidly, even as hate-filled bigotry against all and sundry in the world outside is not only tolerated, but positively encouraged by rules that prevent the obvious being stated. Meowy, like so many bigots before, has exploited Misplaced Pages's peculiar double standards to his own advantage, spouting garbage about NPOV even while openly declaring his contempt for the concept. I don't know why I bother to try to make a difference here anyway. Clearly a waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Andy, it is possible to tell someone to fuck off and die without actually using the phrase "fuck off and die." I'm a local government officer - we do it all the time. And if you're having that much trouble with an editor, call a bloody admin! Meowy has a history going way back - any admin would have nailed them to a coffee table for you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Twenty-mule team Oppose any incivility blocks. I'd support a WP:TROUT, however. Recommend closure of this item. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't a zero-sum game. It's possible to say that POV trolling is bad and that responding to a troll with the sort of outrageous nastiness that AtG used is also bad. If someone is trolling, it's not only not helpful to call them horrible names, it also makes things worse. You're feeding the troll a never-ending buffet of fun. That purposely escalating a dispute is a bad idea is a concept that Andy doesn't buy into, I know, but it's nevertheless the case. Given how many times Andy has done this, to how many people, and with how little recognition of the fact that his behavior is a problem unto itself, I have no confidence left that he plans to change in any way. Time-limited blocks - multiple ones, and that's only counting the ones placed for personal attacks/harassment - haven't helped. Nothing has helped. I'm ready to throw up my hands and suggest that Andy be blocked until such time as he can control his tendency to attack others. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Fluffernutter 100%. Andy's conduct is unacceptable. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose any block of Andy The Grump in this matter. Could everybody please refrain from administrative idiocy today, as I'm feeling a little frail. Also, I have an angle on such civility blocks that you may possibly not have heard before: please have a care of admin retention, because Misplaced Pages is bleeding admins. If somebody unilaterally blocks ATG for being incivil to Meowy, after what has transpired above, I think you're likely to get some more good, active admins throwing down their tools in despair like LessHeard vanU did, or joining Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians like Heimstern, and (oh noes) MastCell did. I'm not in Heim's or Mast's heads, but I don't think they'd see the step from burnout to self-desysop as a long one, and the continual discouragement of seeing bad blocks (yeah, yeah, maybe well-intentioned bad blocks, but shallowly considered and in their consequences exclusively lousy blocks) is something that drips away at our best and most mature admins, and, well, will sooner or later hollow them out. You know, the Gutta cavat lapidem thing. User:Ched seems about ready to dissassociate himself from such blocking practices by turning in his bit, too, btw. But these users must speak for themselves; I speak of my impression, which is that many of the best admins are hanging by a thread. Please stop snipping away at those threads. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC).
    • Honestly, that is a ridiculous and flimsy argument against blocking an editor. Notwithstanding any potential boomerang effects on Meowy, ATG's behaviour is completely unacceptable. Or at least it would be if certain people ceased white knighting for him. And THAT is why admins burn out. Because certain people completely frustrate anyone's ability to deal with problem editors like Andy. Count me in the group that thinks an indefinite (not necessarily infinite) block is inevitable. Even if you forestall it now, it will happen eventually. We don't need attitudes like that around here. Resolute 00:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly sure (or hoping, at least) that there will be no block here without a consensus, so I'm not sure what any of this has to do with admin burnouts. As Resolute says, you might as well make the case for admin burnouts happening due to incivility remaining unpunished around here. --Conti|✉ 00:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, creating an environment where "fuck of and die" is an acceptable phrase to throw around might not be the best thing for editor retention either. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Resolute, I think an indefinite block of Andy is almost certainly inevitable, as well, given his refusal to stop directing profane epithets and directives at others, but this is not the right incident for it to come from. Blocking someone for attacking someone who wants to push a (particularly repulsive) POV and doesn't give a flying feather about Misplaced Pages policy means those people opposed to Misplaced Pages get their way on this. Andy's probably going to need a block, but it shouldn't be for attacks on that sort of editor. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm uncomfortable with the notion a couple people have expressed here (Heim among them) that it's ok - or at least not sanctionable - to attack certain people, as long as they're sufficiently unlikeable. I don't think anyone is disputing that Meowy's behavior was unacceptable today, which is why he's blocked. But are we really ok with excusing incivility against people whose personality or behavior we find unpleasant? What if the next time I block a POV pusher, I call them names? They've misbehaved, right? Violated our policies? Perhaps they were acting in a particularly disgusting manner, advocating for genocide or racism? So by this logic it would be silly to punish me for hurling abuse at them! The idea that that would be ok for me to do is obvious nonsense to most people, I think, and I'd be rightfully chewed out if I tried such a thing. Why would we treat this circumstance differently? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Fluffernutter, I think you're very much misrepresenting what I'm saying. "Unlikeable"? I have no liking or disliking for Meowy. The point here is complete and willful disregard for content policy. This is actually the most surprisingly clear-cut example I've ever seen, as it was self-admitted. And I'm exceedingly tired of seeing civil POV pushers use our civility policy as a cudgel with which to smack editors who oppose their POV pushing. Oh, and concerning your scenario: If I saw you hurling insults at someone who advocated genocide or racism, no, I would not push for sanctions for you. I'd consider it bad practice, but entirely understandable that people lose their cool when dealing with such abuse of Misplaced Pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry for misunderstanding, Heim. I was interpreting your statement that a block shouldn't come from this incident of incivility as being based on your statement that it would mean "someone who wants to push a (particularly repulsive) POV and doesn't give a flying feather about Misplaced Pages" got their way. I see them as two separate issues - someone pushed a (possibly repulsive) POV. Someone else came along and attacked that person personally because they disliked the first person's behavior. Both people are wrong, and not acting on the second instance of misbehavior out of a sense of "two wrongs do make a right" or a desire to keep the first person from "winning" (having their way) is a disservice to both the people involved in the dispute (today) and the community (in the long-term, because it sets a precedent that you can get away with directing personal attacks at people who do a certain thing). While having shorter patience with someone pushing a POV is completely understandable, and I doubt anyone would fail to excuse a bit of shortness with such a person, completely losing it and calling them the sort of things Andy did should never be acceptable, whether it's him saying it or the most respected of our arbs, and whether it's attacking a POV pusher or a newbie who just wants to help. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose blocking either editor, sure they may have gotten a little carried away, but they called it as it is. Facts, not fiction (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fully agree with Fluffernutter as well. Yes, he was responding to a troll (most likely), but that does not excuse his behavior. If you respond so emotionally to a topic, it's probably best to stay away from it for a while. I'm neutral on whether a block should be applied here, but a strong warning should at least be given. --Conti|✉ 00:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I see that Meowy has now been indeffed. Neither Andy nor Ian should be blocked for their reactions toward him. Obviously I would not have used the same words they did, to put it mildly, but there was obvious trolling and provocation, and most importantly, at this point a block would not serve any purpose. Moreover, as there is clearly not going to a consensus for a block, I suggest that the thread be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  NYB, you're aware that our civility policy says that provocation does not excuse bad behavior (see 2a), yes? That Meowy provoked an argument does not excuse Andy not only continuing the argument, but throwing out personal attacks so nasty that most people wouldn't say them to their worst enemy, especially since it's known that this is a habit of Andy's, not a one-time crazy moment. I'd also question your surety that there can never be consensus regarding this issue. Sure, it's possible that this thread will close as no consensus. It's also possible that it will close as consensus to block Andy, or that it will close as consensus to do nothing, or as consensus to start an RfC, or as consensus to all hold hands and sing kumbaya. Both of us have seen enough ANI threads in our time to know that attempts to crystal-ball how a discussion will end two hours after it begins are rarely all that accurate. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely aware of the various things the civility policy says; I'm also painfully aware that the community is all over the lot on how and when it should be invoked (see generally, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement); I'm also aware that AndyTheGrump's style of commenting has raised issues quite apart from his expressions of disgust with Meowy, although I don't believe anyone is saying the same of Ian.thomson. But the question presented in this thread is not whether AndyTheGrump's and Ian.thomson's comments to Meowy were an appropriate way of handling the situation (they were not), or whether they were acceptable behavior in principle (they were not), or whether they should be quoted in WP:CIVIL and WP:DFTT as examples of best practice (again, definitely not, except perhaps if Misplaced Pages ever holds an opposite day). Rather, the practical question posed by this thread at this time is whether to block AndyTheGrump and/or Ian.thomson for overtly blowing up at an editor (who had already served two one-year blocks for misconduct) whose behavior in the recent past on one of the project's most sensitive articles was very deeply troublesome. My suggestion that this thread be closed is based not only on the unlikeliness of its arriving at a consensus—and yes, it's certainly possible that my prediction about that might turn out wrong—but that continuing to focus attention on this situation is unnecessary and unhelpful. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• @Brad: I'd also like to point out that your comment contains a hidden indictment against the current method of dealing with disruptive editors: Why on earth are we allowing someone to comtinue editing after "two one-year blocks for misconduct"? We are far, far too lenient, and give out many too many "second chances" to people who do not deserve them. We take WP:AGF out to realms it has no business being in. We have an obligation to the project to learn from the past and deal with the reality of people's behavior, and not continue to assume that everyone is reformable, or even interested in this project except for purposes of propaganda, vandalism or trolling. We absolutely have to tighten this up, because once we do, good editors will not be driven to incivility as often as they are now. Contrary to contemporary mythology, there are good guys and bad guys, and, in our context, the bad guys are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x3 Admittedly Ms. Bishonen appears to be quite accurate in her observations; at least as far as my thoughts go. Yes - Indeed, I am all in favor of being civil and polite to people; but, when others (often children) go about deliberately goading and provoking people just to see how far they can push the limits - it's time to put a stop to the cause not the response. Agree with NYB that this looks close-able. I won't trouble the members of this board with my thoughts on block and ban happy admins. at this time. — Ched :  ?  00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I would agree that this is beyond the pale and shouldn't be overlooked. We aren't talking about minor incivility, after all. It is unacceptable to talk to anyone here like this, no matter how "wrong" or "bad" the person is. I agree with the block, but it isn't about Meowy, it is about allowing discourse to take place that undermines our goals. At the very least, Andy has exceeded the limits even here in this discussion. As to what is appropriate, I would leave to the community, but ignoring it is not wise policy and will only encourage similar behavior in the future from others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Looks like a number of editors should be removed from working on the article in question. Recentism and all, till then more neutral editors are needed there.--MONGO 01:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support' per Elen, Fluffernutter, and Dennis. "He started it!" is never an excuse for incivility. If somebody gets under your skin, trolling or legit, to the point you start spewing bile - step away from the keyboard, drink a nice cup of tea, take a deep breath, and edit Luna moth until you're calm enough to respond in a civil manner. That said, everybody has their moments, and if this was the first such moment I'd be climbing on board Joe's twenty-mule team. But this isn't AtG's first time round the civility-block issue: this is, at least, the fourth - and that's just going by number of previous blocks, not including those that didn't result in blocks. Regardess of his content and other work, which is stellar, civility is a policy, it is not optional, and we can't decide not to enforce policy just because the 'enforcee' got poked by a troll - at this point, he should know better, and the fact we're having this discussion after all the times we've been round this block before suggests he's simply not getting it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  I left a note on his talk page, for what good that will do. I wish I knew what would actually convince him to pull back a bit. He does good work but his comments were not just incivility, they are flatly attacks. Had it been simple incivility, I wouldn't have even noticed it. There is a big difference in "that is fucking asinine" and "fuck off and die". A big difference. I don't have a "solution" that will help Andy stop shooting off like this, he was offered mentoring on his page above and refused, so I just don't know what the answer is. I just know that ignoring it isn't really an option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  I can't support anymore blocks on this mattter...not that my opinion matters much these days.--MONGO 01:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am a big fan of Andy. I think his contributions are intelligent and incisive, and his instincts, which sometimes are more important than brains, are outstanding. But we really only have two choices here. We either block him, which, in my view, will eventually lead to an indefinite block if we are consistent (heh); or we accept the fact that he will repeat his vitriol and we will be back here discussing it. Perhaps the best result would be for Andy to act on his acknowledgment of being "burned out" and taking a wikibreak to sort things out for himself. Of course, it would have to be a real break, not like his last block, where he was the most active, blocked editor I've ever seen. I somehow doubt we're going to reach any consensus on actual sanctions now, but I imagine we'll argue about it quite a bit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I support a block for both. Incivility enforcement is pathetic, especially against editors who've been around long enough for it be excused under "Oh well, that's just what he's like!" While Meowy was blocked, in part, for openly opposing wikipedia's policies, Ian apparently seem to oppose policy too, just without coming right out and saying so. Ian continues to rant that Meowy refuses to see things his way and admit that Breivik is bad, as if that's some sort of justification for any of this. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just those who hold respectable opinions. 149.135.147.90 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ha, there's Bbb, beating me to it. And Dennis. Hey guys. I have defended Andy a couple of times, but this is really ridiculous. And Ian, you're far off the mark as well. Sheesh. Here we have two people who should know better behaving like children, and the best we can do is not block them since it wouldn't serve any purpose. Worse, I guess I have to agree with that, since a block right now wouldn't serve any purpose, at least not until the next time (with Andy, there usually is). I'm a bit revolted by this. Andy, at some point these sorts of outbursts (were you really proud of "puke brain"? What are you, five?) are going to weigh more heavily than the good work you do. Side note--I've run into Meowy before, and didn't always agree with them. I have no intention of plowing through the talk page of an article on a man I despise, but I would have hoped that a bunch of Misplaced Pages editors could have a grown-up conversation about working and phrasing without flying off the fucking handle. I am not going to break a lance for them, they were way too confrontational for my taste, but we really shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back for how we handled this one. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm still not seeing what high crimes and misdemeanors this Meowy person actually committed here. Calling for a little moderation in the language used to describe Anders Behring Breivik in the article shouldn't be treated like a cross between stepping on the 3rd rail and Holocaust Denial. Tarc (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, come on. Meowy is clearly a troll account. A polite troll to boot, which makes it so much harder to deal with inside the Misplaced Pages rules. Just review his last 50 contribs, and not just those to the Brevik article. I think an WP:INVOLVED block is excusable in this case, as no other admin would have come up with a different conclusion. Meowy posted an unblock request 6 hours ago, but nobody bothered to respond to it. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not interested in ad hominems against this person. Even a troll can be right about something y'know, and in all of the verbiage expended on this topic so far, I find precious little spent actually discussing the actual complaint. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Consider bare facts. (1) M. came with complaint about incivility to ANI, and his complaint was justified ("fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit"). (2) He discussed wording in article about Breivik. He may be wrong, but he could discuss it. (3) He said on another occasion that he does not like wikipedia. This is not a policy violation. (4) He was indeffed, but his incivil "opponent" received no sanctions. To summarize, M. was indeffed for bringing a reasonable complaint, discussing content disagreement on an article talk page, and telling something that was a matter of his personal opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing would make a good read in this case...civility isn't a key to being right.--MONGO 03:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he conducted this discussion in inappropriate manner, but the "arguments" by another side ("fuck off", etc.) were worse in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Re Meowy's supposedly "legitimate" concern, his POV-pushing rendered his concern invalid. When Tarc brought the concern up without the POV-pushing, I complied, and the article now says that Breivik is called a terrorist by many persons, including the Norwegian judicial system and his own lawyer. Hiding what Breivik did, which Meowy also pushed for, is not a legitimate concern. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Consider Meowy's long-term edit history with edits such as and . Tijfo098 (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of statements by Meowy are clearly problematic. I think he is trying to make a point that everything in the project is bad. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Block both. There's no justification for those kinds of comments, no matter how aggravating the other person may be. As the saying goes, the mark of a reasonable man is not in how he treats the best of others, but how he treats the worst of others. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 05:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And for one mistake, you say I should be blocked, without considering whatever good I've done for this site or whether my past behavior shows that this was an anomaly? Way to treat the worst of someone, kettle. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you should be blocked. For how long remains to be determined, but since it seems to be a first occurrence, something short like 24 hours would be appropriate. Throughout this thread you've tried to excuse your behaviour without, as far as I can see, acknowledging that the way your reacted wasn't appropriate. If anything it appears you've defended your choice of words ('I also called him sick, but I cannot and will not describe excusing Breivik in any other way'). Where have you acknowledged you were in the wrong or indicated that you have learned from the experience and won't be repeating it? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 06:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• strongly oppose, as per newyorkbrad. i also agree that this discussion needs to be closed.-- altetendekrabbe  05:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose any incivility blocks for this incident. It's an emotional topic, editors are human and emotional, and sometimes react strongly to things they find very offensive. They were also clearly provoked by a long-term disruptive editor with a bock log the length of your arm. Meowy has now been blocked to prevent his ongoing disruption (backed by his self-declared animosity towards Misplaced Pages), and that fits the "preventative" nature of the block. Blocks for incivility against Ian or Andy would not be preventative, considering this incident has ended, and much of what I'm seeing here is a lot of calls for punitive blocks. Ian's incivility, at the very least, is uncharacteristic and not representative of any real problem that needs prevention. There does appear to be a longer term issue regarding Andy, but let's deal with that separately if necessarily, and not block him as a result of this specific and highly provocative incident (and he's a good guy really - just a bit burnt out at the moment). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support blocking AndyTheGrump ("fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit" is for me absolutely unacceptable), oppose blocking Ian.thomson as responses were not perfect but acceptable in this case Bulwersator (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was once blocked for 5 days for calling other editors "idiots". It would never even occur to me to descend to the depths that Grump did here. Have civility standards really fallen this far? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to opine that "terrorist" is a 100% apt, correct, and precise description of Anders Behring Breivik, who is convicted of having committed mass murder of political opponents to advance a political agenda, posing for photos with a "Marxist Hunter" patch before shooting up a Social Democratic youth camp. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To the people suggesting that I, Ian.thomson, be blocked

Read WP:BLOCK. Blocks are preventative, not punative.

If I should be blocked, it should be to prevent further problems. Anyone calling for a block in reaction to this past problem (and not to prevent future problems), is either uninformed and confused (assuming good faith), or just plain bloodthirsty and failing to assume good faith. At no point did I tell Meowy to fuck off, nor did I call him a little heap of shit, etc, etc, do not confuse me with AndyTheGrump. (Sorry, to throw you under the bus, Andy, but I almost get the impression some people here aren't even trying to see the difference between us).

If anyone really thinks there will be future problems, please show everyone where in my past I have had some sort of pattern of similar slip ups with civility. There's over five years of good edits and reverts there. You'll be able to find the occasional unfounded accusations of incivility on my talk page (accompanying other misunderstandings of how this site works) for warning fringe POV-pushers of various sorts that this site summarizes uses mainstream academic sources and does not accept personal interpretation or research, magic, or pseudoscience, but I'm fairly certain that nothing in my posts will damn me, especially when considered in their original contexts. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect an apology for losing youe cool, and a commitment not to do it again would suffice to defuse things for you. --Errant 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't confused the two, and agree with ErrantX that simply making it clear that this was an exception to your normal behavior is sufficient. I would also note that the examples given don't show the remarks to be equivalent anyway, and even while Ian was provoked, it doesn't justify the remarks. My gut is that Ian "gets it", although making it clear would be helpful. Ian, the problem is that if stuff like is overlooked, it becomes a justification for others to be incivil when it wasn't provoked, etc. I think everyone understands what Meowy was doing, and the reason no one is discussing it is simply because the problem has been solved and no one disagrees with the solution, to indef him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Easy solution: Try a short ban

Short-term Bans? - I know I can't ask for consistency in how our admins treat our editors, and reaching for the block button seems all too often to be the primary corrective action that is considered. HOWEVER, one thing I think could be useful in such incivil moments as we see above might simply be a short term ban from the article or topic for all parties who are behaving incivilly. In other words, you lose your temper and shoot off your mouth, you lose the right to participate in that debate for a while. This seems like a very reasonable and easy way to keep Talk page debates on track, yes? -- Avanu (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Malleus Fatuorum 06:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Consistency" is all very well and good, but if editor #1 is dedicated to pushing a POV, and is blatantly uncivil, while editors #2 and #3 are dedicated to maintaining a neutral point of view in the encyclopedia, but are also just as uncivil as the first editor, proper jurisprudence would call for the first editor to be blocked for being uncivil and for perverting the encyclopedia (a much more serious charge), while the other two editors should be trouted, censured or briefly blocked for being uncivil, but should not be seriously sanctioned, because their primary impulse is to protect the encyclpedia. Incivility is, and should be, a blockable offense when serious, but every admin should take into account the purpose of the uncivil editor.

On the other hand, those who would protect Misplaced Pages from POV-warriors and others who would pervert the NPOV of the project should heed the warnings that are being put forth here: You undermine your own efforts to protect the encyclopedia when you fly off the handle and lose your cool. All you do then is provide ammunition to be used against you by the bad guys. Don't help the bad guys, keep things on an even keel, and if you can't do that yourself, hand it off to someone else ho can. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So, perhaps you should fuck off and die because you feel that is an acceptable purpose-driven type of statement to make to another editor, and that we should merely look aside such comments, while we day in and day out block and ban people who are deemed worthy of not fucking off nor of dying. Sometimes the entire point of AN/I seems to figure out innovative ways to pervert policy and stand it on its head. -- Avanu (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Such a response is indicative of your apparent inability to parse the sense of a simple English paragraph, but, then, I have no real idea of why you're here on Misplaced Pages anyway. It certainly doesn't seem to be to improve the encyclopedia, considering that only 13.5% of your 6000 edits are to articles, and the rest are basically blah blah blah blah on various talk pages. You seem to like the sound of your own opinions, but are reluctant to earn the right to express them through quality contributions to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that some people "earn a right" to tell people to fuck off and die, and you guys arbitrarily decide that. You know what is funny, when I actually do make a productive edit, I have to spend pages of text in Talk pages waiting for consensus to catch up. You imply this is "bad", yet I was under the strong impression that consensus a huge part of the project. Snobby answers like "I'm better and smarter because I have 62,000 edits" are not really that impressive. I have a full time job and a life outside of Misplaced Pages. I don't have mountains of resource materials to cut and paste my way to 1,000's more edits. I contribute positively where I can, and try and encourage people when I can. You want to lecture me because I think it is wrong to openly permit people to shout "fuck off and die" at one another? Look in the mirror and ask how that is really a good thing. -- Avanu (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I want to lecture you because you're a "free rider" who encumbers us with your poorly-considered opinons while not contributing anything of consequence to the encyclopedia. It obviously doesn't matter much to you, but my dedication is to making a better encycylopedia. Come back and pontificate when you've earned the right to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough with this. We're on a civility thread for goodness sake. Avanu made a very good suggestion in the opening edit, disagree or agree, but let's not waste time and distract from Avanau's opening suggestion and fall to incivility. --Activism1234 07:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu's suggestion is crap. Is that sufficient for a disagreement? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So why is it crap? I guess I don't see why people who fly off the handle should be getting a total pass, or the infamous wrist slap known as a trout over and over. Trouts are great if you really are ashamed of the behavior and just need a reminder for formality's sake alone. But what is the harm in saying to an editor, you keep your mouth in check or you drop back for a bit and edit something else? I guess I just am seeing a double standard here. You guys are going all out to protect a buddy, yet you'll hang a newbie or a person you dislike quicker than lickety split. But what do I know... I'm just an impartial observer trying to offer an opinion to help you resolve this in a fair way. -- Avanu (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On the Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, I feel "x's suggestion is crap" rates DH0, maybe DH1 at a push. As for "Come back and pontificate when you've earned the right to do so", I must have misread the front page - does it say "The free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit provided they've got enough street cred with the regulars"? Having said that, I don't support a topic or interaction ban because one of the key players in it is indeffed, which takes away the possibility of conflict between these editors. --Ritchie333 08:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that in itself is an excellent point, Ritchie. In a general sense, do you think short term bans would help more, or simply blocking the 'most' offensive party and leaving the others alone with a warning to be nicer? -- Avanu (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the best way is for everybody to calm down, take a deep breath, think calming thoughts, and edit something else for a week or two. Then nobody gets blocked or banned at all. But that's a moot point because somebody's been indeffed, so it doesn't apply in this case. --Ritchie333 08:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can edit here (more or less), but it doesn't mean we have to take their ideas seriously. As far as the community is concerned, people like Avanu, with few contributions to the encyclpedia, have little gravitas when it comes to taking their ideas seriously. Rather, they put the horse before the cart and opinonate before they've earned the right to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

How much more aqueous can the existing process get? There seem to be a large contingent of editors who are simply acting like this whole thread is just a personal attack on Andy. They excuse his 'latest rant'TM with the wave of a hand and say he was driven to this life of crime by running around with ne're-do-wells, but really deep down, he's a good kid at heart. So our rebel with a cause goes around and does it again (and again), but he's simply a misunderstood youth, let him be. Maybe my gravitas and my editing chops aren't as well burnished as those who seek to sum me up by a number, but it seems unbelievably short sighted to judge someone solely by a statistic, and it seems really watery to let an opportunity to correct incivility to pass by, just because it isn't as agressive an approach as you might like. Sometimes a gentle answer turns away wrath, I'm not sure AN/I has heard such proverbial wisdom though. -- Avanu (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. It would a recipe for success for civil trolls, and a punishment for those protecting Misplaced Pages against them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What is a good approach then? How do you get people to actually behave like grown-ups? And are you saying this urge to fly off the handle is inevitable and uncontrollable? -- Avanu (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that humanity and emotion are inevitable, even (especially?) in good people, yes it is inevitable, and we need to find a way to handle that fact rather than keep pretending that incivility can be stopped. Fewer demands for incivility blocks, more sympathy with the underlying reasons why good people fly off the handle at times, and a bit more support for people when they are stressed over battling with trolls - I think all those things would help. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, Boing, but I see people get blocked all the time here for really minor stuff. And I agree that part of being civil is overlooking incivility and telling a person, 'Hey, we get why you got upset; just try harder, OK?' But aren't you essentially tossing WP:Civil out the window here? -- Avanu (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think I am - I'm just advocating treating it in context and with sympathetic judgment. WP:Civil, like many ideals, is not something that can work as a hard and fast rule with prescribed "punishments". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that WP:Civil is a fickle mistress to properly honor. I hope other editors will see your perspective on this too. -- Avanu (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My perception is that administrators have had their hats put on straight with regard to blocks for deploying words like "sycophantic" for instance. But there's no way a hate comment like "fuck off and die" can be justified, and Andy simply has to apologise and accept that fact. Malleus Fatuorum 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Boing has it about right. Malleus Fatuorum 10:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Blocks should never be pro forma and should always take context into consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk)

We're not talking about a block, Ken. I was proposing a short ban. In other words, you tell the editors, step back from the article for a day or two if you are losing your cool to this degree, come back and prepare to work with a better attitude. I don't think it is all that bad from a pro-forma standpoint to tell people to refocus on something else and cool off. -- Avanu (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And the troll who hasn't been uncivil gets to continue unopposed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what usually happens? Malleus Fatuorum 11:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, it often is, yes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we supposed to be assuming good faith? What exactly makes them a troll? I'm all in favor of training for newer editors so that they have a better understanding of Wiki-culture, but unless there is a clear trolling, our policies say we're supposed to wait around for consensus to form. Its slow as hell, but it eventually reaches the same place. -- Avanu (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should indeed be doing the AGF thing, and it can indeed be hard to pin down the definition of a troll - but don't you see examples when you can just see someone is trolling? The consensus route is another ideal, and I support it when it works. But at the same time, I can understand when people see obvious trolls, feel frustrated by the way "proper process" lets them get away with it for ages, and then get the "cut the crap, let's get this sorted" feeling - especially if it's an emotionally-charged subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be regular confusion over what a block and a ban is, which isn't helped by other places using them for different terms. From my understanding of WP:BAN, what we call a "temporary topic ban" is what I'd actually call a "cooling off period" where people get formally asked to take a break from something in the hope that the time away will allow them to approach stuff with a clearer (or sober) head. Kind of the equivalent to locking a topic on a forum - nobody gets booted off, they just can't talk about "x" for a while. Trouble is, people don't seem to equate bans to that at all and think it's got something to do with physically stopping you from editing full stop. --Ritchie333 11:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Zero tolerance rule on AndytheGrump

I've had some dealings with AndytheGrump's civility issues previously so I may not be completely neutral on this one. But I'd propose the community impose a zero tolerance rule on AndytheGrump, that any uninvolved admin may block him, long term (around a month or so the first time), for anything they consider to be incivility, or a personal attack, as soon as they see it (extra conditions or provisions welcome). This is will be primarily for the purpose of preventing it happening again, whether in the same discussion or for the time of the block, and then hopefully afterward. I agree that he is a great editor (after having a good look through his contribs after my last incident with him), but I think that he has had enough warnings, chances and editors working with him to try and fix this issue. Perhaps this will encourage him to consider what he says before he hits the save button. I haven't made a comment on the other editors involved as I believe that they don't have the same history of incivility and personal attacks (excluding the blocks already in place). Please excuse is this if it isn't the sort of thing which isn't normally suggested (etc) here or if I've done it wrongly, but I hope that this rule might encouage him to think about what he writes before he hit's the save button. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the standard escalating blocks can just be followed (not in this case as no action is required); nothing else is required. I also think basing anything from this incident is a mistake. It also gives trolls a way to get Andy blocked; deliberately try his patience until he flares up and then get him blocked. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For me the word "zero tolerance" is always a spin/advertising term for "mindless action" and usually "mindless overreaction". Nothing personal, that is just my feeling in general. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• This is already the situation he's in. There is broad consensus above that his comments were grossly inappropriate. He's fortunate not to have been summarily blocked this time (the nature of the provocation being the sole mitigating factor). He's unlikely to get the benefit of the doubt if it happens again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It depends on who he is going to pick on next. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. We don't need any special new conditions, and we shouldn't be taking any action based on this incident due to its highly charged nature and the clear trolling that got Andy wound up in the first place. Andy knows the situation, and the best solution for this issue now is to just let it be. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary complication - normal blocks are sufficient Bulwersator (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Remember Meowy?

But here is the deal: whoever wants Meowy indef-blocked should come with a convincing case. One-liners need not apply. Better yet, start an RfC/U--it is ridiculous that we would block someone indefinitely over one fight, with a push of the button, while we're spending hours discussing the possible punishment for the other two parties. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Jimbo would appear to agree with the block, judging by this comment. (I'm not putting that forward as an argument either way or suggesting he should have authority, but just presenting it as an opinion that people here might have missed.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, based on that one diff. I am pretty sure he hasn't looked into Meowy's full history here. Boing, I was a bit saddened to see you chiming in with the troll choir in such perfect harmony. I don't think Meowy is exactly our savior, and he may have a manner that some disagree with, but, to put it plain and simple, he is not a troll. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • What I suggest we do is leave the matter of Meowy's block to the discussions on his talk page, where it already appears to be taking place - I don't intend to comment there or take any actions myself. (And I'd be very disappointed if I managed to go through life without ever disappointing anyone.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I suggest something else: there is a shit storm over the content of Meowy's character (as if we can gauge that accurately) with a large group of editors simply saying "yeah, troll". If Meowy places another unblock request, and I go to that talk page and grant it, then the shit storm is on me. We are at a stage where any unblock will have to get significant support from the community--not because of anything formal, but because of the drama fest here where too many people have judged too quickly (and where one admin pushed a button too quickly). If I or anyone else unblocks him from a request on his talk page, that's hardly wheel warring, but someone from the peanut gallery will call for that admin's head. An unblock request is one thing, but I am also convinced that the indef-block was wrong to begin with. Meowy's problem is that practically everyone hates him. Hell, I don't even think I like him--but I still recognize he got shafted here. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, fair enough, maybe a discussion/consensus on unblock might indeed be a better way forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Agree with Drmies here. And, for the record, unlike Drmies, I do know that I don't like Meowy, but that is insufficient cause for this level of response. Given Meowy's history, I think there is maybe some cause to think an unblock is unlikely without some form of restrictions. Than being the case, I have started a section below regarding what sort of sanctions, if any, the community might deem advisable before the block is lifted. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • I spent a couple of hours looking at the case before declining his unblock request, and addressed his main points and tried to explain my reasoning. That said, the first edit I made as admin was to put the notice up on my user page that any admin may revert my actions without permission. I'm not going to get into a fight with you, Drmies, if you decide to unblock him, even if I disagree with it. You already that, so I suppose that statement was for everyone else. Unanimity is a rare thing here, so I'm not shocked if someone disagrees with my judgement. I've done what I think is the right thing here, but I recognize that I'm not the police or the judge, and just one more janitor. His request had sat for many hours untouched, so I felt I needed to address what others didn't seem to want to touch. Whether or not my opinion in the matter is majority or minority is meaningless, and I maintain my position in the matter regardless. If someone else comes to a different conclusion, it will not persuade me, nor will I labor the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)***
              • Dennis, I don't think anyone was necessarily impugning you in any way, and if Drmies by some remote chance was I want it known I would very definitely take issue with him in that regard. If nothing else, I think being willing to take on the task of being willing to take on such a contentious and heated matter at all says much more about you, as I have no doubt it was a couple of rather unpleasant hours you had to spend in the review. For myself, there is a slight issue about the blocking admin, primarily as a procedural matter. That, and the fact that I am maybe a bit more afraid to "throw the switch" on some editors than is probably good. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
                • Dennis, I think you know me well enough by now to know that I'm not about to castigate you for disagreeing with me. His unblock request could or should have been written differently and it might have had a different result. By now he's taken back that offensive comment; that should change something, I think. And I stand by what I wrote (or maybe suggested) earlier--I would not unblock without some sort of consensus. Your responses on these boards and in these matters are usually cool and collected and tend to take a broader view than do some of the quick and easy comments here and elsewhere, and I have no quarrel with you. But I am with John Carter re:fear of throwing the switch. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
                  • Oh, I didn't take it as impugning at all and have taken no offense by anyone here, especially my friend Drmies. I just wanted to be clear that I don't draw a line in the sand when I make any admin action, and any admin is free to revert it if they find it in error, without fear of pissing me off. That is just how I am. The request had set for so long, a "hot potato" that no one seemingly wanted to address, so I obliged as I'm less inclined to avoid those situations. I'm not saying "no", I just said "not now" and genuinely felt that I had no choice in the review, as there is more that meets the eye here and declining wasn't an option, but rather the logical conclusion based on the evidence I saw. I am not alone in thinking that his overall actions at enwp often have a trollish nature to them. At this stage, I am open minded to his unblock, but unconvinced that it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal

The issue itself has been dealt with, Andy knows the situation, and there is unlikely to be any consensus for action against him at this time and over this specific incident. So I propose we do nothing other than just stop fighting over the equine carcass, and go about our business. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we let Andy off this easily "Fuch off and die" is the same sentiment that Breivik had while he was killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choked on irony (talk • contribs) 20:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the remaining issue of Meowy's block is now being handled on their talk page. --Ritchie333 14:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. The rest of the issues can be dealt with at the appropriate places as is currently happening. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:Fuck off and die should be created to inform editors when it is permissible to use this phrase.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It's OK when the person told off in that way is generally disliked. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • No, nobody has suggested it is OK. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Bullshit. The entire tone and sentiment of last night's initial discussion of all this was to castigate Meowy for wanting to remove "is a terrorist" from the lead of the Breivik article. Scant attention was paid to the words of Andy and Ian, it was also about how dare Meowy be some sort of insensitive clod. Sweet christ, if ANI were real life, that thread would've resembled the end scene of Braveheart. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• support, per nominator.-- altetendekrabbe  15:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• oppose I like Andy, but given his on-going civility issues, this case can't be viewed as an aberration or a problem that isn't on-going. Not sure what the right action is (that's why you admins get the big bucks) but a one-week block isn't out-of-line. I'm neutral wrt Ian, but think a stern warning is at least appropriate there. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is not the venue. See RfC/U. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring and discretionary sanctions on Meowy

Don't know if this has been tried yet. Personally, given Meowy's use of his/her user talk page recently, I have no objections to the editor temporarily remaining under an indefinite ban, as it prevents similar harangues elsewhere, like articles and article talk pages. But I could, in some circumstances, see a possibility of allowing the editor to return to active editing under restrictions. Basically, I guess I am thinking of some combination of mentoring and discretionary sanctions, with the latter potentially including article or topic bans and/or mandatory editor review. Would some proposal of this basic type be acceptable to others? John Carter (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Do you see anything different between his contributions to Talk:Islam4UK#Extremist, over two years ago, and the current spat? Provocation followed by counter-accusations His interpretation of NPOV is so weird that you'd have to topic ban him (or her) from the entire Misplaced Pages. And he is no paragon of civility either, essentially calling someone scum not so long ago. Apparently he is famous for wiki-lawyering as well, having been "topic" banned from WP:AE for that and not so long ago blocked for ignoring that restriction despite warning. . Tijfo098 (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Why? They have a huge block log, including a 1-year block, which was reset because of sockpuppetry, and, by their own admission, they have no interest in building an encyclopaedia. What does Misplaced Pages gain from this proposal? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think "why?" is the right question. People who believe in the project disagree all the time on how to improve it, and that's a good thing. Why do we need to keep around someone who disagrees with the very existence of the project? LadyofShalott 16:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I do think that the recent statement about how wikipedia is evil was, as a comment on Meowy's own user talk page, maybe something that could be seen as being "blowing off steam." I would agree it is a intentionally provocative, stupid, biased, irrational, nonsensical, and probably most importantly profoundly embarrassing for any person to make, but I also don't think this is the first time I've seen people make such comments in the heat of the moment. On that basis, I can and do think that, maybe, that comment might be perhaps given more weight than it might deserve. This is not to say that I think it might not be true, or that Meowy's history isn't seriously problematic, but I don't think it is really reasonable to take an inflammatory comment made under duress as inherently telling. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That Meowy wasn't indeffed before this is nothing short of a miracle; I certainly came close to it a couple times at AE threads (the last block prior to this one I literally block-conflicted with the administrator who imposed it; we both had exactly the same duration and rationale). I can't honestly say I care enough about the in-depth analysis of use of the phrase "fuck off and die" to enter the fracas, but given the long history of problems with Meowy I don't see any reason at all why Meowy should be unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

:One alternative is a topic ban from articles related to extremism or conflicts broadly construed. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Reconsidered, he recently was blocked for evading topic bans so it probably wouldn't be effective. IRWolfie- (talk)

• Meowy was not being constructive. Oh yes, he kept his cool alright, but he did so in a passive aggressive manner that infuriated two good editiors. This article was about a man who was convicted of terrorism, by any reasonable definition, he is then a terrorist. Whether or not it is a good idea to include "is a terrorist" sentence is a valid question, indeed my recent edit of the lead paragraph changed it. But calling the use of that term "POV-filled" is an absurd accusation, and removing all the mentions that Breivik committed terrorism or is a terrorist, like Meowy did, results in a clear breach of WP:UNDUE. Accusing people here of being "pumped-up with self-righteous indignation" is not conducive to constructive editing or dispute resolution. Given the lengthy block log of Meowy, I have no problem in viewing the incident here as the straw that broke the camel's back. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• A glance at the block log indicates an indef ban is in order. Keep the boomerang as a free gift. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Jimbo said it best: "realize that telling them to fuck off is not nearly as satisfying as maintaining a good sense of humor while making them fuck off (with a permanent ban). We have better things to do!" Tijfo098 (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think I have already made my point in the blocking rationale but I'd like to mention that with Meowy's history of conduct, i.e. sockpuppetry, evasion of topic bans, I don't see any probability for a sudden change. Otherwise I would have opted for a temporal block. De728631 (talk)

Eastern European matters

I'd like for another admin to look at Momčilo Đujić. I warned the IP for edit-warring before it occurred to me to check for one of the general sanctions--it might fall under Eastern Europe or Macedonia. BTW, I am a and you can't wrong me on this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't checked the editing dispute, but this article definitely falls within the subject-matters covered by ArbCom-directed discretionary sanctions from the various Balkans and Eastern Europe cases, if appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• This would definitely fall under the category of Macedonia's discretionary sanctions; given how the motion amending that case passed in conjunction with those of Eastern Europe, it can be deduced that the former's amendment was introduced so as not to confuse people over whether the Balkan region would fall within EE's article range. A cursory review of the IP's contributions leaves little doubt that this user is a POV pusher (to call a spade a spade). I would recommend a block of no less than 48 hours for continued disruption, and possibly a ban from Serbia-related articles if tendentious editing persists beyond that. Kurtis (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP has reverted four times on 27 August at Momčilo Đujić, so he may be eligible for a 3RR block. 48 hours would be reasonable. A warning under WP:ARBMAC appears logical also. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• • As an aside, how much longer before we expand those discretionary sanctions to include "The Earth, broadly construed"...--Jayron32 01:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • • Not all the Earth, just those parts of it where people are more interested in propagandizing their own views than they are in the neutral propagation of knowledge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
        • OK, so that leaves Antarctica. Such an optimist you are, BMK. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Antarctica is very civil. They always be chillin'. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Ooof! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I counted 1 edit then 3 reverts (the last was a two parter, but still one revert). I left them a personalized final warning on their talk page. As for 24 hours or not, if they revert again without using the talk page any time soon I would be inclined to block simply for warring. Hopefully my final warning was clear enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You see, this is why people think Misplaced Pages is nothing but a totalitarian regime. I am Serb and I know well that Momčilo Đujić NEVER collaborated with the Nazi's. Would you really block me from this? Go ahead. It just proves that you are all crazy over what's true. I'm sick and tired of all this consensus/blocking/admins/etc. who are actually giving Misplaced Pages a very bad name. Chetniks never sided with Nazi's. Big lie from Tito. It was a lie demonstrated to put Draža under the value of Treason. Once you block me, it will be the last time I will ever edit Misplaced Pages. Goodbye (If you blocked me, no matter how long!). 142.197.8.220 (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter what you, personally know to be The Truth, Misplaced Pages can only include what is verifiable through reliable sources. If all reliable sources state that X did Y, Wikipeida's article on X must say they did Y, even if it's "known well" that they actually did Z - Misplaced Pages is not a place to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages operates on the principle of verifiability, not truth. | Alright, if that is how you roll, bid yourself good day. Misplaced Pages will forever, in my book, be a large lie and hypocrisy. You don't have any sources for the Serbian legend bowing down to stupid fascists. 142.197.8.220 (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry to delete your artwork. I'm not sorry I blocked you, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

  Where's the edit filter when you need it? WikiPuppies _bark 23:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Whitelist removal for Paralympic table

Can someone put http:// (added spacing to get passed spam notice) media.ticketmaster.com/en-gb/img/sys/tournament/london2012/para-complete.pdf on the Whitelist as ticketmaster seems to be blacklisted and the table of events cites this here, so now every new posting of the table gets blocked. See Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Paralympics. The Whitelist page has changed since i last used it and im not sure how to make a single exceptions like there used to be.Lihaas (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why on Earth would someone want to use ticketmaster as a WP:RS? dangerouspanda 10:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Becaus they have published the entire schedule of all events in a single, easy to understand, document. I see no reason to disparage their reliability in this case - they are after all selling tickets to the events, thus they are an authorotative source for what happens when. The same information is available from london2012.com but in a format that would require dozens of separate cites. Roger (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive edit by Kurdo777 and Lysozym

Just a few days ago (23-24 Aug. 2012) I introduced some material to Tarkhan from this source. But there was a problem: copy rights violation. In short: I did some copypast edits from the source given above. After the edit-war with Lysozym I admited that it was not right. I tried to improve it, but it was still not good enough. Now I have shorten the text by ca. 50% and changed the structure of the sentences completely, but now a User called Kurdo777 (not even knowing what he is reverting about) thought up a really absurd revert-reason by accusing me of using unreliable sources and making fringe theories. I want to let you know that this source is in fact a completely reliable source, since nobody had a problem with its reliability until now. After the last edit of Lysosym I clearly can declare him being a falsifier, beause his last edit was deforming the content in a very destructive degree. May somebody can check up my edit and verify it? --Greczia (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, User:Greczia has been misusing and misquoting sources on various pages to push nationalist fringe theories. In one obvious case, he actually falsified a source, as documented here: Talk:Azerbaijani_people#Misqouting_sources_to_inflate_population_numbers. Similarly, he's being trying to use questionable fringe sources in other places, like citing Amanjolov who is a Pan-Turkist fringe theorist who claims, and I quote, that the Sumerians were Turks: "The above "Sumer"-Türkic matches, as we tried to demonstrate, form a certain system, explainable from the positions of historical phonetics of the Türkic languages. The cardinal phonetical laws of the Türkic languages, because of these matches, display an extremely complex development panorama from proto-Türkic language or a language condition (Sumerian written monuments from the boundary of the 4th-3rd millenniums BC, excluding the monuments of the dead Sumerian language, a sacred language of Babilonian and Assyrian Semites down to present), via the ancient Türkic dialects, to the modern Türkic languages. The systematic character of the most ancient Sumerian coincidences allows to posit that a part of proto-Türks of the Central Asia migrated to Mesopotamia 31, settled there, and materially affected the language and accordingly the graphic logograms of proto-Sumerian written monuments." As you can see, the writer is basically claiming that Turks resided in the Middle East as Sumerians...which is anything but mainstream academic position on the Sumerians. Unfortunately, the user has been using lots of fringe sources like that in various places. He has also been engaged in other questionable practices, like dumping/copy/pasting of sourced texts, and also changing/tempering with sources by adding or omitting a word, that completely changes their meanings, as documented here: Talk:Tarkhan#Deletion_of_big_parts It is the same on Azerbaijani people, he quotes an ethnic Azeri-Turkish nationalist making the claim that more than half of Iran are Azeri-Turkish. Whereas the CIA factbook has 18%, ethnologue has 11.2 million for Azeris and Encyclopaedia Iranica has 16%. I have requested from him to stop using fringe sources and follow WP:RS, but he just refuses to follow policy. He finds random non-expert sources on the web (Here is another example of WP:fringe by this user, caught by a knowledgeable administrator: Talk:Tat_language_(Caucasus)#Farrokh) to push an ethnic-nationalist agenda on various pages. Unfortunately, the user simply refuses to follow WP:RS, WP:fringe and WP:Undue and is WP:NOTHERE to build an Encyclopedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Beside the fact that I am a German and you are telling fairy tales about me to cast a damning light on me, the incident is about TARKHAN. And please don't talk about irrelevant topics in a childish way. It would just negate you. Good Morning. --Greczia (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Once you raise a complaint about other editors, expect your own behavior to be discussed also, and not just the incident you bring up. You are also meant to inform the editors you are complaining about, which you didn't do. I've just notified Lysozym about this discussion. "Telling fairytales" is a euphemism for 'lying' and it's a bad idea to accuse people of lying. I agree that you seem to have problems with sources and with WP:UNDE and WP:FRINGE. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

My boomerang sense is tingling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Greczia is not only using unreliable sources (as per WP:RS), but he is also actively changing - i. e. falsifying - the content in order to make it more suitable for his own POV. For example, as I have mentioned on the respective talkpage, he copied larger parts from this source without explicitely mentioning that it was copied and then he added certain words, such as "Sogdian", to it, even though that word does not appear in the original text. That way, he makes the reader believe that this particular source is somehow comparing this or that language with Sogdian, eventhough that's not true. That is a violation of copy rights, of WP:RS and of WP:OR and that's why I have removed all of it from the article. As for the number of Azeris: the claims put forward by Greczia are bogus and contradict most reliable sources. As for his claim that he is German: no, he is not. He is a Turk living in Germany. His Pan-Turkist and partially pseudo-scientific nonsense claims are notorious in the German Misplaced Pages. That's why he was banned: for posting poorly sourced pseudo-scientific fringe theories as well as sockpuppetry after his ban. See http://de.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Spezial:Logbuch/block&page=Benutzer:Greczia. --Lysozym (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

1. I am using reliable sources. Of course, sources which do not work for your Pan-Persian ideal/agenda are labeled by you as "unreliable" and "fringe".

2. You are falsifying and misinterpreting sources. (see: Sogdian, Hunnic and Xiongnu examples on Tarkhan article) You are simply underplaying in the most highest degree an Altaic/Turkic etymology for Tarkhan.

3. I was banned from the German Misplaced Pages, because I was new and unexperienced against your Iranization agenda on Turkic articles in German and English Misplaced Pages. One of the involved admins (Otberg) admit it.

4. About the number of Azeris... I cite from the talk page: "The book is obviously a reliable source. It is a fact that Azeri nationalists estimate the number at up to 35 million, and that official estimates are more inline with 14 million. That is exactly what the source says. This is just an attempt to censor the article by excluding perfectly good sources. It is not our job to select between bias nationalist sources and official ones when they contradict each other. We should be presenting both viewpoints. DrKiernan (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)"

So far about your keen and unsubstantial accusations.

5. I AM still a German. So hard to accept it? Doesn't it fit in to your chauvinistic mind? --Greczia (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

6. A recent example for your chauvinistic behaviour: Deletion of reliable sourced material: 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greczia (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So it's "deletion of sourced material", huh?! Why don't you show us the exact quote and prove to us that the book is reliable. Since now you also seem to have become an expert on the Tarim mummies. --Lysozym (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material. DOT. Why are trying to find such childish excuses for such a clear POV-deletion? With such edits you are just confirming what I've said. --Greczia (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"István Vásáry (2005) Cumans and Tatars, Cambridge University Press" - so that's a properly cited and reliable source in your opinion, huh?! --Lysozym (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way: the book is actually called Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185-1365. So how is such a book supposed to be a good source for the Tarim mummies?! --Lysozym (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Page 6 says "The Cumans must have lived to the east of the large bend of the Huanghe, in the vicinity of other Nestorian peoples such as, for example, the originally Turkic Öngüts." Linking this to the Tarim mummies is pure synthesis; removal was warranted. Kanguole 19:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Kanguole. Remembering Lysozym to do the research before deletion would be nice. --Greczia (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It would have been even better if you had done the prior reading and then not added that synthesis at all. You inserted a wild claim with a vaguely specified source, so that anyone checking it would have to hunt for the book and then for the page. You do that a lot. I can understand why people remove such material on sight. Kanguole 22:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That section was obvious WP:OR and the citation was poorly, simply the same of a book and not the way it is supposed to be. The removal was fully justified. You, on your part, should not revert blindly and accuse others of doing wrong. Read WP:POINT. It is you who needs to do research. It is not the duty of readers to prove that a certain source is not correct. It is the duty of the author to prove that his sources are reliable and appropriate! --Lysozym (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:SinghIsKing123

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

SinghIsKing123 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly ignoring basic editing guidelines including removal of valid citation tags and re-adding spam. He/she will not enter into discussion on article talk page or user page. Final warning given. Thank you Span (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave him a cease and desist notice. If he actually starts to communicate, hopefully people can give further guidance. If he ignores it again, let me know. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Kennvido - Copying the entire schedule of the Republican Convention 2012 from a copyrighted website.

Unfortunately, this user made the determination that the complete schedule of the Republican National Convention should be inputted without any form of paraprasing would improve the article. However, I've made the point that we are not a TV guide and that this is definitely a form of plagiarism / copyright violations as I've noted before this. Also I've made this determination based on the Misplaced Pages:Copy-paste article. I've tried to revert this to prevent this flagrant copyright violation but to no avail.

1. Diff 1:
2. Diff 2:
3. Diff 3:
4. Diff 4:

ViriiK (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is the question of whether the schedule is copyrightable. After all, a list of times and events does not require a high level of prose originality (that is not a slam on the Republicans so please don't hit me).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

However the source is from the Washington Post which the editor is attributing it to which is hosted on a copyrighted website. I'm also following Misplaced Pages:Copy-paste which is not a rule but it does elaborate the issue here. ViriiK (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Protections by EncycloPetey

section heading redacted. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This guy, who calls himself an admin, has obvious problems to convert letters and symbols into any meaning in his head, nevermind check them where he should. He was reverting my IPA fix on this page (check the revision history since 15 August 2012) about 2 weeks ago, and now he uses my argument - IPA must match WP:IPA for Dutch, when I have fixed it to be so! Because now it does not match. There's /ən/ while it should be /ə(n)/ (pronouncing both and for /ən/ is perfectly acceptable in standard Dutch, it's just that most dialects don't pronounce the /n/ and some do), */h/ while it should be /ɦ/ (it does exist in Dutch, but in the standard variant just as allophone of /ɦ/ after voiceless consonants, and both /ə/ and /n/ are voiced), and */uː/ which doesn't exist anywhere in Dutch, but before /r/, as an allophone of /u/ (in which case it can be a centering diphthong instead). Not to mention him removing my transcription of "Antonie van". I've never seen such an abuse of admin power. This guy should be deprived from his rights, he's ruining this site. This is plain insane. He was also telling me before to "source the IPA", but the current IPA is not sourced either. It's plain wrong and DOESN'T match the bloody WP:IPA for Dutch and Afrikaans, as he started to claim yesterday. Very clever mate! Obviously you're not claiming it because it's right, you're claiming it because YOU want to be right, even when the fact that you're wrong (and you are big time) is blatant. I'm very curious what you're going to tell us. --89.79.88.109 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the sysop above undid an edit that the IP made, and then immediately semi-prot the article so they couldn't reinstate changes. I'm no IPA expert, but using protection to block out an editor, especially when you're involved, doesn't seem right to me, and should probably at least be looked into. Steven Zhang 11:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly, just calm down a bit. Secondly, I can't see any evidence that the content dispute has been discussed on the article's talk page or on WP:DRN, so I agree that protecting the article is a bit premature, to say the least. Particularly when it's been done by an involved admin, which is a big no no. Assuming you informed EncycloPetey (and if not, you should have), I'd be interested to hear his point of view on this. --Ritchie333 11:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(Non-Admin Comment) The article was protected twice (the first on August 17) in this dispute and without any sort of discussion from the first time, that I can observe. LlamaDude78 (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• @89.79.88.109: Thanks for helping the encyclopedia, but this is a collaborative community, and the attitude displayed in this report, and at User talk:EncycloPetey#I've "reported" you, and in at least one edit summary at Antonie van Leeuwenhoek is not helpful. We all know about AGF, but the reality is that the few editors who patrol esoteric topics such as IPA are used to seeing unwise, if not arbitrary, changes to pronunciations. Yes, your first edit summary was good and had a link, but when reverted with plausible edit summary claiming the link was not applicable, any hope of a good outcome was lost when you quickly reverted with edit summary starting "Learn to read" (diff). This page will not deliver an opponents head on a platter, and Talk:Antonie van Leeuwenhoek was last modified on 16 May 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, well, now that we've appropriately chastised the IP editor, can we deal with EncycloPetey? What I'm seeing is two crystal-clear cases of abuse of admin tools: using semiprotection to unilaterally disadvantage a good-faith anon editor in a dispute with a logged-in editor, and using admin tools in a dispute he was himself involved in. Twice. No attempt at discussion on his part either. Admins are to held to high standards of behaviour, weren't they? The very least we need from EncycloPetey is an unambiguous statement from him that he understands why this was wrong and a commitment not to do it again. If not, heads on platters might in fact be unavoidable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

    By the way, as for the content dispute, once the procedural dispute has been cleared away, I volunteer to check those transcriptions against the chapter on "Dutch" in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, if anybody wants a third opinion. From what I can see at first sight, 89.79.88.109 is probably correct about most things here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

    • This is not the first instance of such behavior from EncycloPetey either. - SudoGhost 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am rather concerned that EncycloPetey did not respond in that previous incident on ANI. In my view, any admin should be able to easily justify their actions on request without too much thought. --Ritchie333 12:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The associated policy section is WP:ADMINACCT: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Misplaced Pages-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the discussion was closed before I was given an opportunity to respond. It was then apparently reopened during a period of my absence from Misplaced Pages, and a great deal of discussion conducted without my imput. It saddens me to see the bureaucracy that Misplaced Pages has become. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, textbook INVOLVED from an admin with previous I'm afraid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is clearly a pattern here. This is another crystal clear case of protection abuse in a case of a legitimate difference of opinions over some trivial copyediting). This is another content dispute. From his protection log, one gets the impression that EncycloPetey rather systematically uses admin tools only on his own articles. While some are undoubtedly legitimate anti-vandalism protections, all the ones I found that were marked as "content disputes" were indeed content disputes he was himself involved in. This is not looking good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely the type of abuse that makes life harder for other admins, as it causes a (well earned) loss of respect by the community, costs us editors and forces us into action. It undermines the work of everyone here. User:EncycloPetey, like every single admin at Misplaced Pages, must respond to any good faith question about their actions, and if they are not willing to, they need to surrender the admin bit or expect it to be taken away. That they didn't respond at ANI last time is disturbing and I'm confident it will not happen a third time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The best thing you as admins can do is exactly what you and Fut Perf. are doing: chastise other admins when they screw up and hold them accountable for their actions. I think a lot of what garners a negative attitude towards the adminship is admins protecting admins - e.g. closing threads early, asserting that ANI is the wrong venue and that RFC/U should be used instead (sometimes it is, but I've seen this abused), etc. If EP doesn't respond to this thread but continues editing doesn't acknowledge he needs to change his behavior may I suggest that an admin file a request at Arbcom rather than waiting for a regular user to do it? Sædon 00:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards