Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents |
---|
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. 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) |
|
Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle vécut heureuse
Toddst1 (talk) had originally page protected Teo Ser Luck due to Edit warring / Content dispute from June 5 2012 to June 12 2012 [1] due to edit warring between Elle vécut heureuse à jamais and 218.186.16.10. Editor had already been warned previously about 3RR on the same article [2] and then a second time warned more explicitly against repeating this [3] that the page was being protected in lieu of a ban. However, Elle vécut heureuse à jamais was still able to edit the page and revert it to the version she preferred on June 8 [4], 4 dys before the page protection expired. Is some loophole being exploited or does the editor have some higher editor/administrative rights to the article? Even if the 2nd scenario was true the editor should keep out of the article during the page protection period as one of the warring parties. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I notified User:La goutte de pluie - diff - Thats pretty blatant, warring party as an admin editing through the protection. Perhaps he didn't notice it was protected? In the edit he made through the protection he also added this youtube video which is pretty clearly a copyright violation and it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The article should be deprotected, in that case. I asked the other party to repeatedly use discussion avenues to discuss the issues; the said party hasn't replied on the noticeboards (ANI / BLP / TSL talk page) on the issue itself; indeed, the discussion on ANI expired without a single rebuttal to my claim of the source being an RS. As I stated before the discussion expired, it's not my tendency to edit war; however when an anonymous editor with a known conflict of interest, who jumps several ISPs and occasionally posts from Ministry IP addresses, repeatedly removes criticism and does not give any further explanation when asked, I am extremely suspicious. Silence when I ask for a reply seems to say this anonymous editor isn't really here to build an encyclopedia or build consensus -- whereas I am. I would readily re-comment out (or remove entirely) the disputed section on my own accord if the editor actually discussed the merits of the source. I also said to the protecting admin that reversion within 72 hours if there was no reply seemed reasonable, if only to motivate the disputing party to more discussion. The party has the strange habit of not participating in discussion when his/her aim is achieved and only coming back to discussion under reversion. As I said, I don't really have a "preferred version" -- I simply do not want government-linked editors being allowed to remove whatever criticisms of the government they want with impunity to community rules. Government-linked editors (as I readily proved in an archived ANI discussion) have been removing other criticisms without explanation in other articles, have been behaving rather maliciously on the internet against the opposition overall, as well as writing heavily promotional articles about their government ministries and programmes. Allowing reversion without discussion, seems to me to reward such anti-encyclopedic/anti-consensus behaviour. You will note that the Singapore government ranks #151 for press freedom. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 22:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- From page protection policy: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus." i.e. the goal of page protection is to promote discussion. However when protection encourages silence rather than discussion, then perhaps protection should not be used. No one replied to me on recommendations of suitable courses of action when I asked for advice on BLP or ANI; it is my deepest desire to avoid COI as much possible; however when the protecting admin did not reply (he is semi-retired) and when the other party remained silent for 72-96 hours, it was my desire to restore the source (of which I am fairly sure is a reliable source, given that Yahoo News! Singapore is a professional news service; SingaporeScene as I wrote would be counted as having the same editorial control as Yahoo News! Singapore per WP:BLP and WP:RS). Had the editor ever addressed WP:RS claims -- ever -- I would have readily reverted myself, to promote discussion. This is my deepest desire -- what I do not want however, are COI parties, especially those employed by a government with low press freedom -- to be allowed to remove criticisms without discussion. Thus after a notable absence of discussion, I saw it fit to reinstate the deleted criticism, in hope that the editor would come back and use the talk pages so I could gain greater insight into his claims. That editor has not. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- They are listed as blog authors, not journalists. You just want to keep harping about it so you can keep your trivia piece of news, instead of keeping it factual. You even reverted the office posts I added in, which you don't even care about updating. And then you proceeded on to harp on and on about government conspiracies taking over the Wiki world. I think you are the problem, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- So your did it deliberately, edited through another administrators full protection - placed there because of an edit war you were involved in - I realize you are a returning user after a lengthy time but surely you understand WP:INVOLVED and you know where WP:RFPP - is to request article unprotection? Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Unrelated trolling from now-community banned IP |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I'm sorry, but La goutte de pluie does not seriously believe she can justify all her actions based on Singapore's media freedom ranking, can she? Perhaps the next step should be an RFC on her admin actions. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- That is part of it, but I am trying to ensure the spirit of the project. Many government-linked editors do not care for the community or for encyclopedia-building -- they only wish to use Wikipedia to make their superiors look good, as can be told by the way they callously avoid discussion.
- La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of government board or of a certain Ministry doing damage control. If you even know how Starhub IP addresses work, which apparently you don't, you would have known IPs don't get issued the same all the time. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing whenever I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. You have been going around challenging me, making claims I remain silent even though I have told you so. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. Clearly you don't know where to draw the line between factual info vs whitewashing. I worry for future Singaporeans who have to read up the nonsense edits you have been writing just to deface people's wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- And you, Mr Anon, need to lay off the attacks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Some of the Ministry IPs in question are 160.96.200.34, 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37, which are shared IPs, but sometimes have the editing patterns of the above editor and seem to engage in potential COI editing and participating in the edit wars of the above editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yingluck_Shinawatra&diff=prev&oldid=430947999. This anonymous editor (while using Special:Contributions/160.96.200.26) kept on using officious government language which I took out specifically to avoid a promotional tone and any copyright issues; these anonymous editors have a tendency to make Wikipedia pages on Singaporean policies, programmes and politicians look like another copy of Singapore government web pages, down to the way sections are titled. Note that this editor, while editing under a Ministry IP, would remove free images from articles and replace them with copyright violations such as File:VivianBalakrishnan42.jpg, perhaps to comply with some sort of online policy of making their politicians look as sharp and officious as possible. Reversion to this copyrighted image, and removal of the free image, happened repeatedly on Vivian Balakrishnan. Interestingly, this very image was uploaded onto commons as a super high-resolution image several megabytes in size and uploaded with a free license with the claim that the uploader was the copyright holder; this copy does not exist elsewhere online, further confirming suspected links that this editor (or his allies) has with the Singaporean government -- otherwise, why would that editor be in possession of such a humongously large image? There are many, many other telling clues that I have noticed over the past months that support the suspicion of conflict-of-interest editing. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, StarHub never changes addresses that frequently; that is, StarHub addresses are metastable -- it usually takes several weeks between IP changes. Such quickly changing addresses either suggests that someone, perhaps someone with influence, has asked to give you highly dynamic IP addresses from StarHub, or that you can request new addresses at a whim, or that you edit using open proxies. In fact, one of your IPs -- a StarHub IP -- was detected as an open proxy -- which is highly suspicious. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 14:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor above now desires to provoke edit wars with me again, without discussion, and calling good faith edits "vandalism". [5] The reversions the editor just did includes my edits which tried to avoid language the government used in their web pages (for copyright/npov issues), as well as removal of perfectly good citations from government-linked newspapers. Note that in a history now at Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (checking admins can look), this same editor (under several IPs) would have simply removed the entire elections section outright. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- A reversion this editor carried out is found at [6]. I have partially rephrased part of this edit because of a potential copyright violation from the official PAP website. Perhaps the editor thinks that copying from government websites is OK and not a copyright violation, because his/her employer, is that of the government. Dave1185 explained that "Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature" [7], but perhaps you are a rare StarHub "customer" indeed! Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 14:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't a user named User:Dave1185 explain how Starhub IP works? Or are you acting dumb about it? What's with bringing up the IP addresses 160.96.200.xx ? And I caught you rephrasing Vivian Balakrishnan page again. Couldn't keep yourself neutral as usual I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to have missed out Dave's point of how it is not impossible to happen due to how close HDB flats are. Aren't you a Singnet user? Are you working for the government then? Dave and others in the other discussion told you that government IPs come from Singnet. Did you purposely miss out that part? So how am I, a starhub user even related to ur stupid theory that I'm doing my 'job' ? Your warped logic disgusts the hell out of me because you are stooping so low to accuse me of all sorts of nonsense, while trying to be this saint doing a holy job of 'cleaning' people's pages. I think you are trying too hard to discredit Vivian Balakrishnan by changing all the words from "his contributions" to "contributions of men under him". Personal agenda? You should just be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.226 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, 218.186.16.226 has now managed to talk himself into a range block, related to an issue farther down this page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can I speak? In case you are not aware, La goutte de pluie complained about me again here after i reverted his edits (I had to copy back from Zhanzhao's version since La goutte de pluie weren't undo-able)here, here, most importantly here about Vivian Balakrishnan, making claims I was responsible that all the edits reverted and that I was trying to keep copyrighted source. How was his/her edits making it less different from the copyrighted source? A change of words from "he" to "his subordinates"? I've been told if it's copyrighted material,you can't just tweak a few words. So why am I getting blame for this? Please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring and Administrator privilege issue
Going back to the edit warring issue: When I protected that page, I was unaware that one of the warriors was an admin. I seriously considered blocking La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) at that time and in retrospect, I am sorry I didn't. Protection or not, had this edit been brought to my attention, I would have likely (and correctly) blocked La goutte de pluie. That the edit warrior is an admin makes this worse and that it was done through page protection compounds the issue. This should have been dealt with one one of the noticeboards rather than unilaterally by La goutte de pluie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- One way would be to simply topic-block registered users/editors who are obviously involved in the edit war which would keep them as well as the anonymous IPs out, but it was really unexpected that an admin would bet so involved in the first place (then again look at hot topic issues like Meredith Kercher....). But the block is due to expire soon so the current block will soon be a moot point. I have already commented on the nature of the admin's edit on the article's talk page so there are more opposing voices to what the editor considers a credible addition to the aeticle so his arguement of no discussion is moot as well (though that means I am potentially identifying myself as an involved party but so be it). Plus she has been informed of the proper procedure of how to request edits on a page protected page (based on her edits its unlikely she did not know the page was not protected). What we need to see is what happens after this block expires. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, as Todd and Rob and others note here, an abusive act by the user/admin La goutte de pluie - who is "open to recall". Perhaps that should be seriously considered. Meanwhile, I have taken the liberty of reverting to where it was when Todd semi-protected it, as the matter is in dispute and the added material was questionable, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- If this issue were over the Santorum page or any other high visibility article we'd probably have emergency ArbCom desysoppings by now... Let's see if recall pans out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I first met the user when I opened an AFD after some request somewhere (at BLPN if I remember) and La goutte de pluie commented strong keep (he said americans did not understand the candidate) and said if no more reason was presented he was inclined to 'speedy close' the AFD.diff - this set of my spidey senses in regards to WP:CLUE - The user was warned not to do it by user:Ohiostandard - "Doing so would be an extremely bad idea: It would be a blatant abuse of administrator privileges (not "rights", please note) that would certainly generate a huge amount of drama and would almost certainly result in negative consequences for yourself, as well. You cannot use admin privileges to win a dispute in which you are involved, and even the threat to do so seriously damages the faith the community must have in those we allow the extra bit if our governance model here is to function. Please think more carefully before you make any such threat in the future. I also find it strange that the user seems to be moving his talk page to his archives which I have never seem before, it may be ok to do that but it breaks the talkpage history and as you see here his talkpage history goes back to May 4th only. Can I do that and then do a user request to delete my archives and rtherby delete my edit history? Anyways, then its been prety much downhill all the way with our mmetings - The user was then edit warring with me against MOS style replacing flags in the infobox of an article this came to ANI here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive691#IP_range_making_nationalist_edits - again he was reverting without WP:CLUE. This incident and his statement that he did it to get the IP to discuss is reflective of the general situation with this returning contributor - I asked him right at the start to take it easy and get a feel for how things work round here these days but he does not appear to have listened. He has shown a lot of partisan contributions to the issue he returned to edit , the recent Singapore elections and when challenged goes off on a commentary that it is the lack of freedom and such similar in Singapore and government editors that he is working to resist ... basically he is well involved in this issue and clearly should not be using the tools at all in that area, never mind editing through another admins full protection when he was one of the warring parties that caused the article to be protected in the first place. I also support recall of his tools. His original RFA contains some interesting comments~,Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Natalinasmpf I extremely doubt he would pass now and its unlikely that he would be a shoe in to get the numbers up for users in that locality/timezone.Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have asked the admin about his/her recall criteria. We will see what he or she says. In the mean time, I have extended full protection. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I wholly agree, there has been a spate of similarly very concerning actions regarding the Singaporean elections recently by this admin. This cannot continue, government "whitewashing" or otherwise. StrPby (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
La goutte de pluie has not replied. I think it's time for an WP:RFC/U but unfortunately I don't have time this week to kick one off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note, btw, that moving the talkpage to archive it is documented at Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure, with sigificantly fewer downsides than the cut-and-paste method that most of us seem to use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that's the real issue here. Edit warring through page protection is. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I had never seen that before. Thanks for the detail and for replying to my query Sarek. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) excuse me but actually, how did La goutte de pluie actually get the sysop bit, searched the local and global log. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- She was renamed -- see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hold on, Izehar signed off as that humourously. I appreciate constructive criticisms, but I cannot tolerate completely unfounded slander. Please check your facts? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 20:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that seemed strange to me when I saw that. When I first encountered this returning admin we had a dispute and this account came from out of nowhere to defend the admins position and attack me via a worthless wiquette report User:Ougro contribution history - I stated then that account was a sock or a meatpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to User:La goutte de pluie as the attack stopped I let it go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've sent to SPI [8]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't had time to draft a recall procedure, or even follow up on sources I have shortlisted on various talk pages. Give me a few days. I'm a university student doing biochem research, and I am in fact in lab right now. Btw, it's my personal belief that the SPI request is spurious, but I will assume good faith about it. I was actually rather annoyed by Ougro's admin shopping -- I don't bear grudges, it offended me that Ougro thought that by merely disagreeing with Off2riorob that he could recruit me to his "request". I only offered my opinion very reluctantly. I am sorry that Off2riorob thinks that I have some vendetta against him. I don't. He is a valuable contributor and discusser, if I wish he would be a little more amicable sometimes. Karmafist, 172 and Freestylefrappe were all prominent community members. Such was the community back in 2006 -- many people have now left because of disagreements with the direction of the project of course. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've sent to SPI [8]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Last edit from May fourth. I was directed to go to SPI but I would have been fishing so I put it down to experience, although I thought there was some connection to User:La goutte de pluie as the attack stopped I let it go. Off2riorob (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This all makes La goutte de pluie look very suspect. The sheer number of banned users and socks involved in the RfA is very suspicious. As for the account that attacked you, obviously someone's sock. Is it recent enough for a checkuser? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does it seem strange to anyone that the user in question was nominated for adminship by someone who ended up being community banned for abusive sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism? (edit) Actually, the RfA appears to have been votestacked by multiple accounts that were later community banned or else turned out to be socks of previously banned users. One was User:172 (a sock of User:Cognition), another was User:Freestylefrappe. User:Jossi was also blocked for sockpuppetry. User:Izehar was a purpose-made votestacking puppet. Something isn't right. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Anon, I would strongly suggest that you stop IP hopping and stop hounding La goutte de pluie. Action will be taken in time to come, but it will be progressive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- So is nothing going to be done about it just because La goutte de pluie is keeping quiet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.241 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand this prejudice against old contributors. I was about to voluntarily draft a recall page, where I can also explain my actions, which has been difficult because I am acting on outside information. I do not wish to hold any tools against consensus (which I have always stroven to uphold), but if spurious accusations are being made like I am using an offical talk archive method (officially endorsed! -- and the copy and paste method should not be used at all) as though I am purposely trying to conceal messages or that I made all these socks for my RFA, when those were perfectly good contributors (RFA was very well-policed even in 2006), then I am not so sure. User:Izehar was an administrator for goodness sake. His user page history --a very rich one -- lists 260 deleted edits alone, and his contribution history is very rich.
- With all due respect, I am not sure I can respect recall requests from users who make such misinformed accusations without investigation first. Accusation without proper investigation is in fact, the basis of my old disagreement with Off2riorob and some other afd nominators. I have disagreements with the "hyperdeletionist" culture -- that is, with nominators who will tag an article for deletion without so much as a google check, and seem offended when I question their assumptions. The most recent article I saved was Geiser Manufacturing, a historically notable firm that was tagged for speedy deletion. I believe in careful, conscientious editing, not knee-jerk button pressing responses. Perhaps if that CSD page (as I found it) had been found by another admin it would have been deleted rather than salvaged.
- I am sorry for editing through protection. Normally content dispute page protection -- especially without prior history -- lasts 24 to 72 hours, not 1 week, so after 72 hours without discussion -- as I told Todd -- I saw continued reversion as acceptable, especially because I had it on good suspicion that the IP-jumping editor had a conflict of interest. And I edited well over 4 days later, respecting the page protection (that I had no idea lasted 1 week. isn't this against policy?). I am also not sure I can call it a content dispute if the anonymous user refused to use the talk pages despite repeated entreaties. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Ebe, are you serious right now? "Misuse of RFA"? If nothing else, let the SPI determine if there's actually a socking problem, and in the meantime, assume good faith. Obviously over the last six years there are going to be people who are now known as socks, people who blew a gasket and left, or people who decided to retire. Dragging Elle's name through the mud with absolutely no evidence (socks !voting in her six-year-old RfA isn't even circumstantial evidence) is insulting and degrading to a long-term productive contributor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I was the one who highlighted the "edit through protection" issue I would like to clarify why I raised it all the way here. As mentioned by other editors/admins above and in her talk pages, Elle's edit behaviour had been noted by some to have been questionable, especially where it concerns Singapore politics. While Elle has made many useful contributions in other areas, she seems to lose her objectivity in the problem area I mentioned. Accusing editors who make edits that are less than critical of the government as party representatives is not very nice either. There will always be people who wiki during company hours and ride on the company's free wifi to do so (I speak this with great experience:P) which could explain some of the close IP ranges identified; some may be doing so to clear misconceptions or to balance anti-government sentiment views. Another questionable behaviour is over-reliance on sources which are known to be less than reliable/neutral such as Temasek Review Emeritus for which I (and other editors) have repeatedly cautioned her that the source was a blog/SPS, not a news site, and which has been described by other non local media as leaning towards the opposition.
- In any case, this report is not the first time that Elle received feedback that her edits on political articles have been less than neutral; there are more instances of this on her page and even a June 2 entry that specifically questioned [[9]] her involvement as an admin in an edit war, but it was apparently ignored, and escalated to the incident that led to this report. My greatest worry is that while it has not happened here yet, I would not like to see a situation where an administrator is able to protect a page from other editors just to protect his/her own version of the article in a moment of edit passion. I am not suggesting that she stop editing political articles, just that she takes care to ensure greater objectivity when doing so, or at least with the same level of care she has taken with other non-political articles she has contributed to. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not support any consideration of a new RfA because some of the prior supports may have turned out to be socks. The numerical results were not a close call, and it could set a precedent we may regret. I have no problem with an SPI investigation if warranted, I'm simply disagreeing that identification of sock support six years after getting the bit is good reason for a new RfA.--SPhilbrickT 20:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, but the call for a new RFA, at least by recall motion, is because of the admin's actions, and hopefully not related to her original RFA. It would be ridiculous to think we'd make everyone who Freestylefrappe or Karmafist supported have to run a re-RFA. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving before this issue is settled. StrPby (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- New concern about La goutte de pluie has been raised on my talk page by the anonymous editor, saying that earlier in the edit war before page protection, LGDP might have logged out and reverted the anon as an IP. I'll quote in full the concern below.
During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again.
- Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is anyone investigating the issue with the IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Editor has explained that this was due to her editing on her Iphone and forgetting to log on[10], so I think we can ignore this. Also that she had been busy for the past few days hence her recent silence on the matter [11]. But now that she is actively editing again lets hope she can clarify her stand on this. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- I only recently edited because of egregrious copyright violations by editors on Vivian Balakrishnan. I have since rangeblocked the offending IPs from the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore for constantly copying and pasting content from government websites and repeatedly ignorning warnings. My intention is to file an RFA on the matter, particularly because I have my own concerns about COI editing, as well as what I perceive to be an overdependence on bots to fight vandalism and anonymous removal of sourced content, which is widespread not only for Singaporean politics but goes as far as home owner associations editing Wikipedia to remove criticisms about them. Our system seems very good at detecting simple cases of COI editing as well as businesses who create pages about themselves, but not particularly more elaborate cases especially concerning the non-western world. Singapore's case is unique (and to a lesser extent, India and Malaysia) because it falls outside the western world but uses English in everyday life; hence certain entities have a strong incentive to improve their English-language public relations.
- I do not know why I am the only administrator to notice such egregious incidents as wholesale copying and pasting being inserted from copyrighted websites; it is for this reason that I have been acting unilaterally and then seeking consensus. I previously sought requests for advice on this board twice on how to deal with this problem, including continued conflict of interest editing, and when I received no response for several days -- except for an editor who recommended that I block them all, I went ahead with my proposed remedies -- and I didn't block anyone at that time. The impression then I got is that a) I was still alone in noticing the problem b) I would have to take care of it myself. I do not know why this concern is raised against me when it could have been raised much earlier; why did people ignore my previous requests for help and advice?
- As a young administrator in 2006, I issued my willingness to be recalled based on the idea that the recallers would be (like editors generally were in 2006) informed, rational Wikipedians who would approach issues rationally in the Jeffersonian spirit. I cannot respect recall requests from people who make such accusations that I used sockpuppets in my own RFA, or from people that cannot be bothered or informed enough to even look at the rich user contributions of retired admin User:Izehar before calling that user a single purpose account, or from editors who are willing to block someone for reverting an egregriously explicit copyright violation on the grounds of "edit warring". Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Editor has explained that this was due to her editing on her Iphone and forgetting to log on[10], so I think we can ignore this. Also that she had been busy for the past few days hence her recent silence on the matter [11]. But now that she is actively editing again lets hope she can clarify her stand on this. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is anyone investigating the issue with the IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just want to point out that the "copyright" content which you are talking about are actually content from government websites, which are essentially public domain for all intent and purposes. I.e. see [12] where "Subject matter of copyright: United States Government works, provides that "Copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government," defined in Title 17 USC §101, as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties." for something similar. So "copyright". You are free to copyWRITE the language if you think it is POV though to make it neutral (though that may introduce further subjectivity) or keep the same tone to avoid intruducing subjectivity. Your edits included additions like [[13]], "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem" which should be avoided.
- What concerned me about your reply is your claim above that you had apparently rangeblocked on an article which you have COI issues with. This should NOT have been allowed considering the concerns raised here about possible abuse of administrative rights, and you should have instead raised your concerns to other uninvolved admins to action on it rather than doing so yourself.
- PS Although I am not familiar with it, but there a free Internet service called Wireless@SG in Singapore locally, could this have caused some of this similar IPs to keep surfacing?
- (Update: Apparently Singapore also allows that under Fair Use [14]) Zhanzhao (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Breaking my wikibreak here, but worth doing so to point out that only US Govt works are PD. SG govt sites are copyrighted. StrPby (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- But they have a fair use exception [15]. Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- As pointed out, my worry is that copyediting to prevent copyvio is one way by which subjective bias to the article could be introduced [[16]]. In which case it may be safer to stick to the government site content which when viewed objectively seems to be just a choronological list of the subject's portfolio. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus (by accepting the anonymous editors' edits) seemed to say that content should generally promote Balakrishnan wherever possible and avoid all criticism; it was not a POV edit in so far it supported consensus, and I was only trying to be reconciliatory. Zhanzhao, I mean this in the most respectful way possible -- but I don't think your interpretation of copyright law really flies. The assumption that all government works are public domain (this doesn't even apply for U.S. state governments' works!) or that wholesale copying is allowed under fair use (when fair use is justified for things like critical commentary and so forth) worries me somewhat! Wikipedia's burden of proof in order to use fair use is very strict. In any case, copyright violations cannot be tolerated. It is not at all safe to stick with a copyright violation revision! This is in fact, even an exception to WP:3RR. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 04:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, Singapore's copyright laws do provide for some exceptions under its fair use clause. And as I also mentioned above, my worry is that you have snuck in some NPOV wording like [[17]] which I feel is the more worrying issue here. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just a note here on copyright: Singapore's approach to fair dealing is not the issue here, as the Wikimedia Foundation is based in and governed by the laws of the United States (see WP:PD). Usage on Wikipedia must accord with "fair use" as defined by the United States (which may be more or less liberal than Singapore's; I haven't evaluated). If content is being used under "fair use", it needs to follow the policy and guideline at WP:NFC, which allows brief, clearly marked quotations, used transformatively. That's got nothing to do with the other issues in this thread, but I want to be sure we're all on the same page with this one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, Singapore's copyright laws do provide for some exceptions under its fair use clause. And as I also mentioned above, my worry is that you have snuck in some NPOV wording like [[17]] which I feel is the more worrying issue here. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus (by accepting the anonymous editors' edits) seemed to say that content should generally promote Balakrishnan wherever possible and avoid all criticism; it was not a POV edit in so far it supported consensus, and I was only trying to be reconciliatory. Zhanzhao, I mean this in the most respectful way possible -- but I don't think your interpretation of copyright law really flies. The assumption that all government works are public domain (this doesn't even apply for U.S. state governments' works!) or that wholesale copying is allowed under fair use (when fair use is justified for things like critical commentary and so forth) worries me somewhat! Wikipedia's burden of proof in order to use fair use is very strict. In any case, copyright violations cannot be tolerated. It is not at all safe to stick with a copyright violation revision! This is in fact, even an exception to WP:3RR. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 04:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- As pointed out, my worry is that copyediting to prevent copyvio is one way by which subjective bias to the article could be introduced [[16]]. In which case it may be safer to stick to the government site content which when viewed objectively seems to be just a choronological list of the subject's portfolio. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- But they have a fair use exception [15]. Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Breaking my wikibreak here, but worth doing so to point out that only US Govt works are PD. SG govt sites are copyrighted. StrPby (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- (Update: Apparently Singapore also allows that under Fair Use [14]) Zhanzhao (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I am all for summarizing that section, I am just SERIOUSLY adverse to Elle being the person to edit it down. As mention, she had been cautioned a few times on her own page that she had apparent COI issues with articles concerning Singapore politics especially where it concerns members of the ruling party. And this reason she gave for knowingly adding a NPOV statement into the main text of an article "That statement was to invite discussion, especially since no one appeared to be paying attention to the copyvio issue." is unbecoming of an administrator. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know nuts about all the rules in Wiki but the edits that La goutte de pluie made are not even rephrasing the copyrighted paragraphs. She just makes minor edits like "He contributed" to "his men contributed" in Vivian Balakrishnan page. That's not even the main point, just rephrasing of the nouns and not even correctly. I refer to ocassions when she couldn't help add in her own sarcastic opinion here and here ("While sometimes ridiculed by the youth ") and still got the cheek to argue back that people are white-washing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.234 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Going to draft an RFC on the issue of astroturfing
After spotting an IP-hopping editor -- the one with a similar editing pattern to the editor who would restore copyvio revisions at Vivian Balakrishnan deleting references wholesale at Tan Cheng Bock -- rather than attempting to rephrase and salvage material, which is the Wikipedia Way to go), I am alarmed at the proliferative extent of a possible astroturfing problem. I will be drafting an RFC for this reason. I invite the community to look at the blatant extent that copyright violations from government web sites are introduced without anyone barely winking an eyelid. It is not merely Singaporean politics I am concerned about, but other non-western articles as well. It is my concern that these pages are poorly watched, and what happens is that different editors of different views never collaborate on articles as desired. Because these edits pass through the bot filters quite well, no one notices a potential problem.
I actually do not have much concern about what actual material actually remains after discussion and consensus; what matters is that there is discussion and consensus. I am neither on the government or on the opposition -- I am currently a Singaporean college student attending a well-known college in the US -- I have no stake in the dispute. Some anonymous editors however, do -- I consider blocking COI-editors at government ministries justified. It simply irks me when anonymous editors with possible COI problems remove previous (sourced!) content (with legitimate uses) wholesale on petty grounds, rather than trying to salvage or revise the material. This is the Wikipedia Way, as I knew it. Often the removed content does not have an issue at all. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Back to th Main Issue
I note that the Elle is still actively editing [18] and even personally exercising administrative powers[19] on the article in question. Granted there seems no problems with the recent edit per se, but the fact that she still doing so while recall is in limbo on the article where her actions have been called to attention is questionable. (In fact, personally range blocking a edit warred page with potential COI concerns on this particular page was the example I raised as a concern). As mentioned, her contribution history as raised by me and other editors (registered ones, not IP hoppers) throws doubts on her claims of being objective in regards to being an objective editor in matters relating to Singapore politics, specifically with regards to PAP representatives. To Elle, could you please withhold from actioning personally and placing any concerns you have to the relevant boards where actions can be taken by uninvolved editors? Thats one of the reasons Wikipedia has such notice boards in place. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- This thread should imo be closed. While there has been a few users involved with editing articles with the user and such like and an admin stated that they would have blocked the user if the editing through protection had been seen at the time, there is only a limited request from a few users for recall ( recall requests have weight usually with over six users requesting ) so this has not been met imo and the user has rejected the request so that all to see here unless new related reports occur I imagine from their comments the user will move forward a little more cautiously and take the issues/complaints on board. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Elle's abusing her rights to delete Vivian Balakrishnan's page again. Is there a need to delete his background and the schools he attended... Come on, can someone stop her nonsense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.236 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I only removed the section because of the blatant copyright violation (copied from other websites); this is a hard and fast rule for Wikipedia. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 09:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to be a whole chunk of edits and their details had been deleted recently [20] which makes it hard to evaluate the quality of those edits... Cant seem to find any discussion or reason on why those edits were removed so no clue from there either. In any case, lets just make sure that whatever is added adheres to wiki policy, be it on the grounds of objectivity or copyright.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't add anything. Since the editor seems to dispute my revisions the only way I could adhere to policy was by removing the entire problematic section until it could be discussed. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to be a whole chunk of edits and their details had been deleted recently [20] which makes it hard to evaluate the quality of those edits... Cant seem to find any discussion or reason on why those edits were removed so no clue from there either. In any case, lets just make sure that whatever is added adheres to wiki policy, be it on the grounds of objectivity or copyright.Zhanzhao (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I only removed the section because of the blatant copyright violation (copied from other websites); this is a hard and fast rule for Wikipedia. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 09:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Elle's abusing her rights to delete Vivian Balakrishnan's page again. Is there a need to delete his background and the schools he attended... Come on, can someone stop her nonsense... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.236 (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Dolovis and mass creation of BLPs
About a month ago, Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned about the non-usefulness and BLP implications of creating hundreds of one-line stubs for (often marginally notable) living ice hockey players. As a result, the user lost his autopatrolled rights and some of the articles were deleted and later restored. In the past few weeks, Dolovis has created a few hundred more in the same copy-paste style (such as Petr Mocek and Marek Drtina). The created articles are still nearly identical, make no attempt to summarize the subject's career and have the same database website as the only source. Several users have raised the same concerns again on Dolovis's talk page, and on Talk:HC Litvínov.
It must also be mentioned that the stubs have one more thing in common; they are titled without the appropriate accent marks, which is not the usual practice with personal names that have not been anglicized (and is even against a consensus established at the WikiProject Ice Hockey). The creations follow an RFC and several move requests such as this (disclosure: I have opposed many of them) that Dolovis created earlier, expressing his/her disagreement with the use of diacritics. The user has also reverted others' page moves of his stubs citing WP:BRD. However, Dolovis states that the "creation of articles for Czech Extraliga players has nothing to do with the dios discussion."
Whether this is a case of living people being caught in a POINTy campaign or not, the matter needs to be resolved as Dolovis has still not addressed the BLP concerns and continues the creations, requesting that AFDs be created. This is not feasible due to the sheer volume of articles and because this is not a question of notability but of repeated poor-quality work on living people, so I'm bringing this here to get opinions from uninvolved editors. If there is agreement that these type of creations need to stop, some kind of topic ban may be necessary. I'd add that even the existing articles for European ice hockey people of no recent international interest don't seem to be very well watched, so I don't see how the mass creation of new sub-par stubs would improve the encyclopedia. The article on Pentti Matikainen remained vandalized for two and a half years until a Finnish newspaper ridiculed it: "Wikipedia shoves Pentti Matikainen". Prolog (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt it's POINTy: the user simply disagrees that these stubs are useless, and of course that isn't helped by the likes of DGG encouraging him. Nevertheless, there's a difference between "useless" and "disruptive". If these articles are getting vandalised due to lack of attention, the real root cause would seem to be that the notability threshold for hockey biographies has been set too low to be be able to practically enforce BLP. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have also advised him to complete at least some of the stubbs. We need articles on people who are certainly notable started. We also need them finished. When there is something controversial, there might well be an objection to stubbs. But for these there isn't , so calling them a BLP problem. And ues, he should use diacritics. But Wikipedia is known for the people willing to fix typographic errors of this sort. I'll take another look at the actual articles tonight. If they are getting substantially vandalised, which can happen with sports figures, that might indeed be a problem. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt that they will be vandalised. They are too obscure. Most of these guys have never played outside of the Czech Republic, and this is an English language encyclopaedia. Except for the very small number of bilingual users that we, no-one will have heard of these guys, and certainly won't go looking for their articles to vandalise. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have also advised him to complete at least some of the stubbs. We need articles on people who are certainly notable started. We also need them finished. When there is something controversial, there might well be an objection to stubbs. But for these there isn't , so calling them a BLP problem. And ues, he should use diacritics. But Wikipedia is known for the people willing to fix typographic errors of this sort. I'll take another look at the actual articles tonight. If they are getting substantially vandalised, which can happen with sports figures, that might indeed be a problem. DGG ( talk ) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Howdy Dolovis. The tough thing about these mass article creations, is that they're being mass moved (via WP:HOCKEY's dios compromise) to diacritics titles now. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- The creation of articles for Czech Extraliga players has nothing to do with the dios discussion, and the introduction of that red-herring into the discussion is regretful. The players' articles have been created because they are notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. End of story. Dolovis (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- The subjects of these article pass WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth. Dolovis hides behind wp:nhockey saying that the subjects are notable. However, wp:nhockey says that the subjects are "presumably notable", i.e. not certain but likely. Most of the subjects fail the other criteria spectacularly: all pass criterion 1, but almost all fail 2 through 7. Some of the subjects are truly notable, e.g. Michal Travnicek. But Dolovis didn't take any time to mention his AHL career, his international career, his three year suspension; that was done by a user that came across the merger discussion. Instead, Dolovis prefers to create a steady stream of poorly sourced, single sentence, cut-and-paste BLPs. Granted, some of these articles could become decent BLPs, but Dolovis point-blank refuses to expand them, while the vast majority will never be improvable. H's created an article on almost every player that played in the Czech league this year. Dolovis is more interested with this "articles created" count than he is with quality. I personally pleaded with him twice to expand these BLPs but he didn't. Even after the merger discussion was opened, and Dolovis had seen that three or four editors had raised concern, he carried on churning out this stub-spam. The hockey notability criteria needs to be rewritten. I'll ask a rhetorical question: How can someone that played a single match in Kazakhstan's top league be worthy of an article when some that has played 99 games in the AHL isn't? — Fly by Night (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- If people want to change NHOCKEY, or other notability guideline, that's always a possible approach if there's consensus. I have no opinion on that sport specifically, but I've seen enough problematic athlete articles at PROD patrol that I tend to think that notability for athletes might be a little too broad. And there have been discussions at AfD where it has been accepted that for some very small countries the presumed equality of all countries does not apply (I think they were with respect to football.) DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Some background:
- Dolovis had previously been creating hockey player articles, but not at the same rate, and many of them did not have diacritics in their names which he could have stripped.
- On 17 May, Dolovis started a huge discussion at WT:ENGLISH#Use of diacritics in biographical article titles. The user got little support for the contention that we should strip all diacritics from titles, but the support that he did get was very vociferous and unrelenting – leading to a contentious situation.
- On 19 May, Dolovis notified more than 100 editors personally of that discussion. [21]
- Around that time, Dolovis was already moving articles from diacritics to non-diacritics versions.
- Around 2 June, Dolovis was engaged in a number of requested moves between diacritics and non-diacritics versions. Some of them had (or still have) no consensus, in some the diacritics version won.
- Oddly enough, on 5 June, Dolovis created a player article with Å in the title (but others with o or a instead of ö or ä). [22]
- On 6 June, Dolovis
(who had twice been blocked for socking)creates an SPI case against two users who disagree with him about diacritics. - Around 9 June his article creation activity increased (more than 20 articles, some Scandinavian ones correctly with diacritics, some Slavic ones without, and a number of articles where the question doesn't arise). 10 June: >30 articles. 11 June: 28 articles. 12 June: 14 articles.
- On 13 June he created only few new articles but reverted numerous "controversial" page moves back to non-diacritic versions.
- 14-17 June: roughly 30 articles created per day.
Apart from the mass creation of BLP stubs of little value, there is a general pattern here of trying to fight our current practice of using diacritics in titles (where appropriate) by fighting over individual articles. While there are only few users who feel strongly that diacritics should be removed, this is not the only user following this strategy, see e.g. Talk:Julia Görges.
The disconnect between our naming convention (WP:ENGLISH#Modified letters doesn't give very clear guidance either way) and our daily practice (diacritics are used unless there is clear evidence that the bearer has dropped them, as happens frequently when people move to the US) has led to an unstable situation that may soon erupt similar to the hyphen/n-dash thing. Hans Adler 15:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's funny that you mention the sock puppet issue. I remember a while ago that I brought the case of one of Wikipedia's top 10 most active users to this page. He was making one sentence articles about obscure places in Russia. All using article creation tools. After some theatrical performances a check-user stopped by to say that s/he'd blocked the user as a confirmed sock. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reply Comment: The sock puppet allegation raised by Hans Adler was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that is why all of the blocked accounts (the alleged master and puppets) were all unblocked. Dolovis (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I see. [23] It's unfortunate that this was not logged in the SPI somehow. I should have checked the details before accusing you in this way. While there can never be certainty, your explanations sounded sufficiently convincing that I guess I would have unblocked you as well. I am striking my erroneous comment. Sorry for the mistake. Hans Adler 06:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reply Comment: The sock puppet allegation raised by Hans Adler was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that is why all of the blocked accounts (the alleged master and puppets) were all unblocked. Dolovis (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Response by Dolovis: The players' articles have been created because they are notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. As the encyclopedia is a continuing project relying on the principle of communal sourcing, to start articles and hope others will finish them is acceptable procedure, and to demand that an editor who creates valid stub articles to change the way they work may be construed as a Wikipedia:No-edit order. Please know that hockey players who have played in the Czech Extraliga meet the first criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and are therefore presumed notable for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. The ice hockey project has delivered a clear consensus stating that playing just a single game in the Czech Extraliga is enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria, and yes, I fully expect that all of the articles are likely to be expanded. These ice hockey players are all notable professional athlete's who are playing at an elite level in a premier league. Any editor who feels otherwise has the right to follow the deletion process and nominate that article for deletion. It is also disturbing that in this instance new articles have been challenged very early (such as User:Fly by Night tagging articles for merge just 3 minutes from the article's creation[24]) before any editor could reasonably have had a chance to expand the stub articles. It would be very regrettable if the personal view of a few editors—totally unsupported by policy or consensus—that stubs are unhealthy, were permitted to affect Wikipedia. Dolovis (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I told you at talk:HC Litvínov. I tagged some articles so quickly because I'd seen all of the articles you had created the night before, e.g. Lukas Rindos on the New Pages list. I had been monitoring your stub-spam and edit history for the best part of a day. It was only when you started a new flurry that I decided to act. That's why some were tagged 3 minutes after creation, some 30 minutes after creation, and other 23 hours after creation. My edit history and your edit history tell the full story; so it's pointless cherry-picking examples. The merger guidelines say that "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Looking back at Dolovis's other creations, say for example Philip Kemi or Ziga Pance, we see that other than some BLPPROD's and general housekeeping (renaming, adding categories, page moves) the articles haven't been touched for more than six weeks. The same is true for almost all of his other stubs: they haven't been expended. As such it is unlikely that many of his stubs will be expanded within a reasonable amount of time; unless he does it himself which he refuses to do.— Fly by Night (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- It was for the mass creation of these marginally notable players that I removed this user's WP:AUTPAT rights a while ago. I believed these needed to go through the usual WP:NPP process and had some concerns in general about this user's mass creation and contention over diacritical marks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- So what do we do? Dolovis seems to be a loan voice. Seven or eight editors disagree with what he's doing, but he doesn't listen. Most of those seem to be admins too. It's clear that he has no interest in improving anything other than his "articles created" count. I suggested putting these players into Squad articles, and then branching out with solo articles if and when a subject becomes more noteworthy and interesting. All of the same information would be there for a user, the only problem is that his "article creation" count would suffer. I put it to him that that depends on which is most important (creation count or usefulness to users) and he didn't reply. Looking at the bigger picture, it seems that he wants to get as many articles as he can without accents so that that implies a consensus. So it's much worse than creating stub-spam with little regard for quality; it seems he's trying to push his agenda by building up a majority of articles without accents. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that anything needs to be done. From what I can see, Dolovis has created reliably sourced articles - albeit stubs - about many notable living people. There's nothing wrong with that. And if this is all a game to get as many articles as he can without accents so that that implies a consensus, I doubt he will be successful. Especially since all one would have to do is look at the history to see that all the articles without accents were created by him. And since anyone can just add the accents if they want and know how. Rlendog (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposal
I propose a sanction such that Dolovis (talk · contribs) be placed on a new article parole where any new article relating to Hockey must have at least 3 WP:RS used as properly cited footnotes. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then we'd get three different links to stat pages. Personally, I'd like to see him add just one non-trivial source in addition to the stat page. It isn't that hard to turn a microstub into a regular one with a few sentences. You know, something that actually benefits the reader. Resolute 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- All of his articles rely on Criterion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY, which is a very poor criterion. I would ask for the subjects to meet at least two criteria from WP:NHOCKEY, and have a paragraph each explaining how, why, and where. Or that the articles be worthwhile BLP's in their own right. If we just ask for one reliable, non-stat-page source then he'd probably quote some small town Czech newspaper: ex-plumber signs for local hockey team. In the mean time, we need to reform WP:NHOCKEY; like I said earlier, one game playing in a Kazakhstan league gets you an article, while 99 AHL games doesn't; even though most AHL players would be consistent MVP's, and hall-of-famers in the Kazakhstan league. But to be honest, I don't think anything will achieve what we really want. We want interesting, accurate, complete articles written for the good of the readership and for the good of Wikipedia'a reputation. I don't think we will ever get that from Dolovis. His repeated efforts to ignore, side-step, and wikilawyer his way out of fulfilling requests and heeding criticism have proven that beyond reasonable doubt. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Requiring a player to meet multiple criteria under WP:NHOCKEY doesn't make sense, especially if the player meets #1, the primary one, of playing in a premier professional league. A star player in the Extraliga may not have played enough minor league games to meet the minor league criteria, or be a first round draft pick in a North American league, or have played in an amateur league in a country without a professional league, since the Czech Republic has one, nor be in a Hall of Fame, because he is active. WP:NHOCKEY is actually very sensible, and there is good reason why players who meet even one of the criteria are presumed to be notable. Rlendog (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- No. If what he's doing is wrong, then it's just as wrong whether he does it once or a hundred times, and so the relevant policies ought to be updated to reflect that. Singling out one editor is not an effective solution. --causa sui (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of policy, how does WP:BLPPROD fit into this? Can't you just BLPPROD all the articles and handle it that way? --causa sui (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- No because a {{BLPPROD}} is for "any biography of a living person (BLP) which lacks at least one source." Dolovis always links to the same statistics site which gives the team's statistics for the season. So a BLPPROD is not applicable. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe this is an indication that BLPPROD in its current form is inadequate, and the bar should be raised? In any case, I stand by my original point. If existing means of handling this are inadequate, then we need to give ourselves the tools to handle this generally, not single out one editor like we're playing whack-a-mole. --causa sui (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- BLPPROD is a bright line, much like 3RR. It is perfectly possible to find exceptions to the spirit of BLP which "pass" BLPPRODUC just as it is possible to see clear edit warring which doesn't quite get to 3RR. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- No. Wiki-policy states that Any registered editor may start a stub article. Contributors are Wikipedia's most valuable resource, and creating valid articles that can be expanded is an encouraged activity. The articles that I have created all conform to notability policy, verifiability policy, BLP policy, and stub policy. Editors cannot and should not be expected to create finished articles on the first draft. Many of the articles that I have created have been quickly and significantly expanded by both myself and others. Why should any one editor, who is editing within established policy, be singled out for sanctions? If there is to be any proposal for sanctions it should be a Wiki-wide policy that all editors must abide to. If there is a new consensus saying that BLP articles now need three sources, so be it; but to force one editor to edit to a higher standard than other editors is not fair or reasonable. Fly by Night's real concern seems to be with WP:NHOCKEY, and if he feels that Czech Extraliga hockey players should are not notable then he should raise that issue with the ice hockey project. Dolovis (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please, don't put words in my mouth. My main concern is your mass produced stub-spam, and the way you wikilawyer, and hide behind wp:nhockey. If you refuse to stop then a change to wp:nhockey is the next best thing. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- No We already have a policy on how many reliable sources are required to create a valid BLP stub: one., not three. A suggestion that more might be needed is a proposal to change BLPPROD, not to mention WP:V. Does anyone really want to re-open BLPPROD? All good faith editors are equal, and the degree of evidence that lets you or me create an article lets anyone else do it also. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's not quite right. Editors who are acting in good faith are sanctioned all the time, as one's good faith does not have to be questioned for one's actions to be found to be unproductive. That we encourage everyone to create articles does not preclude our finding consensus that a given editor's actions are unproductive, and taking one single, short, statistical reference (a team sheet stat) and using it to create twenty BLPs is precisely the sort of thing that we could consider to be unproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- DGG, this thread isn't about BLPPROD. BLPPROD was suggested as a solution, but wasn't applicable. We're trying to find a way to stop Dolovis writing mass produced, poorly sourced, one sentence, BLP stubs that he refuses to update. Please take a look at Toddst1's proposal at the top. That was the real point of this thread, although we seem to have lost our way down side roads. — Fly by Night (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's not quite right. Editors who are acting in good faith are sanctioned all the time, as one's good faith does not have to be questioned for one's actions to be found to be unproductive. That we encourage everyone to create articles does not preclude our finding consensus that a given editor's actions are unproductive, and taking one single, short, statistical reference (a team sheet stat) and using it to create twenty BLPs is precisely the sort of thing that we could consider to be unproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agree to Toddst1's proposal; although it needs to be made water tight. Also propose review of WP:NHOCKEY so it can't be used to justify such junk. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a policy specifically for hockey? ROFLMAO :) Count Iblis (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Whilst Dolovis creating microstubs does not appear to be against policy, he should be encouraged to try and create as complete an article as he can, even at the expense of slowing down the rate of creation. If the sources are available, it is quite possible to create an article that is near GA class from the start. Mjroots (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- No Every person is expected to bring a different set of skills to Wikipedia. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy, pretty much the whole thing, Dolovis has done less than nothing wrong here. He's added valuable content to Wikipedia. We should be thanking him for the time and effort he has put it to expanding the encyclopedia in appropriate ways, not looking to sanction him! --Jayron32 18:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I take you haven't looked at his 100+ stubs then?
- I have looked at some, and I don't see anything wrong with the subjects of the articles. The number of stubs is not terribly concerning to me. That he leaves it to others to expand them is also not a concern, Wikipedia:Editing policy specifically encourages people to leave for other jobs they are not good at themselves. --Jayron32 20:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- So you will have seen that there are dozens of BLP stubs that have not been touched for six weeks. You will also see that the WP:MERGE criteria says that short articles that won't be expanded in a reasonable amount of time should be merged into a broader topic. The fact that almost none of these stubs ever get expanded means that down the line they should be merged. Given Dolovis's track record, these articles should not be made, because they will inevitably be due for merger. These players should be included into Squad Articles where the single sentence articles are condensed into something more interesting and valuable. Please take some time to do your research. Don't just look at a few. Look at his edit history over the last two months. All of the admin, and non-admin, objection hasn't appeared from no where. I raised concerns and many users came out to confess their problems. Once again, please do your research; then you'll see. Please don't skim read, do no research, and then just argue to save face. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have looked at some, and I don't see anything wrong with the subjects of the articles. The number of stubs is not terribly concerning to me. That he leaves it to others to expand them is also not a concern, Wikipedia:Editing policy specifically encourages people to leave for other jobs they are not good at themselves. --Jayron32 20:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. If you think that many closely related articles should be merged into a larger article, whether or not the articles are new, there's nothing stopping you from doing that is there? Why do you see a need to stop someone else from editing as they want to edit? Is there any actual BLP related issues involved here, or is there just some nebulous fear that there might be some issue eventually?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem. If you think that many closely related articles should be merged into a larger article, whether or not the articles are new, there's nothing stopping you from doing that is there? Why do you see a need to stop someone else from editing as they want to edit? Is there any actual BLP related issues involved here, or is there just some nebulous fear that there might be some issue eventually?
- I take you haven't looked at his 100+ stubs then?
- I TRIED! I tagged 16 of them for merger and Dolovis objected. I asked him to expanded them, and he refused. Some other users arrived to voice their concern about his editing patterns, and then we all came here. Please read the whole discussion. This is becoming a farce. You're the second decent editor in a few hours that's made a comment that shows they haven't been following this discussion. Don't get me wrong, I know you're acting in good faith; it's just the thread's too long. No-one's bothering to read it all but they're still adding their (uninformed) opinion. Basically Dolovis was creating 20-30 one sentence, single source, BLPs, that scrape through WP:NHOCKEY by the skin of their teeth, each day. I suggested a merger per WP:MERGE -- please read rationale 3 -- (he has stubs from six weeks ago that haven't been touched, so it's reasonable to assume that none of the 100 new ones will). But he objected to the merge. He was asked to expand them and he refused. There's also an on-going problem about accents in people's names. It's possible that he is pumping out all of these BLPs, without accents, to push his point which goes against the consensus on the hockey project. So we're trying to find a way to get him to write decently sourced, worth while, informative BLPs that don't go against well established consensus. But whatever we do he hides behind the presumed notability of crietrion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY (even though they all fail the other criteria) and wikilawyers like hell.— Fly by Night (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not "hiding" behind criterion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY. He is creating articles, albeit stubs, that can be reliably sourced to show that they meet Hockey's primary notability criterion. The accent issue is another matter, but anyone can add the accents, and anyone can expand the articles. Rlendog (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:MERGE says "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." Not that the page "should" be merged, only that it "often makes sense." In these cases, it probably doesn't make sense. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Right, just like WP:NHOCKEY does not say that people that pass criterion 1 are notable, but that they are presumed notable. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. I really don't care about a user creating accurate stubs about subjects who appear to meet the notability guidelines, especially when all the substantive content of those stubs appears to be adequately sourced. We have truckloads of BLPs with grossly inadequate sourcing, and a Wikiproject with active members devoted to papering over sourcing problems by adding a trivial source or two to unsourced BLPs and moving on. We have hundreds of porn BLPs laced with kayfabe. Speaking of which, we have hundreds and hundreds of BLPs on performers in the wrestling industry which hopelessly conflate the performers and the fictional characters they portray in scripted entertainments, which we don't even acknowledge to be scripted entertainments. Then there are all the Bollywood/South Asian cinema related articles whos contributors don't seem to have read BLP, NPOV, RS, and V. As far as priorities go, dealing with the "problem" of accurate stubs about people who meet notability guidelines should be right down there with en-dashes versus hyphens. Humbug. Humbug, I say. Grumpy Old Man Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - If the players Dolovis is creating articles for meet even on criterion of WP:NHOCKEY, they are presumed notable and Dolovis is doing nothing wrong by creating these stubs. There will certainly be multiple reliable sources (at least in the form of stat sites) to back them up. Rlendog (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Related to this issue is that Toddst1 has unilaterally revoked my Autopatrolled rights. While it does not make any difference to me, I do believe revoking my Autopatrolled rights has provided no benefit to Wikipedia, and just serves to needlessly increase the workload of new page patrollers. Dolovis (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- It does allow new page patrollers however to catch the articles you put sources on that don't actually source what have stated they source which has happened on a number of occasions. It also allows them to catch the ones you weren't even sourcing at all which you were doing for a considerable amount of time. Your revoked autopatrolled does you no harm and helps make sure your articles are of a decent standard. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply to Djsasso: Rubbish. I have never created a BLP stub without a source. Show us the articles you are referring to, and if not, then stop making stuff up. It's true the autopatroll does me no harm, it just needlessly increases the workload of the parollers. Dolovis (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be that had to do at all. There were numerous ones that linked to pages that didn't exist, ones that linked to team rosters that players never played for. I fixed a number of them and you have been going through many of them stating things like fixing reference djsasso removed. So just look through your history. That will give you a few hundred that didn't have any. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't support the proposed sanction from Toddst1, but I do support revoking Autopatrolled. I'd suggest that we consider that as the solution to concerns about the prolific article stub creation, and consider it a fair compromise. -- Atama頭 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- He could have at least gotten an uninvolved party to make the change. That's rather poor behavior for an admin, to be revoking someones user rights while in the middle of a dispute with them.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)- It's fair to say that Toddst1 was involved, but that user access level can be granted or revoked at the discretion of any administrator so I don't think it's worth more than a trout. There seems ample justification for revoking it, it just would have been better if someone else had done it. -- Atama頭 19:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- He could have at least gotten an uninvolved party to make the change. That's rather poor behavior for an admin, to be revoking someones user rights while in the middle of a dispute with them.
- I don't support the proposed sanction from Toddst1, but I do support revoking Autopatrolled. I'd suggest that we consider that as the solution to concerns about the prolific article stub creation, and consider it a fair compromise. -- Atama頭 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Several admins have voiced concern about the articles that Dolovis creates. Maybe the clicking of the button to remove autopatrolled rights was (necessarily) done by one user; there are many admins that agree with the decision and would have done exactly the same thing themselves. I think Dolovis has totally misunderstood the tone of this discussion. It seems that very few people want to impose restrictions on his editing and page creating, but that is a very different thing to them approving the mass manufacture of low quality BLP subs. The only way to describe his request for a return of autopatrolled rights is a bare faced cheek. Although there is no consensus to sanction Dolovis, there is a clear consensus that his actions fall short of what is expected and hoped for. Hopefully Dolovis will re-read what has been said and learn from that, and carry it forward with him in the future. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to disagree with your conclusions, for what (little) that's worth. Bringing up BLP as a boogie-boo is disingenuous, at best. Regardless, this little section has nothing to do with the issue that started this (User:Dolovis' article creation), it's about Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)- It seems you haven't followed the whole thread then. The admins were lining up to voice the discontent. It's not about Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins at all. The last three or four posts have been about that. This discussion has been open for almost a week. Granted, it's a very long discussion; but I recommend you read it all, and not just this subsection. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to disagree with your conclusions, for what (little) that's worth. Bringing up BLP as a boogie-boo is disingenuous, at best. Regardless, this little section has nothing to do with the issue that started this (User:Dolovis' article creation), it's about Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins.
- Dolovis, you have created BLPs without at least clearly marking your source (Evan Rankin). Your current fight against the personal names of Czechs and Slovaks has led to another problem: You are creating duplicate articles, and sometimes you are the creator of both. Your latest creation is Jiri Dolezal, but an article for the person already existed at Jiří Doležal. Others include Lukas Krenzelok (already at Lukáš Krenželok, fixed by Darwinek) and Tomas Rachunek (already at Tomáš Rachůnek, fixed now by me). Prolog (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- This thread has become off-topic, but in reply to Prolog I will repeat what I said to Djsasso; I have never created a BLP stub without a source. And contrary to the POV of the pro-Dios crowd, I have no fight against the personal names of Czechs and Slovaks. I create articles pursuant to WP:Article titles, and fault for creating the duplicate articles must lie with the editor who created the earlier article using non-English letters in the title, contrary to WP:Commonname and WP:EN, and then failed to provided even a redirect using English letters - thereby rendering those articles invisible to this English editor. Dolovis (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- The editor not creating the appropriate redirects in two of those three cases was you. And now that you are omitting diacritical marks in your titles, you are not creating redirects from the subjects' proper names (which are equally important). Before the unavoidable moves per standard practice, you need to create the redirects to get rid of misleading redlinks, even if it means (gasp!) finding out the actual names of the people you create articles about. Prolog (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Moving articles
He still is moving articles without requested move vote and without consensus (in a discution he has started). --86.61.34.51 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there was a consensus, I'd say. And it was certainly against his view. No such user (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Back to his old tricks again
- Even after all of the criticism and concern that was raised, Dolovis has ignored everything that was said and has gone back to his old tricks again. Yet another one line, one reference, joke of a BLP. I don't think that his contempt for the community's wishes and the values of this project could be any clearer if he had tried. (Yes, the article has bee touched up slightly, but only after Dolovis wandered off and left it in the pathetic state I just linked to.) I hope all those people that !voted against sanctions, clearly without reading the whole discussion and without doing their research, are pleased with themselves. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Since I was the one who improved the Zach Phillips article, I think I have to say something. Between his last edit and my improvement, three minutes elapsed. I don't know if Dolovis intended on improving the article before I had or not, but perhaps that isn't the point. The fact is, it was improved. It was a collaborative effort, which what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Do I wish Dolovis started the article at the state it's at instead of what he started? Yes, it would have made my edits unnecessary. The J. T. Miller is another example. I don't know if he was rushing to get "something" out there first instead of taking the extra 3-5 minutes to put something better out there. Having said that, it seems all his articles for notable individuals, so I don't see that as an issue. From reading the above, there are questions of the length of the articles (several sentences can easily be condensed to one), the use of diacritics (which is a separate issue), lack of citations in these articles (which an external link section can easily be turned into a reference section), etc. As someone who has also created hundreds/thousands of articles, though not usually of players that haven't played in the NHL or similar "major" North American league, I don't see a huge issue here.Patken4 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well done of finding and improving the article three minutes after Dolovis had finished editing. It was amazing that that Dolovis didn't try to make any edits while you were editing, and that there were no edit conflicts. From your recent edit history, you only ever seem to edit Ice Hockey articles; which implies that you're not a WP:NPP. Amazing that you found Dolovis's article three minutes after his last edit. I wonder why that was? I'd also be interested to know how you managed to find your way to this page to make your first contribution to this discussion when there has been no overt communication between you and Dolovis; in fact nothing on your talk page mentioning this discussion, and nothing on the article that you edited. If I weren't assuming good faith then I might be inclined to believe that you know one another in real life. I'm glad you're happy that he left the article as he did. I also assume you'll be happy to expand the 20 or 30 he made that day too?! — Fly by Night (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Considering I was following the NHL draft last night, it isn't all that "amazing" that I improved the articles. There were others who added to his articles as well, so I can't take all the credit. And since you bring up my recent contributions into this, you might notice that many of those hockey edits were last night. Prior to that, looks like I have some baseball, American football, stadium/arena/sports facility, basketball, soccer/footy, business, etc edits as well, so it is far from just ice hockey articles that I edit. As to how I found this discussion, you can assume whatever you want. Of course, there are other options out there if your goal is improve to the articles. For one, you can code a bot to flag any article he/she creates and give a one week period for him/her or another editor to improve the article to a point which you or others here accept. If after that period the article is not improved to your satisfaction, delete the article or move it to his/her userspace. Also, I've spot checked some articles at the 2011 NHL Entry Draft. Dolovis has created a decent percentage of these. Some of these creations are for players that don't currently meet NHOCKEY (I haven't checked GNG). I've started a discussion to see how best to deal with these articles. Feel free to participate. Patken4 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well done of finding and improving the article three minutes after Dolovis had finished editing. It was amazing that that Dolovis didn't try to make any edits while you were editing, and that there were no edit conflicts. From your recent edit history, you only ever seem to edit Ice Hockey articles; which implies that you're not a WP:NPP. Amazing that you found Dolovis's article three minutes after his last edit. I wonder why that was? I'd also be interested to know how you managed to find your way to this page to make your first contribution to this discussion when there has been no overt communication between you and Dolovis; in fact nothing on your talk page mentioning this discussion, and nothing on the article that you edited. If I weren't assuming good faith then I might be inclined to believe that you know one another in real life. I'm glad you're happy that he left the article as he did. I also assume you'll be happy to expand the 20 or 30 he made that day too?! — Fly by Night (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Since I was the one who improved the Zach Phillips article, I think I have to say something. Between his last edit and my improvement, three minutes elapsed. I don't know if Dolovis intended on improving the article before I had or not, but perhaps that isn't the point. The fact is, it was improved. It was a collaborative effort, which what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Do I wish Dolovis started the article at the state it's at instead of what he started? Yes, it would have made my edits unnecessary. The J. T. Miller is another example. I don't know if he was rushing to get "something" out there first instead of taking the extra 3-5 minutes to put something better out there. Having said that, it seems all his articles for notable individuals, so I don't see that as an issue. From reading the above, there are questions of the length of the articles (several sentences can easily be condensed to one), the use of diacritics (which is a separate issue), lack of citations in these articles (which an external link section can easily be turned into a reference section), etc. As someone who has also created hundreds/thousands of articles, though not usually of players that haven't played in the NHL or similar "major" North American league, I don't see a huge issue here.Patken4 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to be obsessed with stopping Dolovis from editing. I'd suggest moving on to something else and simply ignoring him. There's a fairly significant history of the people who behave as you are here suffering the consequences that they're seeking to impose on others (see: WP:BOOMERANG). Start an RFC/U if you think that it's needed, but otherwise please drop the stick.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am focused on stopping him, and others, from creating one line, cut-and-paste stubs which he, and others, refuse to improve. That's very different to being obsessed with stopping someone editing. I welcome thoughtful editors that listen the the views of the community with open arms. If Dolovis did what half a dozen people on this page have asked him to do then I would be amongst the first to thank him. The truth of the matter is that you don't know the full story, and you haven't tried to investigate the full story. Myself and may other people have raised the same issues, over and over again. I have asked him polity to expand the articles and he refuses. When I saw that he had carried on doing exactly the same after all of this discussion, all of the discussion on his talk page, and all of the discussion on the original article merge discussion, it proved his contempt for quality, hard work, and the views of his peers. I will concede that I have taken it personally, and allowed myself to become annoyed. I think you are right, maybe I should ignore him and his edits, and just let Wikipedia's well documented slip in the public's perception continue. The boomerang reference is very badly placed. My edit history and article creation log show that I practise what I preach. And the stick reference is equally as badly placed. I didn't start this discussion. Myself and three admins had discussed starting such a discussion. It's only the fact that the discussion got so long, and people started mentioning all sorts of unrelated topics (due to reading three posts and then chipping in) that it became untenable. I don't see what right you have to censor the expression of my thought in a topic opened by someone else, when I express a multilaterally supported point. I can see that the only people talking sense (Dolovis included) have left the discussion, so I will too; there's no sense to be had here. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- You appear to be obsessed with stopping Dolovis from editing. I'd suggest moving on to something else and simply ignoring him. There's a fairly significant history of the people who behave as you are here suffering the consequences that they're seeking to impose on others (see: WP:BOOMERANG). Start an RFC/U if you think that it's needed, but otherwise please drop the stick.
Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals
Related to the (now closed) discussion immediately above this, there has been a recent rash of synagogue deletion proposals, including a dozen or more today alone by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs). The latter, as has been pointed out on Basket of Puppies Talk: page, is problematic, particularly as there are a very small number of editors actually editing in this topic area, so the time and resources available to them for improving the articles is limited. I recognize that not all synagogues are notable; while I've written articles on many, I've also initiated deletion processes on over a dozen, but certainly not all in one day, or even one week. Also, Basket of Puppies has stated that he is an "ordained rabbi and ritually observant Jew", and I note that he has nominated only Reform and Conservative synagogue articles for deletion. A large number of selective deletion attempts is troubling. Jayjg (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it's unfortunate that a lot of potentially valid articles are being nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Israel Congregation (Beaufort, South Carolina) in particular) but I don't think there's any capacity for administrative intervention here. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 19:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Although to be fair to Jayjg, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Hebrew Congregation was desperately sloppy at best. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 19:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Part of the solution is in the editors' own hands. The better an article that is written to start with, the easier it is to demonstrate notability and less likely it is to get PRODded or AfD'd. All editors should be encouraged to have a personal sandbox to work articles up in. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do agree, but in his nomination statement, BoP said, "Non-notable religious organization." But by literally putting those three words – Cuban Hebrew Congregation – into either Google News or Google Books, he would have come up with hundreds of sources clearly demonstrating notability. So one must conclude that either (a) he did not bother to do even this most basic research before listing the page for deletion, or (b) he did this and went ahead with the deletion request despite knowing that it was unfounded. Neither scenario is impressive, although I do hope (a) was the case. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 19:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then the authors of the articles should have absolutely no problem bullet proofing them against AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I absolutely agree. But that still doesn't excuse the making of such an obviously sloppy deletion request. On such a basis, it would be legitimate for the Crown Prosecution Service to put anyone on trial for any crime at random, because if the person was innocent then they'd have no trouble proving that. There's no point creating needless work for other people. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or, BoP might have looked at the actual results of the GNews search, noticed how many of them were the "Religion Notes" section of the Miami Herald or coverage like "A $2400 watch and $240 were stolen from a purse while the owner attended a wedding ceremony at the Cuban Hebrew Congregation", and decided they weren't suitable for establishing notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I absolutely agree. But that still doesn't excuse the making of such an obviously sloppy deletion request. On such a basis, it would be legitimate for the Crown Prosecution Service to put anyone on trial for any crime at random, because if the person was innocent then they'd have no trouble proving that. There's no point creating needless work for other people. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 19:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then the authors of the articles should have absolutely no problem bullet proofing them against AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do agree, but in his nomination statement, BoP said, "Non-notable religious organization." But by literally putting those three words – Cuban Hebrew Congregation – into either Google News or Google Books, he would have come up with hundreds of sources clearly demonstrating notability. So one must conclude that either (a) he did not bother to do even this most basic research before listing the page for deletion, or (b) he did this and went ahead with the deletion request despite knowing that it was unfounded. Neither scenario is impressive, although I do hope (a) was the case. ╟─TreasuryTag►Syndic General─╢ 19:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Part of the solution is in the editors' own hands. The better an article that is written to start with, the easier it is to demonstrate notability and less likely it is to get PRODded or AfD'd. All editors should be encouraged to have a personal sandbox to work articles up in. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah... remember the last time someone went on a streak of Prodding/AfDing articles? If editors want the article to be kept, improve the article and make impassioned defenses of the article. Sometimes you discover a single finger of ice sticking out of the water only to discover a huge iceburg underneath. I'm just as guilty when I went on a streak of prodding a series of football(soccer) BLPs that were either unreferenced or were so marginally referenced that they did not stand up to the specialty notability guideline. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- The rate at which they are nominated for deletion is problematic. Thoughtfulness is supposed to go into nominating an article for deletion. The community functions at an optimal pace, or at least within an optimal range of paces. No one is asking Basket of Puppies to go too slow. But what several editors are saying is that he is going too fast. Thoughtfulness is a good ingredient all around. Others are not able to respond to nominations for deletion that are coming on too rapidly. There are considerations that have to be weighed. Sometimes it is not clear whether an article should be deleted or not.
- I lean toward keeping most of these articles. That is the way I feel about most schools or yeshivahs too. I have trouble accepting the argument that an institution of learning or worship involving a community is non-notable. The nature of an institution of learning or worship, in my opinion, confers notability—at least in most instances. Bus stop (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever the merits of individual AFDs might be, the large number of poorly justified speedy nominations, which I contested quite a few of, wasn't appropriate. I also was troubled by the apparent selectivity of the proposals, but wasn't familiar enough with the general subject area to form a solid opinion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I think what is more of an issue for ANI to be discussing is whether the idea that BoP is nominating articles for deletion in a POV fashion (nominating only Reform and Conservative synagogues) holds any water. If it is such a pov action, then we have a problem. SilverserenC 20:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. Whether they are liberal, conservative, or in-between—the bigger problem is the rate at which they are being nominated. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- If the AfDs in question generally result in deletion, I'm not troubled by the fact that the editor(s) singled out for deletion Jewish houses of worship. If, on the other hand, the AfDs in question do not result in deletion, IMHO we certainly have a problem. Can someone perhaps list them here, so we all can take a look? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can we wait for BOP's response before jumping to conclusions please? GiantSnowman 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Of course. But that's no reason to prevent an editor from listing the AfDs in question, so we can all take a look at them. As we await BOP's response.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- <ec>In general I'd suggest it is best for the encyclopedia to not have large nominations of articles in the same area come quickly. We want people to have a chance to find sources and ideally source the articles. If only a handful of editors are working in that area each topic won't get the look it deserves. I'd rather we delete only those where reasonable effort couldn't save them. I think it's reasonable to ask the nom to limit themselves to having no more than 5 or so active nominations of these articles at any given time. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Undeletion is trivial. Notable pages will be restored in due time. Throttling good-faith AfDs is pointless. As for Silver Seren's suggestion that there could be something POV about nominating only one particular group's synagogues for deletion, that's neither here nor there. A long time ago I nominated a long run of Transformers-related cruft for deletion and it turned out that practically all of them were Decepticons. It doesn't mean I should have been stopped from trying to give Wikipedia a pro-Autobots bias. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- The few times that I have tried to source synagogues and yeshivas I have found it hard to do. These can be very important institutions and yet have very few sources, available online at least. I feel that it is unrealistic to expect notability to be as easily established for religious institutions as for public and secular institutions. Bus stop (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
One example that went past my watchlist was Temple Beth-El (Riverside, California) (Google-cached version here). I tried to find reliable sources that do more than mention the synagogue in passing but I failed. The best I could do was a Western states Jewish historical quarterly article from 1979 by Samuel Reznick titled "Early Jews of Riverside" in which he says that, of 450 Jewish families in the area, 250 were affiliated with Temple Beth-El, "the only Jewish congregation in the city." However, the article was not so much about the synagogue as it was about Jewish people. I agree with Bus stop that it can be very difficult to source articles about synagogues, and my position is that if no sources can be found, the article deserves deletion. Note that I did not try to stop the above article from being deleted. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Were most of these articles originated by the same person? I should also note that unsourced articles about religious institutions are a bad thing, they may impute to the organizations positions which they do not take, for example.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure that these places are important to those that attend them, but I'm not sure that makes them notable in their own right. I photograph a lot of churches in the UK and France, mostly the fixtures, fittings, and architectural details. Nearby to them are village halls which probably have more attendances than the 11th or 12th century church, but one is highly unlikely to write an article about the village hall. Perhaps I'm wrong but isn't it the communities that belong to these institutions that are important, not the institutions themselves. John lilburne (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- in response to GiantSnowman I have to say that offline sourcing is also likely to be more difficult for synagogues and yeshivas than for secular institutions. I should not have singled out "online" sources as I did above. I actually have never tried to source these religious institutions offline. I am merely reasoning that a great deal of coverage in print is unlikely to be found for even prominent synagogues and yeshivas used by very large numbers of people.
- Unlike Binksternet I reach the opposite conclusion. In my opinion, the fact of the existence of a substantial community institution in and of itself tends to confer notability on it. I think this applies to secular as well as religious institutions. These are extremely culturally significant no mater how one construes the word "cultural".
- I think Wehwalt is raising a "content" issue. Incorrect information in an article would be clearly a problem—not necessarily requiring deletion. Furthermore Wehwalt expresses concern that our article "may impute to the organizations positions which they do not take". These are religious institutions, and they are all Jewish religious institutions. As such any variance in positions taken are likely to be relatively minor. But any information in an article must be sourced; incorrect information is unacceptable.
- I don't think John lilburne's comparison is apt. He refers to "11th or 12th century" Churches while under discussion here are mostly contemporary and functioning synagogues. Yeshivas would certainly be functioning. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, a functional synagogue which no independent party has ever bothered writing about in any analytical or at least non-trivial manner is very much the proverbial tree falling in the forest. I'm sure our mothers all think we're very important people, and the Chatanooga 75th Scouts group are all very proud of it too, but if nobody else cares then these things are no more befitting an encylopdia than lists of local telephone numbers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- Chris Cunningham—There are different standards of notability for different entities. I have tried to source yeshivas in Israel some time ago because they were nominated for deletion. A large structure existed. It was staffed by numerous instructors. There was a sizable student body. But information on it was scarce—online anyway. I doubt that much more was available offline. My argument is that institutions do not all need extensive sourcing. Notability is almost conferred on them by their existence. It takes a lot of money to build an institution. A lot of people have to participate in an institution to ensure its continued existence. This is evidence of its notability. Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's certainly a valid position to hold, but it is contradicted by WP:N/WP:GROUP, which is the current consensus minimum-notability standard. You are proposing lowering the bar for religious organizations...take that up with the notability-guideline talk-pages and see if you can get consensus to change the guideline. In the mean time, we're stuck using the guidelines we have, which obviously results in deleting pages that don't meet the current minimum guideline standards. If the standards change to become more inclusive, trivial to retrieve the deleted pages at that time. Changing the standards is not a topic for this noticeboard. Alternately, you might be proposing to change the deletion process to be based on future possible changes to standards. I doubt that's going to get much traction, but you're free to argue it in general (it is something with administrative implications, but belongs on the main afd talkpage not here) or as your keep !vote on individual afd pages. DMacks (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was juxtaposing the church with the community. I'd be hard pressed to find independent justification for the local village hall which will be of a early to mid 20th century build, or the local Catholic churches which may be mid 19th century (though some of those might be notable wrt the architect), or the non-conformist and the Methodist chapels. A few miles from me is an 11th century church in a tiny village, and although it is reputed to be the oldest in the county it is very low key, not even a grade I listing. My blog page for it gets more hits than any other, and from all over the world. It seems that surrounding that place is a very active and thriving community, but you'd search high and low to find any RS for it. It just isn't encyclopaedic. John lilburne (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Growing number of AfDs and Speedies
It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the nominator seriously because he has made no effort to engage editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who would have the potential interest in working with him to resolve his concerns. Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs). How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to understand how this is an issue for AN/I. All the nominations appear to be in good faith, as the state of the articles when nominated were poor, and notability was not presented clearly in any of them. I see that most are being kept rightly after a search for sources but some are not so clear cut. Isn't the proper response here to source the articles properly instead of moaning about the nominator? Either way, I fail to understand how this pertains to AN/I. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- It takes a certain number of minutes per article to evaluate and possibly source. Multiply that by the number of articles nominated and consider the scarcity of editors reviewing the nominations and the flaw becomes obvious. The same process at a slower pace might not be objectionable. Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- You have not addressed my question. How is that a problem relevant for AN/I? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd hope to see consensous that mass AfDs in a given area are a bad idea and have an admin attempt to throttle this. One could imagine nominating ever single article for deletion that has fewer than two sources. That would be disruptive. Where is the line for mass AfDs being more harmful than helpful? How relevant is it that the user seems to be ignoring WP:BEFORE? Consensus thus far seems to be that these aren't significant enough problems to require the throttling. But asking for help here isn't unreasonable--it's likely we are going to be deleting articles on notable places just because no one has time to source them before the deadline of 7 days... Hobit (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- You have not addressed my question. How is that a problem relevant for AN/I? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Plus one pony. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- You assume that the sequence of events was "check article, start AFD, check article, start AFD" and so forth. Far simpler to check articles at leisure, make a list, check it twice, and nominate seriatim. By the way, do we have to keep referring to these as "Jewish synagogues"? Are there any other kinds of synagogue?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Without going into specifics (not my subject), I'd suggest that if articles are being created at a rate greater than they can be evaluated and sourced at, there is also a problem - arguably a more significant one. As has already been pointed out, a deleted article can be recreated, when sourcing is found - while a flood of unsourced articles of questionable notability is not really in anyone's interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a strong hunch that the nominator was inspired to visit and evaluate articles about synagogues after seeing AfD "keep" arguments (example here) along the lines of "Keep as there are at least 130 Reform Judaism synagogues like this in Category:Reform synagogues in the United States." It is easy to see why the WP:OTHERCRAP argument would cause people to go see what the rest of the "othercrap" looks like -- and seek to get rid of poor content that is creating a bad example for the creators of new pages. Concerted campaigns against "othercrap" can be stressful for the people who are generating that content that gets targeted, but it sometimes takes a campaign to get the attention of the users who are propagating the stuff. --Orlady (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Getting back to what I think is the crux of the problem, it does appear that at least some of the nominations in this slew (I still have yet to see what all of them are) are nominations that the community has 100% rejected.
See, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuban Hebrew Congregation (all 8 editors disagreeing with Basket), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Emanu-El (Miami Beach, Florida) (all 9 editors disagreeing with Basket). Quite oddly, editor ConcernedVancouverite has at precisely the same time been AFDing the same type of synagogue articles, at times with the same unanimous negative feedback, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Beth Sholom (Cherry Hill, New Jersey) (2nd nomination) (all 7 editors disagreeing with nom). It does appear that something is amiss here.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies as I'm in a rush - job interview - but is anyone please able to check to see if BoP has continued with his nominations after this ANI was raised? Thanks, GiantSnowman 07:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply to everything above So I called it an early evening last night and this morning I arrive to the above. I'll be brief as possible. I only nominated congregations that I thought clearly were non-notable and unencyclopedic. I looked through every article in the Reform and Conservative categories and read them all before nominating anything. The super-vast-majority of the articles were clearly notable and the articles established just that through the use of reliable sources and verification. I realize that I am human and have likely nominated one or two articles in each category that would easily pass an AfD. Please understand that I am acting entirely without prejudice to any of the denominations or congregations and am acting entirely in good faith. In regards to the accusations above I can only say that they are without merit whatsoever. I feel that this ANI thread is entirely unnecessary and is the expression of some who feel I should either consult with them before taking any action on Judaism related articles (in clear violation of WP:OWN) or others who feel that I am nominating in a hurried and reckless manner. The former holds water and the latter holds none. I sincerely hope this ANI thread is quickly archived/collapsed/hatted so that editing can resume, articles that might survive the AfD process be improved and those that are not/cannot be deleted. Basket of Puppies 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- I see some are responding. I reviewed two, concluded both should not be speedied, but the tag was gone by the time I was ready to edit.--SPhilbrickT 14:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism ? Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Right, but there is still no prohibition on editors nominating articles for deletion (even multiple articles) before running it by random Wikiprojects (which, it should be remembered, are strictly informal workgroups that don't have any actual juristiction on the area of their chosen subject matter). The onus is on WikiProjects to watch articles and improve them, and not on individual editors to "consult" with them before making edits in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the issue is solved yet. Basket of Puppies returned to Wikipedia, responded here, and immediately attempted to speedy 2 synagogue articles (Congregation Shomrei Emunah, Lincoln Park Jewish Center), and AfD a third (Shaarei Tefillah). Looking at the articles, it appears that these proposals are still being made without sufficient care or forethought. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am giving a great deal of forethought and care as to the articles that I nominate for deletion. The two that you listed for CSD are examples of articles that do not assert notability, are bare bones are entirely unnotable. Please tell me what is notable about this article at the time that I nominated it for speedy deletion? It was one line long with no references whatsoever. Shomrei Emunah was slightly longer than LPJC but still made no claims of notability, had no references and did not pass the notability threshold in the slightest. Shaarei Tefillah, the congregation that I began an AfD on, is the poster child for WP:NOTINHERITED. The article even says that the only reason why it's on Wikipedia is because of the notable people who go there, which should probably be used as an example article for WP:NOTINHERITED. So, as you can see, I have given an entirely appropriate amount of forethought and careful consideration as to the articles that I am nominating for deletion. The accusations that I am failing to do so should immediately cease as they are entirely baseless. Will you agree with this, Jayjg? Basket of Puppies 05:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Basket: By your own standards and methods would you say that these articles you have created (I found them posted on your user page and no doubt there are others that you created have these technical failings) should they not be AfDd because they look very weak to me and much less notable than many of the synagogues you are AfDing: You created (all stubs, but not marked as such):
- Yeshivat Ohr David [49], what's notable about it, with only one citation from an affiliated organization's website, and it's only an 8 line stub, not grown or improved since 2009?
- Academy for Jewish Religion (New York) [50], three-liner with one link to an article, not grown or improved since 2009.
- Academy for Jewish Religion (California) [51] a three liner with two weak links, since 2009.
- Yitzchak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life [52] a three liner not with real secondary sources since 2009. Someone was polite enough to ask you for more citations using a {{Notability}} template which you have not done for the synagogue articles.
Personally I would never charge at these articles and try to mass delete them, rather I would call on you to improve them if I came across them, especially if I saw that you were still an active editor. Please try to understand me, I do not have any personal complaints against you but as a fellow editor I am pointing out that you cannot have two standards, one for topics that you seem to like and do not wish to delete and one for topics that you created and just let them exist because no one is bothering them. This is simply not consistent. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
IZAK and violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND
IZAK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been commenting and converting every single of the above listed AfDs into a battleground by copying the same exact (or extremely similar) statement onto every single AfD. This statement does not address the merits of the AfD in question but rather is a charge against me. Examples of this battleground statement: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (this is an incompletely list, but you get the idea). In these notes IZAK turns the AfD from a discussion as to the merits of the article into a rant against myself, including accusations of violating WP:EDITWARRING (I have not), WP:AGF violation (I have no idea how), WP:CONSENSUS violation (which is the point of an AfD- to determine consensus for the inclusion or deletion of an article). Additionally, IZAK has made "notes" in every single AfD by placing "notes" to alert everyone to this ANI thread 1 2 3. The inclusion of such "notes" and the long rant against myself in every AfD is a textbook example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND violation. While myself and other editors (whom I may disagree with) are discussing the issues in a civil manner, IZAK is turning the AfDs into a battle field in clear violation of policy. Basket of Puppies 05:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- While that behaviour isn't really acceptable, I suppose you can take comfort from the realisation that there's nothing quite as likely to make a reasonable editor's (or closing admin's) eyes roll in an AfD than a copy-pasted, personal attack laden rant about deletionists. I know fish on a Friday is more of a Catholic thing, but obviously IZAK 's done himself no favours here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm reminded of IZAK's pointy creation of the now deleted Economic history of the Muslims and Economic history of the Christians during the Noleander saga. The entire time IZAK maintained that it was not a WP:POINT violation, and that despite completely opposing Noleander's "Economic history of the Jews" his entries were justifiable. So there is a history of this kind of reactive disruption from IZAK. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing new here in that regard: I was just pointing out that the actions in question weren't likely to cause that much trouble when it came to the outcome of the AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Griswaldo: Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill. Out of hundreds of AfD and CfDs that I have participated in or those that I have nominated in over eight years as an active WP editor, there have been near to zero complaints raised. My massive sum contribution to WP from its earliest days has been to help and improve WP which I should get credit for as well. Like everyone else I have some bad days, but mostly they are very good. Not a bad record for an active editor. As you should recall Noleander had unfortunately had a record of creating problematic articles relating to Jewish topics, and I had not met him until his article was posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism for attention of those interested in WP:JUDAISM, and it was not I that nominated it for deletion either, it was just too riddled with fallacies and prejudices and I voted to Delete it, that is not a crime or wrong. While on the other hand I did locate enough reasonable material to start two other articles but unfortunately they were caught in the cross-fire, so I let it go, but they can still be recreated if an editor wants to take on that complex task. I would not be opposed to any article that deals with Jews in a WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL manner that avoids WP:NOR. As for Chris Cunningham's observation from a long gone case in 2005, I was still relatively pretty new then, but there were real concerns about anti-Jewish bias from controversial User:Sam Spade who has long retired. 99.99% good work over 8+ years is more important than .01% mistakes. FYI, late June-July is going to be a very slow month for me, will probably be on WP:WIKIBREAK. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Response by IZAK
Hi. 1 At no point whatsoever was any "personal attack" leveled by me at Basket of Puppies. He misconstrues my citing of WP policies within AfDs as being "personal" against him. And while he may disagree or think I am "wrong" but he has no "right" to spin the story and allege falsely that I have "attacked" him "personally" which I have not done and reject 100%. 2 BoP is in effect saying here that "he" is the "sole" interpreter of WP policies and if any user contradicts him then they are somehow guilty of "personal attacks" which is just absurd and false and a flawed lack of logic and playing with words (this is just a debate BoP it's not personal!) 3 Furthermore, it is very curious and dare I say self-contradictory that while User Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) pastes the exact same claims of "non notability" while nominating at least seven eight articles about synagogues for deletion and similarly uses one argument to apply for the speedy deletion of at least another fifteen seventeen synagogue articles (to date), see #Growing number of AfDs and Speedies, that he should then claim that I have the "temerity" to reply to his mass copy-and-paste deletionism with a counter-response that fits all of his AfDs and Speedies, and simply notes that and that there is also a wider debate going on right here at ANI above. 4 Another very odd thing is that Basket of Puppies was approached by a number of other concerned editors on his talk page to cool it, but instead he either totally ignored or rebuffed them refusing to engaged them in reasonable discussions per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, see:
- User talk:Basket of Puppies#Synagogue articles request by User JoshuaZ (talk · contribs)
- User talk:Basket of Puppies#Notice notice by User Jayjg (talk · contribs)
- User talk:Basket of Puppies#Article deletion rate by User Hobit (talk · contribs)
5 Not to mention the very detailed and still-ongoing responses and objections of many other users to BoP's spurt of anxiety-inducing deletionism to most Judaic editors. 6 The point is that every editor cares not just about specific articles that may sometimes be weak, but also about that field in general and when incisions via AfDs and rash Speedies are made that feel painful and hurt, that in turn will elicit a response. No use complaining that other users take a topic they care about too seriously rather than engage them in constructive debate on your or their or a WP project talk pages as BoP has so far refused to do. He states openly declares when approached that he only wishes to "discuss" things in the framework of an AfD he initiates which means the dice is loaded his way. 7 Mass AfDs and Speedies of very sensitive topics will automatically cause reactions which BoP must surely have known before he went down this path, which is also exactly what many other editors feel, not just with the nomination of the synagogue articles for deletion but the way it was done, without starting a real discussion anywhere to induce goodwill, which would have been the right thing for BoP to do before. 8 BoP must surely have known that his own actions would be the real cause of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND which he ignited and not me. 9 Because it should be obvious that Jews are sensitive to synagogues being erased be it digitally or in real life and BoP needs to be aware that this is sensitive stuff that must be done carefully. 10 Had he nominated one or two articles and started genuine discussions somewhere then everyone could live with it and come aboard, but when he compares getting rid of these articles to "cleaning up" as if he were disposing of bird poop it is a bit too much. At any rate if anything his "complaint" here is his red herring to take attention away from the complaints he is facing and the pot calling the kettle black. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is a point I have also noticed in other, similar discussions you had: "Because it should be obvious that Jews are sensitive to synagogues being erased be it digitally or in real life and BoP needs to be aware that this is sensitive stuff that must be done carefully." No, this should not be obvious, and this is not "sensitive stuff that should be done careful": this should not be treated any more or less careful than any other article, and is not any more or less sensitive. If you have more problems with synagogues or other Jewish-related articles being nominated for deletion or otherwise discussed, then it should be you who needs to take a step back and withdraw from these discussions. If you can't approach such discussions and deletions neutrally, as if they were any other subject, then you get into WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:OWN territory. Please leave discussions to people without such prejudices who will look at the cases rationally instead of emotionally. Fram (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and please don't change your post after people have already replied, even when your addition to point 7 of "of very sensitive topics" only emphasises my point. That an article on a synagogue is nominated for deletion shouldn't be any more sensitive to you or anyone else than that an article about a church, football club, band, writer, ... is nominated for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fram: I was typing and did not know about your editing my post, I don't run the system or the Internet. To get to the point. I am not disagreeing with you. There is no "emotionalism" but any well-educated person who is familiar with the topic of Jewish history will understand that this is by its very nature a sensitive topic. (I do not wish to bring up the topic of Kristallnacht because it may seem too harsh but this is the RECENT history of the Jewish people that almost all educated and sensitive people know about --or at least should know about-- and its implications, and that is why it IS a sensitive topic by its very nature, nothing to do with "emotionalism" but everything to do with facts and raw history). What if an editor not well-known with Christian or Muslim editing suddenly nominated 7 Church or Mosque articles and nominated 15 other Church or Mosque articles for Speedy Deletion without either any willingness to engage in discussions and complained that his actions were "reasonable" (most of the articles are going to be saved by the way, so the flow of the argument is not with BoP at this time which is maybe why he resorts to creating a discussion about me instead of holding real discussions not just with me but with the many others who want to engage him but he refuses and rebuffs them) -- there would definitely be a strong response from Christian and Islam savvy editors that something is remiss and there needs to be a slow down. No-one becomes WP's "authority" on synagogue articles and Judaism simply because they find technical faults with articles and rush to delete them. There are better and more harmonious and congenial ways to do things. Note, a house of worship is not like a nightclub or hamburger joint, this is a reality that any editing rules cannot erase. WP articles strive to reflect the world as it is and not as it is spun or un-spun by editors with no track record or evident history editing in an area they wish to radically change. Thanks, IZAK (talk)
- Did you just compare the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis? because it seems like you just compared the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis. I needn't have to point out that the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles is not, in any way, comparable to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis. If you believe that the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles is comparable to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis, that would strongly indicate that your temperament is not suitable for a career in Wikipedia editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nope Chris, don't put words in my mouth. I was very reluctantly (read my words again please) citing a strong example from recent history why this is an objectively sensitive topic, and why any editor should proceed with caution. Anything relating to religion (and politics) is sensitive by its very nature and can be volatile. It is not like writing about the stock market or sports teams. Houses of worship are symbols of a religion, so why the surprise that almost all the Judaic editors are as concerned as I am and as you and any well-educated and well-informed user should be. Otherwise they need to take a few steps back and not ignite these types of situations. As I said, had BoP shown a good track record in editing Judaic articles and built up a good rapport per WP:CONSENSUS with editors in this field, everyone can live with AfDs as I and others have nominated many in the past. But rash actions will automatically cause a furor which has nothing to do with me as such and no amount of changing the topic will stop what BoP has begun. IZAK (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- "As I said, had BoP shown a good track record in editing Judaic articles and built up a good rapport per WP:CONSENSUS with editors in this filed,": yep, pure WP:OWN. "Houses of worship are symbols of a religion, so why the surprise that almost all the Judaic editors are as concerned as I am and as you any well-educated and well-informed user should be. " Thanks for the back-handed personal attack against anyone not agreeing with you, but you are wrong anyway. Wikipedia doesn't care if something is a symbol of a religion (no matter which religion), just like it doesn't care whether someone is a hero or a criminal, or whether some topic is morally good or morally corrupt. We care about whether the topic is notable (as described in WP:N, WP:ORG and the like) and whether the article is written in a WP:NPOV manner from WP:V/WP:RS sources. If someone honsetly believes that a subject fails our policies and guidelines, then he is free to pursue a number of procedures, including speedy, prod and AfD. At no time should that editor take into consideration whether the subject is sensitive to some editors or whether some project (or members of that project) feel protective of the article. The subject of the article should not be treated in an insulting or belittling fashion in e.g. the deletion statement, and care should be taken to indicate that the reason for the deletion nomination is that the subject doesn't meet our policies and guidelines, and not for some ulterior motives, but there it ends. The opposite is also true: the only arguments in deletion discussions that will be taken into account by the closing admin are those based on policies and guidelines, not those based on some emotional reason or some version of WP:OWN. You are free to express such reasons, but you shouldn't be surprised if they are discounted when closing the discussion, and that you ay be asked to withdraw from such discussions (or to post them on the talk page ofthem) if that is all you have to offer there. Fram (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fram: 1 My objections in the AfDs were all based on policies. 2 The discussions here are about how articles are created prior to being deleted, so please do not take words out of context. 3 It is easy to destroy but much harder to build. That is why the advice of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is good. Articles do not come out of the womb "perfect" they take work. 4 And that is why there are stubs and all sorts of "under construction" and "request for citation" templates that were not used in this series of AfDs. 5 The way "work" is done on WP, even AfD work, is to show good faith efforts by seeking WP:CONSENSUS to improve the content which was not done in this case. 6 Sure, one can be brutal and blunt and just shoot down half of WP's articles because the articles are not plu-perfect yet, but that is not the way editors in the trenches work and which was not done in this case. 7 By calling for more cooperation from BoP when he has shown none is not a "violation" of OWN or anything else, it is a common sense and reasonable attitude of working editors improving a field. 8 I am NOT known for WP:EDITWARRING in article creation and writing, and NEVER have been, I avoid it like the plague, so you have no argument against me. But I do try to take the long term view and see what can be salvaged when rash AFDs come up and when I am in agreement with lots of other editors in any case. That is not a crime either. 9 Mass deletions are not advisable no matter what you say, especially because they will inevitably cause friction that WP does not need. 10 It is easy to sit back and view the world as a string of WP policies, with everything being "the same", but that is not the way the real world works and it defies reality testing which come first, otherwise nothing would make sense, but it is much harder to look at articles as having the potential to improve and asking editors who care to participate in that growth without antagonizing them. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- IZAK, if you can't be honest it is no use discussing things with you anymore. "The discussions here are about how articles are created prior to being deleted, so please do not take words out of context."? No, the discussion here is very clearly about the deletion of articles. But please do indicate how I have taken any words out of context, and how that context would change the interpretation I gave to them. "It is easy to destroy but much harder to build." Really? I am spending hours for the moment on correcting, including deleting, a large number of articles created in the space of minutes. Deletion is not easier or harder than construction on Wikipedia. And in some cases, mass deletions are the only thing that is truly workable, considering the sheer amount of articles that in some cases warrant deletion. Whether that is the case here is a different discussion, but incorrect generalisations are not helpful. Further: Why do you bring up editwarring when I haven't used that as an argument against you? Strawman? Your point 10 is the only one that adresses my reply, but I can't find the point you are making. Do you mean that you need to do some reality testing, to realise that the deletion of an article on a synagogue has no impact on that synagogue in the real world? Fram (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, what is the response of the community to IZAK's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? He doesn't seem to acknowledge it is a problem. Basket of Puppies 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, Basket, your own attitude is astounding when you have now caused a massive eruption at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is WP:BEFORE obligatory? (I have nothing to do with that, it is what you are causing, so it will be interesting to see who you "blame" next for those who disagree with your personal "forward-charges"?) Your ongoing confusion between vigorous debate and disagreement with your personal methodology of deletionism to a "battleground" when many Judaic editors, including myself, would welcome a more congenial attitude and approach and discussion from you so that you not arouse so much bitterness and resentment to you unilateral moves no matter how well-intentioned and that are causing so much dissension and discussion, as noted by at least one astute observer that remarked about the havoc you are causing, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is WP:BEFORE obligatory?: "Look, nobody is going to be blocking and banning people over BEFORE (well, if someone does I expect the community to overturn such action), but as others have said above it really ought to be a required checklist that you go through prior to nominating an article at AFD. This is one of those things that's not really policy, but it's certainly good procedure. We wouldn't be here (and at AN/I) if User:Basket of Puppies wasn't in the process of embarrassing himself and causing all sorts of unnecessary drama by following BEFORE'.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)" Not my comment, but it makes 100% sense. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, Basket, your own attitude is astounding when you have now caused a massive eruption at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is WP:BEFORE obligatory? (I have nothing to do with that, it is what you are causing, so it will be interesting to see who you "blame" next for those who disagree with your personal "forward-charges"?) Your ongoing confusion between vigorous debate and disagreement with your personal methodology of deletionism to a "battleground" when many Judaic editors, including myself, would welcome a more congenial attitude and approach and discussion from you so that you not arouse so much bitterness and resentment to you unilateral moves no matter how well-intentioned and that are causing so much dissension and discussion, as noted by at least one astute observer that remarked about the havoc you are causing, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is WP:BEFORE obligatory?: "Look, nobody is going to be blocking and banning people over BEFORE (well, if someone does I expect the community to overturn such action), but as others have said above it really ought to be a required checklist that you go through prior to nominating an article at AFD. This is one of those things that's not really policy, but it's certainly good procedure. We wouldn't be here (and at AN/I) if User:Basket of Puppies wasn't in the process of embarrassing himself and causing all sorts of unnecessary drama by following BEFORE'.
- So, what is the response of the community to IZAK's WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? He doesn't seem to acknowledge it is a problem. Basket of Puppies 19:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- IZAK, if you can't be honest it is no use discussing things with you anymore. "The discussions here are about how articles are created prior to being deleted, so please do not take words out of context."? No, the discussion here is very clearly about the deletion of articles. But please do indicate how I have taken any words out of context, and how that context would change the interpretation I gave to them. "It is easy to destroy but much harder to build." Really? I am spending hours for the moment on correcting, including deleting, a large number of articles created in the space of minutes. Deletion is not easier or harder than construction on Wikipedia. And in some cases, mass deletions are the only thing that is truly workable, considering the sheer amount of articles that in some cases warrant deletion. Whether that is the case here is a different discussion, but incorrect generalisations are not helpful. Further: Why do you bring up editwarring when I haven't used that as an argument against you? Strawman? Your point 10 is the only one that adresses my reply, but I can't find the point you are making. Do you mean that you need to do some reality testing, to realise that the deletion of an article on a synagogue has no impact on that synagogue in the real world? Fram (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fram: 1 My objections in the AfDs were all based on policies. 2 The discussions here are about how articles are created prior to being deleted, so please do not take words out of context. 3 It is easy to destroy but much harder to build. That is why the advice of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH is good. Articles do not come out of the womb "perfect" they take work. 4 And that is why there are stubs and all sorts of "under construction" and "request for citation" templates that were not used in this series of AfDs. 5 The way "work" is done on WP, even AfD work, is to show good faith efforts by seeking WP:CONSENSUS to improve the content which was not done in this case. 6 Sure, one can be brutal and blunt and just shoot down half of WP's articles because the articles are not plu-perfect yet, but that is not the way editors in the trenches work and which was not done in this case. 7 By calling for more cooperation from BoP when he has shown none is not a "violation" of OWN or anything else, it is a common sense and reasonable attitude of working editors improving a field. 8 I am NOT known for WP:EDITWARRING in article creation and writing, and NEVER have been, I avoid it like the plague, so you have no argument against me. But I do try to take the long term view and see what can be salvaged when rash AFDs come up and when I am in agreement with lots of other editors in any case. That is not a crime either. 9 Mass deletions are not advisable no matter what you say, especially because they will inevitably cause friction that WP does not need. 10 It is easy to sit back and view the world as a string of WP policies, with everything being "the same", but that is not the way the real world works and it defies reality testing which come first, otherwise nothing would make sense, but it is much harder to look at articles as having the potential to improve and asking editors who care to participate in that growth without antagonizing them. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- "As I said, had BoP shown a good track record in editing Judaic articles and built up a good rapport per WP:CONSENSUS with editors in this filed,": yep, pure WP:OWN. "Houses of worship are symbols of a religion, so why the surprise that almost all the Judaic editors are as concerned as I am and as you any well-educated and well-informed user should be. " Thanks for the back-handed personal attack against anyone not agreeing with you, but you are wrong anyway. Wikipedia doesn't care if something is a symbol of a religion (no matter which religion), just like it doesn't care whether someone is a hero or a criminal, or whether some topic is morally good or morally corrupt. We care about whether the topic is notable (as described in WP:N, WP:ORG and the like) and whether the article is written in a WP:NPOV manner from WP:V/WP:RS sources. If someone honsetly believes that a subject fails our policies and guidelines, then he is free to pursue a number of procedures, including speedy, prod and AfD. At no time should that editor take into consideration whether the subject is sensitive to some editors or whether some project (or members of that project) feel protective of the article. The subject of the article should not be treated in an insulting or belittling fashion in e.g. the deletion statement, and care should be taken to indicate that the reason for the deletion nomination is that the subject doesn't meet our policies and guidelines, and not for some ulterior motives, but there it ends. The opposite is also true: the only arguments in deletion discussions that will be taken into account by the closing admin are those based on policies and guidelines, not those based on some emotional reason or some version of WP:OWN. You are free to express such reasons, but you shouldn't be surprised if they are discounted when closing the discussion, and that you ay be asked to withdraw from such discussions (or to post them on the talk page ofthem) if that is all you have to offer there. Fram (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nope Chris, don't put words in my mouth. I was very reluctantly (read my words again please) citing a strong example from recent history why this is an objectively sensitive topic, and why any editor should proceed with caution. Anything relating to religion (and politics) is sensitive by its very nature and can be volatile. It is not like writing about the stock market or sports teams. Houses of worship are symbols of a religion, so why the surprise that almost all the Judaic editors are as concerned as I am and as you and any well-educated and well-informed user should be. Otherwise they need to take a few steps back and not ignite these types of situations. As I said, had BoP shown a good track record in editing Judaic articles and built up a good rapport per WP:CONSENSUS with editors in this field, everyone can live with AfDs as I and others have nominated many in the past. But rash actions will automatically cause a furor which has nothing to do with me as such and no amount of changing the topic will stop what BoP has begun. IZAK (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did you just compare the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis? because it seems like you just compared the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis. I needn't have to point out that the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles is not, in any way, comparable to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis. If you believe that the nomination for deletion of a series of Wikipedia articles is comparable to the anti-Jewish pogroms of the Nazis, that would strongly indicate that your temperament is not suitable for a career in Wikipedia editing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fram: I was typing and did not know about your editing my post, I don't run the system or the Internet. To get to the point. I am not disagreeing with you. There is no "emotionalism" but any well-educated person who is familiar with the topic of Jewish history will understand that this is by its very nature a sensitive topic. (I do not wish to bring up the topic of Kristallnacht because it may seem too harsh but this is the RECENT history of the Jewish people that almost all educated and sensitive people know about --or at least should know about-- and its implications, and that is why it IS a sensitive topic by its very nature, nothing to do with "emotionalism" but everything to do with facts and raw history). What if an editor not well-known with Christian or Muslim editing suddenly nominated 7 Church or Mosque articles and nominated 15 other Church or Mosque articles for Speedy Deletion without either any willingness to engage in discussions and complained that his actions were "reasonable" (most of the articles are going to be saved by the way, so the flow of the argument is not with BoP at this time which is maybe why he resorts to creating a discussion about me instead of holding real discussions not just with me but with the many others who want to engage him but he refuses and rebuffs them) -- there would definitely be a strong response from Christian and Islam savvy editors that something is remiss and there needs to be a slow down. No-one becomes WP's "authority" on synagogue articles and Judaism simply because they find technical faults with articles and rush to delete them. There are better and more harmonious and congenial ways to do things. Note, a house of worship is not like a nightclub or hamburger joint, this is a reality that any editing rules cannot erase. WP articles strive to reflect the world as it is and not as it is spun or un-spun by editors with no track record or evident history editing in an area they wish to radically change. Thanks, IZAK (talk)
- IZAK, you make a lot of extreme accusations and turn everything in to a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I sincerely hope that the community recognizes this and places strong sanctions upon you. As for the Village Pump conversation, I did not start it and had no input to it before it began. It is demonstrating, however, that WP:BEFORE is entirely optional. I do hope that you will cease with accusations of WP:BEFORE violations in the future as it is not required. Basket of Puppies 11:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
IZAK, I never accused you of violating WP:NPA. You did, however, violate WP:BATTLEGROUND by posting long rants about my nominations for deletion in every AfD that I began. You didn't comment on the merits of the AfD but rather on my habits, deletion nominations and threw around essays, guidelines and policies. You clearly violated WP:BATTLEGROUND and need to agree that AfDs are not the appropriate venue for venting your frustrations at how and what an editor nominated for deletion. OK? Basket of Puppies 12:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Basket, calm down, They were not "rants" please apologize, they were the same set of links to the 7 AfDs and 15 Speedies I posted right here at ANI above that no one knew how to locate until I took the time to pull them together for anyone to check for themselves because had you nominated all your proposed AfDS and Speedies as a group it would be known by all but instead you went about it piece meal fashion. You should have indeed "bundled" them per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion. All the AfDs are linked because you nominated them in one fell swoop and it's important for any users to know that, that you are on a roll and that they need to be aware, what's not kosher about that? WP is not a police state. Why are you so intent on not discussing but on attacking me instead as if that "solves" your questionable behavior, it was not me who has already floated a topic ban against you, so obviously many others are upset with the way you are going about things, and please stop personalizing it as "me" and then accuse me of doing the exact thing you are doing. How about some plain old communication and WP:AGF? Personally I hardly ever bring things to ANI because I believe in direct communication. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure how to reply to the above. I think the most artistic reply I can muster is to hope that the community speedily imposes sanctions upon IZAK. Basket of Puppies 12:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Does this sound familiar?
Oppose Several of the articles I have nominated have already been deleted demonstrating that I am not a loose cannon and do understand deletion policy. I am human and realize that I might accidently nominate something for deletion that might notable. For that I am sincerely sorry. I believe that this proposed topic ban is an inappropriate reaction to differences of opinion and ask that it be speedily closed. Basket of Puppies 13:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Now...wouldn't that be an example of a non-apology apology? The term you threw at me the other day? Tinton5 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- "I might accidently nominate something for deletion that might notable. For that I am sincerely sorry" sounds very much like a proper apology to me. Go get some fresh air. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 22:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tinton, WP:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Basket of Puppies 22:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Accusations of WP:POINT violation by TreasuryTag
In the latest round of drama, TreasuryTag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has accused me of violating WP:POINT by not following the optional WP:BEFORE. I am unsure how one can violate WP:POINT by not following an optional instruction set. Due to the serious nature of this accusation I thought it wise to bring it here. Basket of Puppies 11:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- BoP is nominating a huge slew of articles for deletion, many of which are on topics which are eminently notable, as even the most basic Google search will establish. He freely admits that he has refused to perform any sort of WP:BEFORE check, including the 'basic Google test'; however, he has admitted that it is "good practice to investigate before nomination."
- I therefore asked him, quite politely, why he chose not to follow something he admitted to be good practice. He refused to provide any explanation of why he performed literally no assessment of potential sources, voluntary or otherwise, so I suggested that if the only reason he chose not to do something which he admitted was "good practice" and a good idea is that it wasn't explicitly required, that was essentially a WP:POINT violation. What other possible explanation could there be for deliberately refraining from doing something you admit is a good idea, solely on the basis of the fact that it's supposedly optional? (Incidentally, there seems to be no clear consensus as to whether or not it is optional anway, although there is a near unanimous consensus that it is a good idea, and I particularly endorse the sentiment of this comment from earlier today.) ╟─TreasuryTag►Chief Counting Officer─╢ 11:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I will happily withdraw my accusation of POINTy behaviour if BoP can explain why he chose not to voluntarily follow WP:BEFORE with a reason more convincing than, "I didn't have to." ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- As you know I looked at one of the AFDs which some are adamant is notable. With the best will in the world there is not one reference in the article that establishes notability. John lilburne (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban for Basket of Puppies
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I have proposed a topic-ban for Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) at WP:AN#Proposed topic ban for Basket of Puppies. Please leave your comments there. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 13:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- On what grounds? I can see a great deal of evidence of assumptions of bad faith here, but no real evidence that he has done anything other than what he states he did - go through a list of articles about a common topic, and propose the ones he saw as not meeting Wikipedia notability requirements for deletion. This discussion has been singularly notable in itself - for the way that everyone seems to be more concerned with looking for evidence of ulterior motives than with the actual events. How about everyone stepping back a bit, and considering things from a broader perspective, rather than engaging in this unseemly reenactment of Cultural Revolution show trials as reinterpreted by Mel Brooks? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, other than noting BoP's false accusation of harassment, I explicitly stated, "As I suspected, it's not intentional disruption but a misunderstanding." I then went on to explain that it's an issue of WP:CIR, of which bad faith is no part. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that BoP's accusation of harassment was incorrect and likely posted in haste. I respectfully disagree with your good faith proposal of a topic ban. I accept BoP's explanation of his actions, and agree with other's assessments that (aside from a possible error or two), they were also done in good faith. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- TreasuryTag, how can an action properly carried out be a competence issue? The articles in question didn't, in his opinion, meet Wikipedia notability requirements, so he proposed them for deletion. If being wrong about the outcome of an AfD is an indication of lack of competence, then we have serious problems. As for the suggestions that he should have looked for evidence for notability before proposing deletion, that is getting it entirely backwards - articles with no evidence of subject notability shouldn't be written in the first place, and expecting others to 'fix' them is more of a competence issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that BoP's accusation of harassment was incorrect and likely posted in haste. I respectfully disagree with your good faith proposal of a topic ban. I accept BoP's explanation of his actions, and agree with other's assessments that (aside from a possible error or two), they were also done in good faith. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, other than noting BoP's false accusation of harassment, I explicitly stated, "As I suspected, it's not intentional disruption but a misunderstanding." I then went on to explain that it's an issue of WP:CIR, of which bad faith is no part. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the accusation of harassment against JonathanZ was inappropriate and I offer my public apologies to JonathanZ. To revisit the issue for a brief moment when coming across an article like this would the possibility of deletion not come across your mind? (It is one line long, no assertion of notability and zero references.) Basket of Puppies 14:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Totally unjustified, no basis. There may be better ways for BoP to go about things, but such sanctions are way over the top. Chesdovi (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that, per convention, proposals for bans take place on AN rather than ANI, and TT is simply providing a courtesy link to that discussion. !voting should occur there, not here.--SPhilbrickT 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Synagogue AFD documentation
After having run across the VP discussion related to this, I happened to glance at a couple of these articles which were AFD'ed and have since been kept. I notice that none of them are getting the AFD history documented on their talk pages. Adding that information would be a really good idea.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
User:Jamesington
- Jamesington (talk · contribs · count)
Thought I'd ask for another opinion here; I'm very close to blocking this user myself, but not sure if WP:INVOLVED would apply. See this edit, and note the edit warring on the Cat article. User has been notified. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like he's hitting, or close to hitting, 3RR. Maybe this should go up on WP:EWN? --causa sui (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Had violated it on the 20th, but I figured that might be a stale report (though user continued edit-warring with 4 other users without crossing 3RR threshold in the following days). OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no question the editor Jamesington is edit-warring, but so are the others. It's a freakin' free image, fer cryin' out loud. The deletionists have gone berserk in this cat-fight. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is it doesn't add anything, and overloads the section with images. If every addition of a photo to Cat or Dog was kept, the articles would be 80% image, 20% content. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are several images that "add nothing" to the cat article. This, for example, which alleges that a cat is watching birds. It's basically a cat sitting there, and it could be watching anything. Then there's the one about a sleeping cat, under "cat behavior" - as if other animals don't sleep. Maybe you don't remember the yawning cat that was used in MTM Productions. A cat yawning is at least as much "anything" as a cat staring off into space - or sleeping. Then there's the fact you've got two white cats in the article. You're playing favorites, for no apparent reason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is it doesn't add anything, and overloads the section with images. If every addition of a photo to Cat or Dog was kept, the articles would be 80% image, 20% content. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why does every freaking thing have to boil down to "-ists" of some sort? Can't we for once look at the dispute at hand without having to resort to attacks? –MuZemike 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- The original post isn't about the content dispute, and I'm not discussing that further here; besides the 1-against-4 edit-warring, the user has repeatedly modified other user's comments in an insulting fashion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- There being other basically worthless images in the article isn't a defense for the behavior. Edit warring over both the inclusion of the image and changing other user's comments to introduce blatant personal attacks certainly isn't excused by it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Changing other editors' comments is obviously against the rules. However, continually edit-warring to remove one particular image, when there are other similarly "useless" images, comes out looking like a personal vendetta against that one user, rather than a simple content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's no reason to think people continually removing an image a single user just added to an article which already has too many images have a personal vendetta against that user. Just because an article already has junk doesn't mean it's okay to add more junk or that removing that recently added junk is wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Changing other editors' comments is obviously against the rules. However, continually edit-warring to remove one particular image, when there are other similarly "useless" images, comes out looking like a personal vendetta against that one user, rather than a simple content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- There being other basically worthless images in the article isn't a defense for the behavior. Edit warring over both the inclusion of the image and changing other user's comments to introduce blatant personal attacks certainly isn't excused by it. --Onorem♠Dil 22:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- The original post isn't about the content dispute, and I'm not discussing that further here; besides the 1-against-4 edit-warring, the user has repeatedly modified other user's comments in an insulting fashion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that there is virtually no talk page discussion on this, I have full-protected Cat for 3 days. –MuZemike 22:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well done. This is a content dispute - those involved are advised to follow dispute resolution. --causa sui (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedians. (Ohnoitsjamie . in particular) Yes, I was adding neat photos of cats. But I do however feel that the removal of the cat in the depth of field wiki is nothing but a personal attack, as it is relevant to the article. Even though you argue that the other pictures highlight depth of field already. But in response to that I would also say that all the other images on cat highlight cats... and every single other wiki with more than one picture. So please stop warring against me, I thought this was something anyone could edit? Not just to be judged and patronised for making contributions. I also made a parody of the message posted to my page, as it is my page, and I feel that as such I can do what I like with it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Editing someone else's post, even on your talk page, is never acceptable. If you want to make fun of it, post your version after theirs. The way you did it made your version look like it was written by Tbhotch. Even on your talk page, you must follow the Wikipedia rules - see WP:USERTALK. Ravensfire (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jamesington, would you please explain how removing an image is a personal attack? I've never seen that argument before and interested in the explanation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)- If I were in his shoes, I would take it personally too, given the catty remarks by the opponents, especially Tbhotch:[53] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Some comments (since I was away doing other RL stuff in the meantime):
- Wikipedia is a wiki, which does mean virtually anyone can edit. However, it is inevitable that two or more people are going to disagree on something on a certain article. As a result, an edit war may result, especially if tensions are high. Hence, "anyone can edit" is a double-edged sword in this regard. There are going to be conflicts in such an open environment.
- Given the context of this situation, removing an image is not a personal attack (there may be other situations which it may be considered, such as in the more contentious areas of WP such as Libya, the Balkans, etc.; however, this is still far few in between). Please stop treating it as such.
- Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia (including user pages), and consequently, if one feels that much offended as to having such an edit reverted, then there are going to be problems.
- The above being said, it's certainly possible that I may have erred on the full-protection (and that I should have blocked instead). However, I wanted to give a chance for the users involved to see if some progress can occur without blocks. Given the one comment by the complainant above, I admit that I am skeptical of that.
–MuZemike 07:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This has apparently spilled over to Depth of field as well. Somebody please give me one reason why I should not block everybody here involved. –MuZemike 07:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Personally I prefer that blocks be a last resort. I applaud your efforts here Muz. — Ched : ? 07:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) (out of sequence post)... FWIW, I had missed the "Depth of field" issue. — Ched : ? 09:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- In that particular case, the photo appears to be redundant, as shallow depth of field has already been illustrated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked for twelve hours. Slap on the wrist for disruptive editing. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Great. Now, how about breaking through the block and deleting the other "useless" pictures in that article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- So not getting involved in that content dispute. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The deletionists demand free content. They get free content. And they still look for ways to kill it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why does every freaking thing have to boil down to "-ists" of some sort? Can't we for once look at the dispute at hand without having to resort to attacks? (Yes, I have copypasted the exact same comment I made above.) –MuZemike 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Calling a spade a spade. And it also looks as if the editor in question was singled out, which is every bit as insidious as deletionism. Tbhotch, in particular, orders the user (with no authority to do so) not to upload pictures of his cats, despite the fact that most of the pictures in that article were personal snapshots of their cats. He goes on to refer to a "stupid" picture. A personal attack. If they weren't singling out the editor, they were certainly doing a good imitation of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Comment on content, not contributors". The content was at issue. Besides, Commons is always open and additions should be discussed at the talk page (if contested) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I've now mentioned above, there's absolutely no reason to delve into conspiracy theories about singling anyone out. It's perfectly normal when someone adds more junk to an article that is already full of junk someone else will remove/revert said recently added junk but can't be bothered removing the existing junk at that time. This is perfectly justified per policy and there is no requirement that a user has to clear out any existing junk before reverting any recently added junk. Just allowing more junk into an article because it is already full of junk is an inherently bad idea and it's likely one of the reasons it got so full of junk is people were initially to willing to let non-useful content be added. I haven't checked the discussion but even if things got a little heated it doesn't indicate there was any singling out. People do get frustrated when someone keeps adding junk against multiple other editors despite multiple requests not to and modifies their comments to boot. Perhaps part of the problem was the way the other editors handled it caused ill feeling from the beginning which is unfortunate but I can understand frustration if you're dealing with an article which people keep adding unwanted pictures of their own pets. Note that although most of the pictures in the article may be of the uploader's cats, the issue of dispute here is adding them to the article. And I think it's perfectly resonable that people defer to the opinions of others on whether their images belong in an article which sometimes may including asking in the talk page rather then adding them yourself, even more so if the images are of something they feel strongly about like their pets (or penis where I believe they often have similar issues). In other words WP:COI does come in to it. Of course if you do actually have some evidence anyone was singled out, you're welcome to provide it but from what you've said so far, it seems you think if someone happens to notice a recent addition is unhelpful or wanted but fails to remove other existing problems in an article they're somehow singling the editor out which as I've said is just silly. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Calling a spade a spade. And it also looks as if the editor in question was singled out, which is every bit as insidious as deletionism. Tbhotch, in particular, orders the user (with no authority to do so) not to upload pictures of his cats, despite the fact that most of the pictures in that article were personal snapshots of their cats. He goes on to refer to a "stupid" picture. A personal attack. If they weren't singling out the editor, they were certainly doing a good imitation of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why does every freaking thing have to boil down to "-ists" of some sort? Can't we for once look at the dispute at hand without having to resort to attacks? (Yes, I have copypasted the exact same comment I made above.) –MuZemike 13:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The deletionists demand free content. They get free content. And they still look for ways to kill it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- So not getting involved in that content dispute. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Great. Now, how about breaking through the block and deleting the other "useless" pictures in that article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
To Basebull bugs: I've never "ordered" anyone to not upload images, never. People has free will, who am I to told people to do not upload pictures of their cats? No one. On the other hand, I told him to not add images of his pet on this kind of articles. This is promotion and Wikipedia is not a collector of images. Also, there is a note about the main image: "There has been extensive discussion about the choice of image in this infobox. Before replacing this image with something else, consider if it actually improves on the ENCYCLOPEDIC CRITERIA which led to this choice. See Talk:Cat and Talk:Cat/Lead photo and if in doubt, DISCUSS IT FIRST!", due many people had been uploading their own cat images. Bugs I am asking you this once: stop comentin on me'. Just because I lost my Miss Congeniality Award on a section above, you don't have the right of treat me like a vandal, nor defame me putting words I've never said. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 17:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Do not add your cats"[54] sure sounds to me like an order, not a request. Now, if you want to do something actually useful with that page, as opposed to what you've done so far, then you should lop off about half the images, as the page takes quite awhile to load - with or without the "stupid" picture that you and your deletionist pals singled out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- And again I see no one ordering other people to not upload pictures. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 19:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Now you're splitting cat hairs. In any case, you issued an order that you had no right to issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- And again I see no one ordering other people to not upload pictures. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 19:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal attack.... I felt I was being attacked as I had posted two images, one to cat, and the other to depth of field. After one mod removing the image from cat, they then proceeded to follow me to depth of field and remove that too, I can understand the cat article to an extent but I think the depth of field is a perfectly resonable image to use. I resent being followed around, and then just because someone with more power doesn't like it, decides to get me blocked for 12 hours. I class that as an attack. Thank you.Jamesington (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC) Jamesington
- The only issue with the depth-of-field picture is that it had already been illustrated, so it didn't add any new information. However, the other editor calling the other picture "stupid" was a personal attack, whether he sees it that way or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the current picture (the one of a child) does not illustrate well enough. It is also is badly lit. As i have previously mentioned, my picture shows other objects that are still recognisable as points of reference. I think the picture should be in there. That other picture hurts my eyes, it also looks like it has been edited, and a blurring tool has been clicked once over the back many times. Can things not be replaced here? Jamesington (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC) jamesington
- I don’t see a problem with replacing an image in Depth of field (we have some that need replacing or removal), but is it asking too much to request that a brief case be made for doing so rather than edit warring? I agree that some of the edit summaries for the reverts were a bit cryptic (and perhaps confrontational), but some of your summaries were no different. Again, I would suggest raising the issue on Talk:Depth of field. JeffConrad (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Depth of field is now full-protected for 3 days. However, I think I should be kicking myself right now for not blocking instead, but seeing that Jamesington already got a block, if I block everyone except him, then that would not be fair. –MuZemike 21:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- You could give the edit warriors that same 12 hours apiece. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Problem is that I would have to block Jamesington a second time, which I don't think it's fair for him, having coming off a block already. –MuZemike 22:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, he already got blocked for the edit war. You could block the Gang of 4 for that same edit war, where they were fighting against a free image and taking shots at its uploader. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Problem is that I would have to block Jamesington a second time, which I don't think it's fair for him, having coming off a block already. –MuZemike 22:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
(Moved from my talk page, User talk:MuZemike I appreciate your effort to avoid an edit war, but is it really necessary to protect the page because of one disruptive editor? I think a glance at User:Jamesington’s Talk page and edit comments makes pretty clear where the problem lies—this editor insists on making non-consensus edits but refuses to discuss them. I inadvertently contributed to the appearance of an edit war by reverting MarnetteD without checking the edit history carefully enough; some of the edit messages could have been better, but at least the reverts (save the one I botched) of the image replacement were good-faith attempts to protect the article, and most asked Jamesington to discuss the issue. It’s tough to deal with an editor who refuses to discuss a dispute. JeffConrad (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Especially given the hypocrisy of the Gang of 4, who targeted that one image while doing nothing about equally useless images that still weigh down the article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hate to play Devil's Advocate, but what is this, Communist China? The Great Wikipedian Cultural Revolution? –MuZemike 23:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd just like to know why they targeted that one image. It's not the greatest image, but it's not the worst either, and there are several on that slugglishly-loading page that are just as "useless" and need to be removed. Oh, but the page is protected, gee, I forgot. And what are the odds anyone will bother deleting the other junk images on that page once the protected expires? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- In Depth of field, the principal contributors agreed long ago that we had far too many images, and even deleted some images that we had. This article still seems to attract too many images, especially soft-focus, and if we just kept them all we’d have nothing but an image gallery (and not necessarily a good one). I concede that we may have gotten a bit lax on weeding out (I agree about the image of the child, and perhaps a few others as well), but sometimes playing cop gets frustrating. In my opinion, the current cat image is superior, mainly because of the lighting; accordingly, the case for replacing it should be made. I think the sluggish load is due as much to the article’s length as to the number of images, and yes, I agree that some trimming is in order. But the caustic comments here are not helpful. JeffConrad (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's the cat article that's the problem. The mass of images is causing the page to load like a snail stuck in traffic. And deleting one image did not fix that. Delete about half of them, and it might help. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- In Depth of field, the principal contributors agreed long ago that we had far too many images, and even deleted some images that we had. This article still seems to attract too many images, especially soft-focus, and if we just kept them all we’d have nothing but an image gallery (and not necessarily a good one). I concede that we may have gotten a bit lax on weeding out (I agree about the image of the child, and perhaps a few others as well), but sometimes playing cop gets frustrating. In my opinion, the current cat image is superior, mainly because of the lighting; accordingly, the case for replacing it should be made. I think the sluggish load is due as much to the article’s length as to the number of images, and yes, I agree that some trimming is in order. But the caustic comments here are not helpful. JeffConrad (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'd just like to know why they targeted that one image. It's not the greatest image, but it's not the worst either, and there are several on that slugglishly-loading page that are just as "useless" and need to be removed. Oh, but the page is protected, gee, I forgot. And what are the odds anyone will bother deleting the other junk images on that page once the protected expires? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hate to play Devil's Advocate, but what is this, Communist China? The Great Wikipedian Cultural Revolution? –MuZemike 23:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- You could always try getting that ball rolling on the article talk page. If you can peel yourself away from ANI for thirty seconds, that is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're funny. Anyway, I've done as you suggested. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hey fellow members of the Gang of 4; who is our next target for persecution? It needs to be really arbitrary, and reek of deletionism. Hit me up on the #CABAL channel. Jeesh. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure there are thousands of other free photos you could attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- You could always try getting that ball rolling on the article talk page. If you can peel yourself away from ANI for thirty seconds, that is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- The cat talk page is accumulating suggestions on improvements. There's no harm leaving the protection in place until it expires on Sunday. By then there should be pretty good consensus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I’ve made a few comments on Talk:Depth of field about how we might better manage that article’s image collection, and ask anyone else who is interested to add his or her thoughts. JeffConrad (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And now for the trouts
- WHACK!! for Jamesington. After being reverted the first time, your next port of call should have been the article's talk page. It's BRD, not "BRBRBRBRBR"
- WHACK!! for Tbhotch for undoing the first edit without using an edit summary.
- WHACK!! for Tbhotch for failing to AGF by throwing around the words "disruptive" and "stupid cat" in edit summaries.
- WHACK!! for Jamesington for failing to AGF by using the term "wikipedia police" when reverting the only editor with a good explanation in his edit summary for his actions.
- Summary. I generally agree that the Cat article probably has too many pictures and the ones used should be relevant to the text. A picture of a cat yawning might be relevant to "cat behavior" but that's stretching things a bit. However, that's an issue that should have been discussed on the article's talk page not in the edit summaries of an edit war. Jamesington, I would advise you to continue discussing this issue on the article's talk page and don't restore the yawning cat picture to the article unless there's a consensus for it and be willing to accept the possibility that the answer may be "no". Tbotch, I would be pissed too if my good faith attempts to improve an article were being described as "disruptive". It was just a picture of a yawning cat for deity's sake. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
How about a whack to Baseball Bugs for the repeated attacks on his bugaboo, "deletionists"? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Be sure to keep that fish contained within a sock. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- What are you trying to say? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Content from Ibn Ishaq being deleted by User:wiqi55, skewed article, fear of sources being abused
Note: The information i mentioned below may no longer make sense or be representative, as both me and the user i am in dispute with have made new edits to the article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Concern about ibn Ishaq
- Ibn Ishaq was the person who wrote the earliest surviving biography (sira) of Muhammad, it survives in the work of other authors. According to this , recently Muslim Apologists have been trying to defend the content of the sira or sometimes deny it.
- The article on ibn ishaq only has a criticism section, and i found it very biased against him.
- I added a "praise" section, but recently it has been removed by wiqi55, with excuses such as:
- the praise needs to be an argument ,
- my edit is misleading because he knows something not mentioned in article . Like for example, i mentioned here that, according to Ibn Khallikan , the scholar Az-Zuhri said: "Whoever wishes to know the (history of the Muslim conquests) let him take Ibn Ishak for guide", he says that, "most of your edits should be reverted. First, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri have praised Ibn Ishaq while he was one of his students, i.e., at a very young age. This is not representative of any of his much later works". so my edit should be reverted because its misleading. i told him that "If what your saying is true, how hard is it to give proof for it". Even if he is correct, does this justifying removing the praise section, as it is still praise?
- "Your praise section is poor quality"
- "Removed section full of WP:OR statements; some of it is not even praise. Also the Zuhri praise is now redundant. , so to address his problem that its not really "praise", i changed the title of the praise section to "Positive views of Ibn Ishaq".
- "It doesn't because your translation is not reliable. Besides, you know nothing of Hadith studies so why are you writing about the subject? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Concern about misusing sources
I also fear that the user wiqi55 is becoming the next jagged85 , i would like someone to investigate his sources, he has been using the Encylopedia of Islam as a source, which i dont have access to, but he somehow does. I asked him here, how he knows what his source is saying, as he used it in many articles. He did not give me an answer, instead he said in his talk page "Besides, you lack any knowledge in Hadith studies, and you lack access to essential sources like EI2" , by EI2 , he means Encyclopaedia of Islam . I cant verify any of the information he added because he used that source ! Is there something on wikipedia i dont know about, i.e that a select group of wiki users have access to the Encyclopaedia of Islam? as it is not available online free --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Accusations by other users against him
here , he has been accused of falsifying quotes about Ibn Ishaq, using false quotes to justify his belief that Ibn Ishaq is discredited by the majority of muslims. He then later removed biased information from the Ibn Ishaq article --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Now I know why people remove stuff from their talk pages. This issue wasn't about Ibn Ishaq in any way, see [[55]]. My intervention there was per WP:BITE and WP:OR (someone was selectively quoting a primary source without secondary sources -- the problem is still there). It was partially resolved in the talk page. Wiqi(55) 15:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments
First, I reverted your edits per WP:NOR.[56] You have since removed some of your original research, like this one [57], which made things a bit better. But you still left a quote with wikified links, which is not allowed. Second, as I explained to you with my first revert [58], this is NOT an issue of positive or negative views, this is a matter of reverting poor-quality original research. I've already explained some of my concerns in my talk page. You have quoted a translation that was produced in 1843 (very old primary source), and it does not match the original Arabic version I have, nor the views summarized in EI2. Then you started claiming that one section contradicts the other (even though it only contradicts your own misinterpretation of the text). I think you should not quote and use your own interpretations of medieval texts. I have given you valid reasons to improve what you're adding to the article, but you then started threatening me with coming to ANI. You seem to be eager to come here for some reason. And BTW, I recently re-wrote Prophetic biography, so even the sentences you're quoting about "Muslims and apologetics"; I actually wrote that one. :) That said, please stick to WP:NOR, and write about what you know, using secondary sources. Speaking of which, try to represent all views, as I've seen many of your "battle" articles and they all deserve an NPOV tag (for example, Talk:Demolition_of_Masjid_al-Dirar). You keep hiding and misrepresenting information all the time. It's funny that you're now accusing others of doing it. So we have a clear reason for revert here: WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. Plus this user has a history of POV editing. Wiqi(55) 14:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- You have not answered my concerns:
- Will you again remove the praise/positive views section, because of the reasons i mentioned here. Or will you keep it.
- Second, about the Encyclopaedia of Islam source, you still have not answered how you have access to it and know what it says, to be able to use it on wikipedia. I am suspicious that you are misusing the sources, like Jagged85, who had been adding FAKE positive content to Islam or Muslim related articles, and had been using sources which few people had access to, it was until later that people realised he was adding garbage to Wikipedia (i see parallels between him and you, using sources few people or no one has access to)
- As for your accusation of my articles being un-neutral, each time people accused me of making an un-neutral article, i at least addressed their concerns (like the Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar article). It is expected that controversial articles which mention that Muhammad ordered burning of mosques or killing of enemies, will be labelled un-neutral, especially by muslims who view Muhammad highly and the many apologists on this website, and especially when their are many different views on the subject. like the ibn ishaq article--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think another issue here is that you refuse to admit that there are alternate positive views on ibn ishaq, you probably think all muslims view ibn ishaq as untrustworthy, which is what you said here , for this belief (which is almost like a religious belief), you will not accept a praise section in that article, only criticism? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- What's so hard about you following WP:NOR and citing secondary sources? If you're going to add the opinions of experts and secondary sources then go ahead (as I have explained to you many times). But if you insist on randomly quoting medieval texts (despite your lack knowledge of the subject) then it will be deleted (per WP:NOR). BTW, I have also deleted negative views of Ibn Ishaq where it did not seem notable enough for me to mention them without the necessary details. See, for example, [59]. In any case, you're currently filling many "battle articles" with your own interpretations of medieval texts and selective citing of secondary sources. You seem to be admitting now that most of your edits are inadvertently misusing sources (i.e. biased), that is, until someone notices (as you admit). These are bad editing practices. And, yes, I do have access to all the sources I cite. Your accusations are baseless. Wiqi(55) 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, please stop switching the topic, you will find in almost all the battles articles i cited muslims sources such as the Sealed Nectar. now you are saying that the source "Translation of Ibn Khallkan" i added was a primary source? how is it a primary source? ok, let say it was a primary source, the sources you used are secondary sources, and they contradict the so called "primary source", so now which is more reliable, doesnt that call into question your secondary source? one source must be telling a lie, otherwise you must have abused the source you used. I also see the Ibn Khalikan source i used as a secondary source, as it cites earlier scholars --Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your battle articles are relevant knowing that you were once accused of removing/hiding Ibn ishaq name from your articles.[60] So it is obvious why I feel suspicious about you editing Ibn Ishaq. Also, most of these battle articles need to be rewritten with each piece of information referenced to the earliest source where it is found, not some modern sira books. And your source is a primary source in the sense that you do not know whether this 168-year-old translation is reliable or not; you don't know whether these scholars are referring to his hadith or sira (most likely hadith and NOT sira); you don't know whether the "trustworthy" is being used normally or part of a technical hadith terminology; you don't know whether his trustworthiness is conditioned or not; you don't know whether they are referring to him when he was young or not (like Zuhri); you don't know whether their views are actually their views or just Ibn Khalkaan's own interpretation/whitewashing; more importantly, you don't how to integrate their views with what is mentioned in the criticism section, etc. There are many more similar arguments. But it should be clear that you need better sources. Wiqi(55) 21:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- The person has said in his talk page that he made a mistake when he accused me of removing the ibn ishaq source, here . You really dont want a praise section for the ibn ishaq article, this is the issue, do you think that article would be balanced with only a criticism section!
- Re Encyclopaedia of Islam - a source does not have to be freely available online to be a verifiable source. Many many scholarly works are not available online - or not available online other than at some expense or of you belong to an academic institution. You only need to get to a decent library to check the use of this book. EI3 is now available online and has been published as a book so it is quite wrong to suggest this is a source few people have access to. Fainites barleyscribs 20:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- My concern was how and if wiqi55 had access to EI to to able to use it on wiki, as i also wanted access to EI to verify his edits (i feared he did not have access to it and was just adding garbage to wikipedia without caring what the source says, like jagged85 had done before. P.S can you tell me where i can get access to EI3 or EI2 other than a library). Back to the topic. the ibn ishaq article has several problems, it has 2 contradictory sections and another problem is wiqi55 has been removing the "praise" section i added to balance the article ( i now renamed that section "positive views on ibn ishaq"), what is your view on this--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Wiqi55, I am still very curious to know as to how you have access to EI2, a $1000 book (are you part of an academy), did you buy it? you still have not answered that question, and i am only asking so to make sure you are not repeating what jagged85 did--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Misconception - this is absurd. There are second hand copies on Amazon for less than £100. Not chicken feed but not 1,000 dollars! If you think Wiqi55 is misquotong a book - go and look at the book. To come to ANI accusing another editor of misquoting a source and adding garbage on the grounds that you don't have access to the book is a gross breach of WP:NPA. Go and do your homework.Fainites barleyscribs 22:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, i apoligize if i sounded rude. But i would like my main concern looked at, that wiqi55 has been removing the praise/positive views on Ibn Ishaq. Is he right to do this and keep only a criticism section? --Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- That is a "non-apology". I would like to be satisfied that you understand why you can't accuse other editors of misquoting major secondary sources simply because you don't have online access to it. It is a serious allegation, particulalry as you suggest more than once that he is another Jagged 85, a user who systematically falsfied sources over multiple articles. My understanding of the concerns from the talkpage is that you are using old primary sources selectively rather than modern secondary sources to which you do not appear to have access. Fainites barleyscribs 22:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
ermmmm...actually you should check yourself (i have used both)...and there isnt serveral primary sources, only 1 or 2. Anyway. I think i have addressed wiqi55 reasons for removing content from that article and have now added more secondary sources.
Again, my apologies for accusing wiqi55 of being another jagged85.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment): The same excuse was used before here, stating "I can not verify the soruce you added about jihadism and gallup, some days ago. i also very much doubt it mentions ANYTHING, about offensive jihad". Just for info that it's not new... ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please see the talk page of the Offensive Jihad article, user has been accused of twisting the lede to suite his own views, his edit that he mentions has already been reverted by doc tropics --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the apology Misconceptions2. Now ... if you want to challenge the use of a source in future, you need the source, or find another editor who has got the source and ask them to look it up. If there are issues about the interpretation or quality of sources - go to WP:RSN. If you come to ANI with unsubstantiated allegations you should consider WP:BOOMERANG first.Fainites barleyscribs 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
A user is hounding my edits, reverting them, and harassing me
After having a disagreement over the discography section of the AC/DC page[61], User:Bretonbanquet has consistently been reverting minor uncontroversial edits in the article's intro section.[62]. I think it is clear that he is harassing me over our previous disagreement, and if anyone else made such edits there would be no problems.Hoponpop69 (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Relative 3RR NB post is archived here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to User:Off2riorob for notifying me of this, since Hoponpop69 didn't think it was necessary, apparently. I refute any accusation of "cyberstalking". Firstly, the disagreement we had over the AC/DC discography - Hoponpop69 removed an album from the discography that had been there for over 8 years, and I objected. After a bit of reverting, I started the discussion that he should have started, during which several editors disagreed with him. He called me and other editors foolish,[63] dense and lacking in intellect.[64] That discussion resulted in the album being reinstated to the discography, an action which was undertaken by other editors. Therefore I have no problem whatsoever with him over this, since his problematic edit was nullified via the proper channels.
- The other issue of the intro section is a similar thing. He removed some information from the intro section which he believed was unnecessary.[65] I disagreed,[66], but he reverted back. Another editor reverted Hoponpop69 [67], only for Hoponpop69 to revert again, and there was some further minor edit-warring. Hoponpop69 has openly admitted that he refuses to discuss this,[68] and ignored my attempts on his talk page to discuss the issue in the proper way. The article is now protected, and I asked again for a discussion over the edit he made,[69] which he has construed as harassment.[70] This is a featured article, and changes which anyone disagrees with should be discussed. I have not encountered Hoponpop69 on any other article anywhere else, and have never reverted him over any matter outside these two I have mentioned. So where is this cyberstalking? He made two edits I disagreed with, which apparently constitutes harassment. He has made other edits to AC/DC that I have no problem with. He seems to think that because he believes an edit to be uncontroversial and "common sense", then everyone else should too, and requests for discussion are nothing but harassment. This is a waste of everyone's time. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- (involved in the now-resolved discography issue) I agree with Bretonbanquet that there is no stalking here. Recommend closure of thread since there is no action to be taken.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Having been involved in the relevant discussion concerning the article in question, I can vouch for this not being a personal issue. It spans a grand total of one article, and has been limited simply to the restoration of content that's being removed, not to complete disregard for any edits. GRAPPLE X 11:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- (involved in the now-resolved discography issue) I agree with Bretonbanquet that there is no stalking here. Recommend closure of thread since there is no action to be taken.
- Fixed title; the term stalking should be used with caution as there are other connotations (which is why it is no longer used in policy. I've modified "cyberstalking" to "hounding" for clarity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- For further clarity, I refute any notion of hounding as well, as explained above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Arbcom e-mail leaks
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In relation to the hacked Arbcom emails, which are being discussed by Arbcom on a public page any of you can access. I won't say any more than that, you can go read about it yourself. This is about a personal attack made against me by Arbitrator Iridescent, in relation to a discussion about an Arbcom case. The statement by Iridescent is as follows,
If SS tries to play the "martyr to Arbcom" act, he's in for a rude shock. Giano, Malleus, even Kelly Martin can get away with it because they genuinely do have the history of high quality positive achievements to point to, and can legitimately argue that they bring far more to the table than they take. SS's main contribution appears to be annoying a lot of people with "information has a right to be free" posturing at various Wikileaks-related pages, and having an edit history (spike–one year gap—spike–two year gap–spike) that's pretty much a textbook example of a sockmaster having their primary account banned and reverting to their old identity, and it's a safe bet that Slim and Jayjg won't be shy in pointing that out.
— Iridescent, Arbitration Committee, April 6, 2011
I'm not even going to comment on the contributions comment, beyond saying that i'm sorry my 51 articles, 27 DYKs, GA, and 12000+ edits aren't good enough for you. No, the more major issue is the calling me a "textbook example of a sockmaster". I have already previously explained these year long absences in more congenial terms to others, with the first (2007-2008) being because I was a sophomore in high school and lost interest in Wikipedia. The second period (ish-2009) was because I was disowned by my parents and didn't have a computer. Is it common to call someone who's gone for a year or so a sockmaster? Is that just common practice, because I must not have run across it yet if it is. SilverserenC 21:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why is this here? Did you try to talk to Iridescent about this before coming to AN/I? 28bytes (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think a personal attack of calling someone a textbook example of a sockmaster requires much talking with. Regardless, I can't talk with him (?) because of the hacking. Iridescent seems to have shut down all Arbcom connection. I'm not sure if that means they're still editing Wikipedia in the interim, I haven't heard any mention of it. Really, this is for any Arbcom member to respond to, because it's clear that they all agreed with it, since no one refuted the statement. SilverserenC 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that your edit history was compared to a sockmaster's modus operandi. If my edit history was compared to a sockmaster's I'm sure I wouldn't be flattered; however, since I'm not a sockmaster it wouldn't mean much to me. Tiderolls 22:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that anyone who doesn't edit for a year's time can be called a sockmaster, since that somehow is the standard modus operandi of one? SilverserenC 22:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- SS I notified User:Iridescent for you - User talk:Iridescent#FYI - ANI it says at the top to do it.... Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- True, sorry, I always seem to forget that. SilverserenC 22:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- It really does seem to be an issue you should primarily discuss with the user. Also at the next Arbcom election. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- True, sorry, I always seem to forget that. SilverserenC 22:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- SS I notified User:Iridescent for you - User talk:Iridescent#FYI - ANI it says at the top to do it.... Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, you're saying that anyone who doesn't edit for a year's time can be called a sockmaster, since that somehow is the standard modus operandi of one? SilverserenC 22:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that your edit history was compared to a sockmaster's modus operandi. If my edit history was compared to a sockmaster's I'm sure I wouldn't be flattered; however, since I'm not a sockmaster it wouldn't mean much to me. Tiderolls 22:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think a personal attack of calling someone a textbook example of a sockmaster requires much talking with. Regardless, I can't talk with him (?) because of the hacking. Iridescent seems to have shut down all Arbcom connection. I'm not sure if that means they're still editing Wikipedia in the interim, I haven't heard any mention of it. Really, this is for any Arbcom member to respond to, because it's clear that they all agreed with it, since no one refuted the statement. SilverserenC 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The publication of hacked-into e-mails from the mailing list is going to demonstrate that the arbitrators (like anyone else) sometimes say things to an audience of 17 colleagues that we might not say in the same way on-wiki or in another public forum. As a result of the hack, I fear that some people's feelings are going to be hurt. I for one apologize to anyone whose feelings might wind up being hurt as the result of anything that I might have said there without anticipating that it could be publicized (I do not always use Bradspeak on mailing lists).
To state the blatantly obvious, this is not a situation that any of us wanted. Methods of preventing a potential recurrence are being reviewed; there is some related discussion on the ArbCom noticeboard.
The amount of e-mail we receive(d) from Arbcom-l each day is massive, and probably no arbitrator has time to read every word of it. Certainly, no arbitrator has time to respond to every comment that he or she might disagree with. The fact that no one responded to a particular comment doesn't necessarily mean that everyone agreed with it, or that anyone agreed with it, or that anyone thought hard about it. Please don't jump to any such conclusion.
If you have a concern about Iridescent's opinion of you, I would ordinarily suggest that you raise the issue with Iridescent. But please, not now, and not anytime soon. With everything else that's going on right now, a much better idea would be to simply drop the matter, at least for the foreseeable future.
In any event, I fear that there is nothing much useful that can come of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- But I think most people expect the Arbitration Committee to act properly, even in their private communications about cases, if not especially so there. This doesn't meant that we expect you to employ Bradspeak in your private conversations, but we do expect you to not berate and belittle users in comments to each other. SilverserenC 22:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sure we all have a lot of sympathy for Iridescent, but we should also have some sympathy for Silver seren, who presumably wasn't expecting to be informed of this opinion about him by it being broadcasted all over the place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- If as is being discussed/threatened off wiki a full dump of all the arbcom archives is posted this thread will likely be just the beginning. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Advising on the proper place would be more helpful. You still haven't responded to my question on your talk page. SilverserenC 22:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Silver seren, you can discuss this with Iridescent at some point if you wish, if he's willing, but he's certainly not available to be poked about this now, and I am telling you the best thing (including for yourself) would be to drop the issue rather than publicize it further. Meanwhile, if Iridescent isn't available or willing to speak to you about this right now, no one else can do anything about it, and no other remedy is available to you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- True, though I suppose it's best to ask in advance. Is there more stuff like this in your discussions? I don't mean about me specifically, but comments between Arbcom that can easily be seen to be personally attacks against users. Is more of this stuff going to start popping up? SilverserenC 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Silver seren: Remarks made off-wiki are not our business, not least when disclosed by the violation of copyright and confidentiality. If you think Iridecent has a misguided view of you, perhaps you could take this up privately with her after the e-mail hacking issue is resolved, but this is probably not the community's concern. AGK [•] 22:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't consider the Arbcom mailing list to be off-wiki. It's a system that was specifically set up for Arbcom in order for them to deliberate about on-wiki cases. Therefore, it is inextricably linked to the wiki itself and is not considered off-wiki like a random other forum would be. Furthermore, I don't think there's copyright involved with the mailing list, but confidentiality is something. However, broken confidentiality doesn't mean that comments made in private are suddenly not applicable. The arbitration committee, especially, is responsible for the comments they make, even on the mailing list, and if that includes extremely negative attacks against users, there is a problem. We didn't elect them to sit around and discuss which users they hate and who they think is crazy. SilverserenC 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Silver seren: Remarks made off-wiki are not our business, not least when disclosed by the violation of copyright and confidentiality. If you think Iridecent has a misguided view of you, perhaps you could take this up privately with her after the e-mail hacking issue is resolved, but this is probably not the community's concern. AGK [•] 22:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- True, though I suppose it's best to ask in advance. Is there more stuff like this in your discussions? I don't mean about me specifically, but comments between Arbcom that can easily be seen to be personally attacks against users. Is more of this stuff going to start popping up? SilverserenC 22:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Silver seren, you can discuss this with Iridescent at some point if you wish, if he's willing, but he's certainly not available to be poked about this now, and I am telling you the best thing (including for yourself) would be to drop the issue rather than publicize it further. Meanwhile, if Iridescent isn't available or willing to speak to you about this right now, no one else can do anything about it, and no other remedy is available to you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- As a community member, I am concerned about it, but I suggest it be left until such a time as Iridescent is contactable and things are calmer.
As far as I understand, Silverseren is of roughly the same view, so we are about done here.I have no idea what made me interpret the above comments like that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)- Agreed, and I will wait until Iridescent is contactable again. However, I don't want people to think that Arbcom can make accusations like this and, so long as it is on their secret mailing list, it's okay. It's completely improper and not what we elected them to do. SilverserenC 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- As a community member, I am concerned about it, but I suggest it be left until such a time as Iridescent is contactable and things are calmer.
- Silver, as one who was there at the time, I can confirm that it wasn't "Arbcom" who made this accusation. It was one individual who expressed an opinion, and it was never followed up by any action from Arbcom. If more of this stuff comes out, I'm sure it does contain remarks made by individuals about others. I know it contains my opinions on some editors (including you), and they weren't all complimentary. This is how organisations work, as you'll find as you go through the world of work. Usually the conversations are by the watercooler or in the Ladies, rather than by email, but I bet you'd be surprised by the content of your management team's emails. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then, if it's an individual's views, then they are still responsible for those views. And it doesn't matter where on Wikipedia you make comments like that, it's still not appropriate and the mailing list should definitely still be considered a part of Wikipedia, even if it isn't accessible by normal users. Furthermore, there's a difference between making a casual, slightly negative comment about a user and saying that a user has made no worthwhile contributions and is essentially a sockmaster. There's a huge difference. SilverserenC 00:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- See my comments above (in the box). Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- Silver, as one who was there at the time, I can confirm that it wasn't "Arbcom" who made this accusation. It was one individual who expressed an opinion, and it was never followed up by any action from Arbcom. If more of this stuff comes out, I'm sure it does contain remarks made by individuals about others. I know it contains my opinions on some editors (including you), and they weren't all complimentary. This is how organisations work, as you'll find as you go through the world of work. Usually the conversations are by the watercooler or in the Ladies, rather than by email, but I bet you'd be surprised by the content of your management team's emails. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a question, if ANI is not the appropriate venue for this discussion, what is? Silver seren is making what I consider a valid point regarding how discussions are conducted. I also see some security issues related to this, as email is not considered a secure vehicle for communications unless it is on a sealed server or encrypted, but it seems to me very important that everyone involved in WP follow the same guidelines for conduct regardless of their role. I hope I am not hearing an argument that what would be considered a personal attack on a talk page is ok on an email list used to conduct WP business. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not certain what it is that will make you feel listened to, SS. Does it suck? Sure. I can tell you that the arbs are stressed about this. We all say things in private that we wouldn't say publicly. But could I ask that we withhold issues with style and tone until this present crisis has calmed a little? We can deal with them later: that's why we have elections. But unless there's a remedy yo seek, this may not be the best time or place. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Philippe, I would also like to suggest that currently sitting arbitrators should not make condescending comments about editors slighted by this leak, publicly, like the comment made by Elen just now. I trust that you agree. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- ^ And what he said. SilverserenC 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Was it condescending. It wasn't meant to be, and I apologise. I do sympathise with Silver - it's never very nice to find out that people have been talking about you behind your back.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I've already stated that I will be taking this up with Iridescent when he becomes available again, I am only responding here to people that are trying to justify this as something that doesn't matter or doesn't apply. If what he said had been stated in a place that wasn't the Arbcom mailing list, there would certainly have been a big issue with it. And I don't think that the fact that it was stated just on the mailing list makes it any less important or relevant. I really think Arbcom needs to work at what they say within their mailing list. It isn't meant for the sort of conversations that give rise to comments like this, it is specifically meant for discussions about Arbcom cases. SilverserenC 00:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Philippe, I would also like to suggest that currently sitting arbitrators should not make condescending comments about editors slighted by this leak, publicly, like the comment made by Elen just now. I trust that you agree. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not certain what it is that will make you feel listened to, SS. Does it suck? Sure. I can tell you that the arbs are stressed about this. We all say things in private that we wouldn't say publicly. But could I ask that we withhold issues with style and tone until this present crisis has calmed a little? We can deal with them later: that's why we have elections. But unless there's a remedy yo seek, this may not be the best time or place. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm thinking I must be in the minority here, but I don't see an issue here. These were private conversations that were intended to remain private. That someone leaked them is incidental. Does it paint people in the best of lights? No. Is it actionable? No. We should not penalize people for speaking their minds in private. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Again, in private would mean in an actual personal email conversation not involving Wikipedia or its site at all. If this had just been something that had truly been gotten from off-wiki, then I wouldn't be making as big of a deal of it. The issue is that these sorts of conversations are taking place in a mailing list that, while private, still constitutes on-wiki and is meant to be used for official communication in terms of Arbcom cases. It is not meant for this kind of stuff and I worry what other things have been said by Arbcom members in their mailing list. SilverserenC 00:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Which is precisely why these things shouldn't be made public. What you don't know won't hurt you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Silver, I am sympathetic that some private comments have been made public and caused you upset and embarassment. It's never very nice to find out that someone has been talking about you 'behind your back'. However, I think you are being unrealistic over what Arbcom is, and not taking account of how groups of people actually work collaboratively. In terms of security, it would have been better to have a separate location for the 'I am sending you personal information', 'we are formally discussing this motion', then it would have been clearer that most of the rest of the traffic is personal opinion. It's bound to be if you think about it - most of the 'incidents' on Wikipedia come down to personalities and differences of opinion. The mailing list is meant for "this kind of stuff", because it's how most things actually get done. And yes it includes an element of sarky personal comment. I'll put my hands up and say I'm probably the worst offender - I'm very blunt, and I say very rude things in private. My boss would verify that. She would also verify that I don't say the same things to the people involved, in fact I'm usually quite good at getting people to work with me, even if I've railed off about them privately. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, or if you think it is condescending, or if I've failed to meet some standard, but it's how people work. People have private opinions, which in some cases they keep separate from how they deal with the matter publically, and finding that out is the rather unpleasant experience you've just had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's called "venting", and everyone does it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Silver, I am sympathetic that some private comments have been made public and caused you upset and embarassment. It's never very nice to find out that someone has been talking about you 'behind your back'. However, I think you are being unrealistic over what Arbcom is, and not taking account of how groups of people actually work collaboratively. In terms of security, it would have been better to have a separate location for the 'I am sending you personal information', 'we are formally discussing this motion', then it would have been clearer that most of the rest of the traffic is personal opinion. It's bound to be if you think about it - most of the 'incidents' on Wikipedia come down to personalities and differences of opinion. The mailing list is meant for "this kind of stuff", because it's how most things actually get done. And yes it includes an element of sarky personal comment. I'll put my hands up and say I'm probably the worst offender - I'm very blunt, and I say very rude things in private. My boss would verify that. She would also verify that I don't say the same things to the people involved, in fact I'm usually quite good at getting people to work with me, even if I've railed off about them privately. I'm sorry if this disappoints you, or if you think it is condescending, or if I've failed to meet some standard, but it's how people work. People have private opinions, which in some cases they keep separate from how they deal with the matter publically, and finding that out is the rather unpleasant experience you've just had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Elen, that's not an acceptable response. The ArbCom has retained archives for years that contain damaging information. No security system can be devised that will keep these archives safe, so they ought not to exist. Arbs are not speaking in private when using a Foundation mailing list; speaking to 18 or so people; and performing tasks they were elected to perform. It's unacceptable to be snarky and contemptuous of the people who elected you, and worse when they have no idea you're doing it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The comments are more troubling not because they are negative but because they suggest editors are judged by their contributions or reputations not only on the merits, that Arbitrators anticipate drama, that they justify venting about editors they don't like and do so not in polite or restrained terms... in short, that they don't assume good faith. Elen, I'm particularly concerned by the attitude that this stuff is normal. Have we as a community ever aspired to be just like the conventional office most of us hate or dread and come here to avoid? I presume not, and it's partly because the office politics are absent from much of the site, though they may percolate up more frequently to your domain. SilverSeren is a decent editor and though he gets himself in all kinds of trouble by being honest (ironically), he does so with good intentions, even when he goofs up. SS, I implore you to hang around long enough to make 12,000 more edits... Ocaasi t | c 03:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is everything that you say in private, suitable for public consumption? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does anything I say in private have an impact on the Arbcom members' perception of a certain community member? Does anything I say in private influence the decisions of Wikipedia's most important mediation body? You're question is silly since it compared apples to oranges. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, is it your view that there should be no such thing as a private communication? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- As a community site, and concerning elected representatives entrusted with the most sensitive issues, this example is not a good test case for 'any private conversation'. Also, mailing lists are fairly un-private by design, and the comments made therein are reflective of issues regardless of who sees them. Ocaasi t | c 04:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's why sensitive issues are usually not made public. However, if someone betrayed the trust of the arbcom and leaked private e-mails, then they've got a lot bigger problem than just some snippy comments made by a team member. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- As a community site, and concerning elected representatives entrusted with the most sensitive issues, this example is not a good test case for 'any private conversation'. Also, mailing lists are fairly un-private by design, and the comments made therein are reflective of issues regardless of who sees them. Ocaasi t | c 04:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, is it your view that there should be no such thing as a private communication? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does anything I say in private have an impact on the Arbcom members' perception of a certain community member? Does anything I say in private influence the decisions of Wikipedia's most important mediation body? You're question is silly since it compared apples to oranges. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is everything that you say in private, suitable for public consumption? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The comments are more troubling not because they are negative but because they suggest editors are judged by their contributions or reputations not only on the merits, that Arbitrators anticipate drama, that they justify venting about editors they don't like and do so not in polite or restrained terms... in short, that they don't assume good faith. Elen, I'm particularly concerned by the attitude that this stuff is normal. Have we as a community ever aspired to be just like the conventional office most of us hate or dread and come here to avoid? I presume not, and it's partly because the office politics are absent from much of the site, though they may percolate up more frequently to your domain. SilverSeren is a decent editor and though he gets himself in all kinds of trouble by being honest (ironically), he does so with good intentions, even when he goofs up. SS, I implore you to hang around long enough to make 12,000 more edits... Ocaasi t | c 03:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
News flash SS, you really are incredibly difficult to deal with. Iridescent is not, by far, the only one that makes negative comments about you in private. If your negative reputation bothers you, suck it up and deal with it or change your behavior. Just about everyone here sympathies that this ugliness has affected you, but just as many people are sympathetic for Iridescent and the Arbs, whose private comments have been made public. No matter how much you continue to whine here, nothing is going to come of it, so stop it already. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- No offense to anyone here, but no admin is going to take any action here, and the Community isn't likely to come to any agreement on anything when there are more questions than answers. If anything, it's going to end up with more people throwing mud at each other. Although people find this frustrating/enjoyable, moving the discussion here isn't going to accomplish much (and it doesn't seem appropriate given the purpose of this noticeboard). So without ruling anything out and rather than prolonging this agony, maybe someone can extend the close and leave the thread as is, with any further discussion happening at the original thread until things are a little less turbulent and a little clearer? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I note SlimVirgin has reverted the closure by an uninvolved admin, despite the fact she is involved in this situation (the emails involve her directly and indirectly). Are there no other uninvolved admins? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't close the thread, Ncm, and I'm no more or less involved than anyone else. Everyone is "involved" when it comes to this. People need to talk about this somewhere, and there's no reason not to do it here if someone has opened a thread. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are a few threads at WT:AC and ANI is not the appropriate venue for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know which venue would be better. I agree that there's no point in discussing why individual Arbs said particular things about certain editors, because everyone's too panicked at the moment for that level of detail. But a central discussion about the nature of the exchanges about editors on that list—and how to prevent them in future—seems justified. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bearean Hunter is an user, he is uninvolved, and he also agreed that this is not helping. It appears Eagles247 agrees and he is an uninvolved user. You on the other hand are involved up to your eyeballs, with emails from you to Cirt and others being leaked, and comments about those emails also being published. You are the last person who should be either closing or reverting a closure of this thread. This is not an appropriate venue for furthering your grievances with ArbCom/WMF/etc; no admin or the Community is going to do anything here, and it frankly looks like forum-shopping. As it is, the rest of site is functioning and uses this noticeboard for the purposes it was designed for; using it as your complaints department was not one of them. Can you please clarify whether you will adhere to the basic expectations of a sysop, and avoid disrupting this venue which is needed for other matters (seeing the rest of the site is still functioning)? Or do you need to be dealt with through other means? Please restore the close that you inappropriately reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know which venue would be better. I agree that there's no point in discussing why individual Arbs said particular things about certain editors, because everyone's too panicked at the moment for that level of detail. But a central discussion about the nature of the exchanges about editors on that list—and how to prevent them in future—seems justified. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are a few threads at WT:AC and ANI is not the appropriate venue for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't close the thread, Ncm, and I'm no more or less involved than anyone else. Everyone is "involved" when it comes to this. People need to talk about this somewhere, and there's no reason not to do it here if someone has opened a thread. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop using edit summaries to attack me. It's simply not true that I'm more involved than anyone else here, and anyway "involvement" is not an issue when it comes to keeping a thread open. The point is, if people want to discuss it, please let them. If they don't, the thread will be archived soon enough. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
What to do? Uncooperative editor, genre warring
I'm asking you all, since I'm a bit involved by now. The case is this: User:BuddyOfHolly doesn't really like our WP:RS policy (see Talk:Old Home Town) and has been edit-warring to prove some point about some album being RnB and not Country (this is obviously a matter of great importance). Thing is, they removed sourced information (that the talk page indicates they don't care for), here for instance. I reverted and left them a note on their talk page (see the history, and see the user's user page, "Note to other users: Your messages on My talk page will be deleted."--it's that kind of spirit). They've left me a message which is pretty clear: they don't care. (See also my post on their talk page, which provided select examples of declarations of war etc. from their contributions.)
All of this is fine and dandy, but when I looked through the user's contributions, I saw a slew of edits to Glen Campbell albums, and in all the ones I looked at they changed "Country" to some other genre. I can revert. I can leave genre warring templates. I can roll back. But what's the point if they don't care? I'm involved with this editor (so I won't block them, though they're practically asking for it) and, frankly, tired of dealing with yet another case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT/IDONTCARE. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm through with the editwar. If I "don't care," why should I care what an open-source webpage has to say? Bye.--BuddyOfHolly (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)He can delete almost anything he wants from his talk page, so I doubt there's a rule against announcing it. I selected one album at random, Glen Campbell Live (1969 album), where he changed it from Country to Folk. I don't know if it qualifies as Folk, but there is almost no trace of Country in the playlist. So I think this user (who's been around for over 2 1/2 years) isn't necessarily wrong in his work, but maybe he bears watching. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- About blanking one's own talk page. Yes the rules say you can but just because you can do a thing it doesn't mean you should do a thing. To constantly blank your talk page and/or put up a message saying that all messages will be removed is the same as saying "I'm going to do what the hell I want to do and if you don't like it you can go piss up a rope". Furthermore, such declarations will discourage anybody from trying to discuss anything with you at all and they'll just take their concerns about your actions straight here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- ...Where the complainant will be reminded, as countless other such complainants have been, that there is no rule against blanking your talk page, except for a very short list of exceptions, such as unblock notices while you're still blocked. No question the user is blunt, and looks to have been that way from day one. But this is ultimately a content issue. Glen Campbell is only a "country singer" by a rather broad definition of the term. Although as I pointed out below, the user in question does need better sourcing for his changes than his opinion of "what most Glen Campbell fans" think. But in that live album, for example, it was almost entirely folk, rock and pop covers. Only one or two could really be described as "country". So the individual changes need to be reviewed, rather than assuming up front that they're ill-informed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- About blanking one's own talk page. Yes the rules say you can but just because you can do a thing it doesn't mean you should do a thing. To constantly blank your talk page and/or put up a message saying that all messages will be removed is the same as saying "I'm going to do what the hell I want to do and if you don't like it you can go piss up a rope". Furthermore, such declarations will discourage anybody from trying to discuss anything with you at all and they'll just take their concerns about your actions straight here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say there's a rule against it. I'm indicating an uncooperative spirit. Now, this genre thing, there seems to be a policy now that any unverified or unexplained change counts as vandalism. I don't really subscribe to that myself, which is why I have left those edits alone and why I'm seeking community input. But the user has just proposed something on Talk:Old Home Town, and if they stop disrupting, I'm at peace, no matter how much of my eloquent prose they delete. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, I have no intention of editing anymore Glen Campbell genres; I have spoken to the main editor of such pages, Lumdeloo, and have assured him that I will no longer meddle with his pages' genres. I would like to see other sources besides allMusic and Charts, though... That's just me. Most Glen Campbell fans agree that he is not, indeed, a Country performer.--BuddyOfHolly (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is there a reliable source that reports What Most Glen Campbell Fans Agree Upon? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bugs, I have no intention of editing anymore Glen Campbell genres; I have spoken to the main editor of such pages, Lumdeloo, and have assured him that I will no longer meddle with his pages' genres. I would like to see other sources besides allMusic and Charts, though... That's just me. Most Glen Campbell fans agree that he is not, indeed, a Country performer.--BuddyOfHolly (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Although not strictly on topic, Buddy recently began removing large chunks of material from Glen Campbell. Although I usually find myself on the side of removing unsourced material from articles, the amount of material and the speed of the removals were disturbing. First, some of the material being removed, although it did not have inline sources, was sourced in some other way. For example, a statement that Campbell was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2005 was supported by an external link (I updated the external link, and Buddy reverted me). Personally, I prefer inline sources myself, but technically there's nothing wrong with an assertion being sourced in that manner. Second, some of the material was the kind that usually isn't sourced. For example, if you say an actor was in a film and the film is wikilinked, no one bothers putting in a source for that kind of fact. Here is the diff for how much material at one point was removed by Buddy: #1. Just before I signed off for the night yesterday, I reverted one of Buddy's removals with an edit summary that is uncharacteristic of me: #2. Fortunately, Drmies became involved after I stopped editing and helped slow Buddy down, but there's still a lot less material in the articled now than there was before he started - and there's been no discussion regarding the removals. Now I don't know if Buddy has anything against Campbell or if he's just an aggressive editor who believes in inline sources (the article has been tagged as lacking sources since March), but because of this genre discussion, I thought it worth bringing to everyone's attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
KevinOKeeffe
Due to this user's edits here & here, I've just blocked them as a possibly compromised account. Review is, as usual, welcome. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Your links don't seem to be functional. However, if we look at this diff, it definitely raises questions. The editor's contributions have overall been positive and constructive, with the glaring exception of that one unsourced edit. I'm not sure if it can be written off to an accidental stumble, or something more nefarious, but even assuming good faith, it makes me wonder. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- They're not functional as I deleted both pages per WP:CSD#G10 as attack pages... I should have mentioned it, sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you have assumed that this account may have been compromised. user:KevinOKeeffe has openly identified himself here as a member of the National Alliance, described by this article as "a pro-white, anti-racial mixing, anti-Jewish, anti-homosexual group", which is entirely in keeping with his general editing and the homophobic remarks left on the IP's take page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, since he seemed to be an established user, I assumed he should have known better than to write two egregious attack pages; that's why the first thing I could think of was a compromised account. If that's not the case, then the block can be tweaked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- IMO the creation of attack pages warrants a block, good edits elsewhere notwithstanding. This editor's been around long enough to know what to do, and more importantly, what not to do. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, since he seemed to be an established user, I assumed he should have known better than to write two egregious attack pages; that's why the first thing I could think of was a compromised account. If that's not the case, then the block can be tweaked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure why you have assumed that this account may have been compromised. user:KevinOKeeffe has openly identified himself here as a member of the National Alliance, described by this article as "a pro-white, anti-racial mixing, anti-Jewish, anti-homosexual group", which is entirely in keeping with his general editing and the homophobic remarks left on the IP's take page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- They're not functional as I deleted both pages per WP:CSD#G10 as attack pages... I should have mentioned it, sorry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Kevin has just replied on his talk page:
- I'm afraid my account wasn't compromised. I realize what I did was inappropriate and very foolish, but in my defense, I would simply wish to point out that this person has been harassing me all over the internet, for over four years. He's gone so far as to send an email to my wife, wherein he claimed to be my gay lover, in order to encourage her to divorce me, for example (and for the record, he and I have never met). I have been greatly provoked by this (mentally ill) individual, I believe its fair to say. When I saw that he'd created yet another Wikipedia account, which he was using for the sole purpose of harassing me (just like his last 3-4 accounts were so used), and just like he's been doing to me for the last nearly five years, at various websites all over the world wide web (all due to the fact he was banned at an online political discussion forum in early 2007, and inaccurately blames me for that event).
Within that context, which is not necessarily mitigating per se, but certainly does help to explain why I might have chosen to do something so otherwise out-of-character, I would like to request that my ban be lifted after a period of one month. I realize that I can't simply expect to receive no sanction for my extremely reckless and stupid behavior, but by the same token, it hardly seems to be in the best interests of Wikipedia for a constructive editor such as myself to be permanently banned, merely because of a single instance* of foolish behavior (and in response to a four-and-a-half-year long campaign of internet harassment by a person who belives that I am part of some paranoid conspiracy to destroy him...when all I have ever desired from that person is to never hear from him again).
- Since January of 2005 ie., six-and-a-half years of NOT misbehaving. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Opinions? Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- His motivation was understandable. His approach, however, was unacceptable. What would have happened in a perfect world was that Kevin would have approached an admin and asked for assistance as soon as he realized the other user may be WP:WIKIHOUNDING him. That said, perhaps now is the time to identify the other user (off this board) and examine their actions. Meanwhile, there's still the matter of the attack pages. In this non-admin's opinion, a finite block for those attack pages is still warranted. Sanctions against the other user, if any, are a completely separate matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming it's true, he has recourse off Wikipedia. He has no recourse on Wikipedia. He crossed the line, period. If you want to change his block from indefinite (as a compromised account) to a month or so (for multiple egregious personal attacks) that's your call. I would oppose just full unblocking him though. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- The last part of both messages reads "stay the Hell out of my damn business, or pay the price". That's a plain threat, not just a personal attack. Deciding how seriously to take that threat isn't administrators' place; mail the diffs to emergency@wikimedia.org -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
For reference
<REDACTED> of Lancaster, Pennsylvania is a gay homosexual who got that way through being violently sodomized by his father...over and over again. He wears pink shorts, and once hosted a website called (and I shit you not, here) <REDACTED>
Here's what he looks like: Picture of <REDACTED> in his world-famous pink bicycle shorts
And here's <REDACTED>'s Facebook profile
In case you're wondering, yes, <REDACTED> is a worthless fuck who would be well-advised to leave me alone here at Wikipedia (and stop importing a 2006 conflict from another webiste; I don't want to play anymore, <REDACTED> - I never wanted to play, so stay the Hell out of my damn business, or pay the price).
I thank him in advance for his cooperation in this matter. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
PS: Fuh fuh fuh!
- Aside from the threat and the homophobic slurs, this is clearly WP:OUTING. KevinOKeeffe has admitted that his account was not compromised. A review of his edits might make clearer his goals in editing here, but if it is necessary for me to dig through the edits of an acknowledged white supremacist in order to have his block upheld, something is seriously wrong so I'll assume that won't be necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Much as we may not necessarily like it (and I admit that I do not in this incident), we are not in the position to be making moral judgements about Wikipedia editors themselves. That is, we must comment on content and not contributors, and what sort of content we expect them to generate. I am saddened and somewhat personally disgusted that an established editor would think this sort of behaviour acceptable even in a moment of errant judgement (commenting as a gay admin who has been here since 2004). However, we can't hold that against editors, necessarily; there is no policy to ban white supremacists nor homophobes from Wikipedia simply because they are these things, and nor should there be. I have every expectation that this editor is unlikely to repeat this behaviour again, as he knows the ropes. He suggests that his block be lifted in a month; indeed I'd say probably a week would be sufficient. Of course, were the behaviours repeated, I think then we'd talk a month or longer. After that, it escalates to Arbcom and/or indef. There shouldn't be different rules just because of the subject matter. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I have said before -- here and elsewhere -- it simply is not possible in practice for someone holding an extreme worldview such as this to edit within our neutral point of view guidelines. I am not singling out white supremacists - that applies to many other forms of bigotry or strong biases. Shortening this block was a mistake. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have accepted his request to be reblocked for 1 month, as opposed to indefinitely. This is on the basis that it was established that the account was not compromised, long-term editing history shows positive contributions to date, and this is the first incident of this type (as far as I can determine from history). Should any admin disagree with this change, it may be reversed at will. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that is excessively generous, the combination of outing and implicit threats against the individual he named suggests to me that he simply is too dangerous to be allowed to continue editing. I'm not an admin but I have been able very easily to find and read all the deleted content from the attack pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was the one that suggested one month, but that was before I saw what was actually said. In light of the outing and threats, I'd be not at all opposed to lengthening the block even more. However since the block has already been agreed upon and all that, instrad I would move that he be told by an uninvolved administrator that "if he creates a page like that again (i.e. one that attacks, threatens, or outs someone) that he's gone for good." Sven Manguard Wha? 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- O'Keeffe's justification/rationalization for his actions looks like one of the more extreme cases of the "look what you made me do" game that I've seen on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
An all encompassing complaint regarding the disruptive editing behavior of User:Dolovis
First of all, let me begin by saying to any admins, if this is in the wrong place, feel free to close or move it. Perhaps it belongs at WP:RFCC, but I feel this user has had so many issues brought upon him that I should take it directly here. Over the past few months, User:Dolovis has become increasingly disruptive across Wikipedia, to the point that I have decided to bring a complaint to ANI that covers, to the best of my knowledge, all of the issue that in my mind deem this user as a disruptive editor. This complaint largely stems from a diacritic removal campaign he is currently engaged in on the bases of following policy. However, this user has been told on multiple occasions that his interpretation of policy is incorrect. His current ploy involves the mass moving of articles with diacritics in their titles (85 in the past week), to English character titles, ignoring the fact that no new consensus has emerged on their usage, which would suggest that their current usage (no consensus to move) remain. As I mentioned, this user has also engaged in other forms of editing that I would consider disruptive, as I have pointed out in the following list that I believe encompasses all of Dolovis’ misconducts (although I don’t doubt for a second that I have missed many additional misconducts).
Diacritics controversy
Page moves while a discussion is on-going
Despite the on-going discussion on the usage of diacritics in biography article titles that has not gained a consensus of either pro or contra diacritics, Dolovis has begun a highly controversial campaign of mass moving of articles with diacritics in their titles. Since he initiated the discussion on 17 May 2011, he has moved a total of 103 articles with diacritics in their titles, listed here. More alarming is the 85 he has moved in the past week alone. He claims that anyone with a problem should follow WP:BRD, and while that would usually be the procedure to follow, can someone explain to me who has the time to list 85 page move requests in one week? I don’t. One user recently listed multiple page move requests at a central location (Talk:Martin Ruzicka), and Dolovis has argued that “each move must be judged on its own merits”. Like I said, I’m not sure who has the time to initiate 85 separate discussions. This is highly disruptive, as Dolovis knows no one has the time to do this.
Reply comment: The page moves that Nurmsook refers to are actually "Undoing" page moves made contrary to the established policy of WP:Article titles. I have not been doing the mass-page moves. It is, in fact, quite the opposite, as hundreds (thousands?) of biographical articles have been systematically moved from their WP:COMMONNAME WP:ENGLISH WP:Article titles to their non-English form. It is well-established policy to Undo a controversial move to invoke Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Dolovis (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Talk:Martin Ruzicka is another mass-article move discussion started by another editor for 10 articles that were created with English titles. Dolovis (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Page move discussions while a discussion is on-going
In addition to the moves Dolovis is making, he has continued to make WP:POINT requests for article moves. Since the naming conventions discussion was initiated on 17 May 2011, Dolovis has requested 8 page moves, again, a number highly disruptive as it is extremely difficult to keep track of all of these requests. You will notice that each move request that had a high level of discussion was closed as no consensus (Talk:Pierre Pagé, Talk:Jakub Petružálek, Talk:Anže Kopitar, Talk:Petr Sýkora, Talk:Tomáš Divíšek, etc.). If the page move requests he is making are consistently reaching no consensus, wouldn’t that suggest that pages should remain where they are? Not move 85 in a week? Is it not disruptive to repeatedly canvass the Wiki community for their opinion on a subject that has already been made?
Reply comment: The discussion which I started on 17 May 2011 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) has steadily devolved into a quagmire of POV repetitions with no consensus in sight which might change the established policy of WP:AT or WP:EN concerning the use of diacritics in article titles. When the situation calls for making a move request, the proper procedure is to open a WP:RM to seek a consensus on the issue. It is false to say that my RM are always closed as "no consensus". One example of a "support" consensus is found at Talk:Eric Castonguay. Dolovis (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I said each request with a high level of discussion closed with no consensus. Your example includes four participants. I certainly do not consider that to be high level of participation. Dolovis' blatant misinterpretation of my words is a prime example of how this use misinterprets policy. He chooses to take what he wants from it, and demean anyone who disagrees with him. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that you're being overly sensative about this. You seem to be personalizing everything. You're making accusations here on AN/I, asking that another user's editing be restricted, so I'm not sure why you would be surprised that the other user is defending himself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Please point to where I asked that another user's editing be restricted. Stop distributing lies about me. Like I said, I came here to get uninvolved admins opinions and certainly have no issue with Dolovis defending himself against these accusations. But when he does defend himself, I'll make sure to fact check his defense. That is my right, just as defending himself is his. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that you're being overly sensative about this. You seem to be personalizing everything. You're making accusations here on AN/I, asking that another user's editing be restricted, so I'm not sure why you would be surprised that the other user is defending himself.
Previous ANI controversies
- Dolovis previously brought a user to ANI here. Of note, Dolovis was removed of his Twinkle rights because of abuse of the tool at this discussion.
- Another example of Dolovis' use of ANI can be found here
- Dolovis' controversial accusations of Darwinek, shown above, is another example of an ANI controversy. Not to mention his second set of accusations against the same user, also listed above.
- Of course, another ANI was recently posted here regarding Dolovis' conduct.
Reply Comment: I have been editing on wikipedia for 14 months. I have made some mistakes, I have learned from them, and I have moved on. Dolovis (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Allegations of sock puppetry
- Without any sustained evidence, Dolovis make a bad faith sock puppetry accusation of a long-time Wikipedia user and administrator. That quick-ending discussion can be found here. Dolovis simply made the blatant accusation without adding any additional commentary once his claims were disputed. His claims were identified to potentially be retaliation to a content dispute (note that Darwinek is the same user that Dolovis twice took to ANI on dispute claims).
- Dolovis was accused of and blocked following a sockpuppet investigation here.
Reply comment from Dolovis: The sock puppet allegation raised by Nurmsook was demonstrated to be a false positive, and that is why all of the blocked accounts (the alleged master and puppets) were all unblocked. Dolovis (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
User and User talk page misconduct
- Dolovis has acted inappropriately at his own user and user talk pages. In one instance, he banned a user from his talk page (Evidence) despite being reminded that he cannot do so per WP:UP#OWN (Evidence). In addition, he proceeded to threaten administrative action when the user made a comment after this supposed “ban” (Evidence), which is in clear violation of WP:TALKNO.
- From 12 February 2011 until 31 May 2011, Dolovis claimed on his user page that he held rollback rights, when he in fact does not and was actually denied use of the tool when he requested it. This, again, is in violations of WP:TALKNO.
- Some time ago, a user reached out to Dolovis following a dispute between the two editors with an apology. However, Dolovis took this apology, placed it on his user page, and is essentially parading it around to show others something along the lines of a “I told you so” or “I was right” type statement. This may or may not be against any policy or guideline, but it certainly is highly inconsiderate and the user in question has taken offence to its placement on Dolovis’ user page.
- Dolovis again violated WP:TALKNO when he blatantly accused another user of ethnocentrism (Evidence), a claim to which the other user was highly offended by (Evidence).
- Dolovis engages in censorship of his talk page, something Wikipedia is not. While he has the right to request other user do not post to his user talk page, I argue that his approach to end discussions at his own discussion, even if other user may still have something of value to add, something that doesn’t fall in line with the spirit of using talk pages (Evidence), (Evidence).
Reply comment: I disagree with the perception presented above, but that being said, it is my talk page and how I engage others on my talk page should be given a wide range of latitude, as it should be given to all editors. I have read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, and I believe that I have acted well within those guidelines. I do try to avoid harassment and vandalism directed to my talk page. I am open to constructive criticism on this topic, and will continue to try to make my talk page a place for informative and constructive discussion. Dolovis (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Tag removal
- Dolovis has conducted disruptive tag removals. In one instance, another user placed a {{merge to}} tag on the article Ivan Svarny. Without following the proper discourse of discussing the merge on the talk page, Dolovis removed the tag altogether, forcing the other user to undo Dolovis’ edit (Evidence).
Reply comment: The tagging editor User:Fly by Night mass-tagged about 16 articles for merge. The tagging editor was clearly using improper an interpretation of WP:MERGE, and I removed just one of the 16 tags and sent him a note here to engage him to discuss the issue as he had not started any discussion on the talk pages of the effected articles. Fly by Night replaced his own tag and proceeded with the mass-merge request anyway, which had a unanimous community consensus against the merges as demonstrated by the discussion on that issue. Dolovis (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Final commentary
I firmly believe that this evidence proves that Dolovis has consistently been engaging in disruptive editing since his arrival at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Dolovis' disruptive habits are not limited to the areas I have listed above. Dolovis has been widely criticized for creating, in some instances, unreferenced BLPs and other one-line stubs that he likely will never go about editing, regarded by some as content forking (I should note that I do not have an issue with his creation of stubs (I am an inclusionist), but still feel that the issues other users have with it should not go unnoticed). Additionally, Dolovis can be highly confrontational and aggressive towards other users, something not held in high regard by the spirit of Wikipedia. Frankly, the only reason I decided to bring this users habits to light is that I was shocked that no other user had done it before. In my opinion, Dolovis' abuse of Wikipedia is far and beyond a prime example of disruptive editing. Prone to engaging in disputes with anyone who disagrees with him, this User never makes the slighest attempt to reach a compromise or listen to someone else's opinion. Anytime he feels he has any sort of leverage he takes it. In fact, Jimmy Wales recently posted how he is opposed to diacritics, and Dolovis has since been parading this quote around as is anything Jimbo says, goes. He also recently begun edit warring with another user, and was warned of this on his talk page by User:Bearcat. The fact that Dolovis has been able to go about disrupting Wikipedia so blatantly alarms me to no end. How someone can make 85 controversial moves in one week and get away with it sickens me. I hope administrators will see the evidence I have posted and do something about it. This user does not edit at all within the spirit of Wikipedia. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TL;DR. This has too many individual issues and particulars for examination at ANI. You were right; it should be handled through WP:RFCU. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Reply comment: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. I am not the one who is moving articles contrary to policy. I am not the instigator of these moves, but I have undone many moves made without discussion and against the policy of WP:AT; and it appears that Nurmsook, who is a strong and vocal supporter of encouraging the use of diacritics in article titles, may have a COI "difference in perception" with my vocal support in favour of following the established policy of WP:AT and WP:EN. Dolovis (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is the type of conduct I have referred to that pushed me to submit this ANI. Dolovis IS instigating these moves. He appears to forget that every page has an edit history, and a quick check of this history shows that most of these pages he has moved we originally created at their diacritic location. This is not a case of a move "undo". Further, Dolovis' consistent use of the term "Conflict of Interest" towards those who oppose his editing habits is perhaps his most evident disruptive habit. He disagrees with anyone who thinks what he's doing is wrong. I have never once stated that I am pro-diacritics. On the contrary, I have stated multiple times that I don't care if they stay or go. My problem with Dolovis' editing habits is his blatant misunderstanding of policy that has resulted in him moving 103 pages. Frankly, him saying I have a COI and blatantly lying about my position on diacritics is absolute slander. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Simply not true. A quick check of this history shows that most, if not all, of the page moves I have done/undone were originally created at their English title location. Dolovis (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. (although, Nurmsook does have a point about using COI. It's a really minor point though, since you're hardly alone in that misapplication of the policy.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Okay, I guess I'll do the research myself, because I hate being accused of lying or hiding evidence or blurring facts. I don't want to spend my night diving into this, so of Dolovis' page moves since 22 June 2011:
- Just because I have accused you of undoing page moves, doesn't mean you need to say I am lying. Sure, maybe I was wrong to say that most of Dolovis' page moves were originally at diacritics locations, I'll admit that. But for Dolovis to state that all of his page moves were originally at English titles is horribly false. When I get involved in policy debates, I do my research. Trust me, as a grad student, research is my life. The url's of page history are there. Check the evidence and then tell me I'm lying. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Six current example of move/RM abuse I am trying to defend against is found at Talk:Andrej Tavzelj where there is yet another request for multiple moves away from the commonly used English name. Nurmsook makes the argument in support of these moves stating “No established usage means they shouldn't have been moved in the first place”, however, contrary to Nurmsook's assertion, all of the articles were created with English titles. If that statement represents Nurmsook's true position on the issue of diacritics, then he should be supporting my efforts to “undo” these controversial moves away from their established use. Dolovis (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Talk about misrepresenting the facts! Every single page taht you linked to above was at a page title that didn't use diacritics and was moved without discussion by others to a page title with diacritics. Who's actually being disruptive, here?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- Are we reading the same edit histories!? Why are you shedding some sort of disruptive light on me when all I'm doing is presenting facts! Some of those pages that I linked were created at diacritic titles, and then moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles. The others were also created at diacritic titles, moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles, then moved back by another user, but then moved back to non-diacritic titles by Dolovis. Each of the 19 articles I linked were created at diacritic titles. Which ones do you think were not and I'll be happy to clarify them for you, diff by diff. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- False.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)- Haha. Your answer makes it pretty clear that you are just refusing to admit that you are wrong, but know you actually are. Let me just take a couple of these and explain the article histories on them so you can see what I mean by all 19 originated at diacritic title. Honestly, edit histories don't lie, so to say I am based on truthfully conveying these histories is bad faith editing. Link #1, Revision history of Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey): Article was created at Tomáš Svoboda 20:50, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 23:00, 23 June 2011. HandsomeFella moved Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) 04:39, 26 June 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 09:46, 26 June 2011. Link #12, Revision history of Lukas Endal: Article was created at Lukáš Endál 20:34, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal 18:29, 23 June 2011. Both took different routes to get where they are now, but both started out as diacritic titles. Explain to me, now that I have shown you this very clear evidence, how these articles started at non-diacritic titles. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment: Rubbish. The edit histories for those two articles show that both were created by myself on January 3, 2011 using English article titles. Dolovis (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are clearly misunderstanding how edit histories work. They track the movement of all pages. The first page move at these pages was from a diacritic title to a non-diacritic title. It's very clear in the edit history that, for instance, the first move of the Lukas Endal page occured on June 23 and that move was Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal. The edit history very clearly identifies that. Because this is the first time the page was moved, we know the page originated at Lukáš Endál. If it, as you claim, originated at Lukas Endal, there would have been a move before June 23 of the page from Lukas Endal to Lukáš Endál. There is no evidence of that in the edit history. How can you claim that the page originated at Lukas Endal when it is evident, per the edit history, that it did not. This is a simple case of you misunderstanding how edit histories work. Any user here can see that the page originated at Lukáš Endál. It is documented in the edit history, and cannot be refuted. – Nurmsook! talk... 13:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment: Rubbish. The edit histories for those two articles show that both were created by myself on January 3, 2011 using English article titles. Dolovis (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Haha. Your answer makes it pretty clear that you are just refusing to admit that you are wrong, but know you actually are. Let me just take a couple of these and explain the article histories on them so you can see what I mean by all 19 originated at diacritic title. Honestly, edit histories don't lie, so to say I am based on truthfully conveying these histories is bad faith editing. Link #1, Revision history of Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey): Article was created at Tomáš Svoboda 20:50, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 23:00, 23 June 2011. HandsomeFella moved Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) 04:39, 26 June 2011. Dolovis moved Tomáš Svoboda (ice hockey) to Tomas Svoboda (ice hockey) 09:46, 26 June 2011. Link #12, Revision history of Lukas Endal: Article was created at Lukáš Endál 20:34, 2 January 2011. Dolovis moved Lukáš Endál to Lukas Endal 18:29, 23 June 2011. Both took different routes to get where they are now, but both started out as diacritic titles. Explain to me, now that I have shown you this very clear evidence, how these articles started at non-diacritic titles. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- False.
- Are we reading the same edit histories!? Why are you shedding some sort of disruptive light on me when all I'm doing is presenting facts! Some of those pages that I linked were created at diacritic titles, and then moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles. The others were also created at diacritic titles, moved by Dolovis to non-diacritic titles, then moved back by another user, but then moved back to non-diacritic titles by Dolovis. Each of the 19 articles I linked were created at diacritic titles. Which ones do you think were not and I'll be happy to clarify them for you, diff by diff. – Nurmsook! talk... 00:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. (although, Nurmsook does have a point about using COI. It's a really minor point though, since you're hardly alone in that misapplication of the policy.)
- Simply not true. A quick check of this history shows that most, if not all, of the page moves I have done/undone were originally created at their English title location. Dolovis (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- As a general comment: while I don't expect much of anything to emerge out of this discussion, I believe Dolovis is going to keep coming to ANI over and over and over again because I find him to be a net drain on the project. Far too much time is spent dealing with his move wars, lazy article creations and general standoffish nature that could otherwise be spent doing something productive. I will also note that while Dolovis seems willing to be a non-diacritic warrior on article titles, he doesn't bother to anglicize the articles themselves. So tell me, if the player's name at the lead of the article is Tomáš Rachůnek, why is the article located at Tomas Rachunek? Dolovis can't even make up his own mind as to whether diacritics should be used or not. And these inconsistencies become little messes that, as is typical, someone else has to deal with. Resolute 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reply comment to Resolute: The policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. For example, the article is titled Paul McCartney, not "Sir James Paul McCartney" as appears first in that article. Dolovis (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Page move ban for Dolovis
Proposal: Dolovis is banned from moving any article that has a title with diacritics to one that does not have diacritics, and vice versa. He may propose such moves at WP:RM for consensus to be established as to whether or not the page should be moved. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would support this measure. I got drawn into the dispute today and can attest that his understanding of WP:UE is definitely a little skewed — and that he simply ignores any consensus that doesn't match his own preferences. Additionally, I can attest that I've had past interactions with him in which he ignored multiple polite requests to change something about his editing habits — so clearly some sort of escalation is necessary here. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bearcat, will you please be specific and point me to the consensus that you are referring to. Some editors have been very quick to say that there is a consensus to support their POV, but no one has yet been able to show me the consensus that has changed the policy of WP:AT or WP:EN. Dolovis (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not appropriate for mob justice. Follow dispute resolution: Send it to RFCU and Arbcom. --causa sui (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a question of "mob justice"; it's a question of an editor simply not following standard and easily enforceable rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- You've described the two ends of the stick. Situations like this need a closer look than a complaint and a summary vote. For example, there may be more editors involved who need their conduct scrutinized as well. Also, it is outrageous that voting has begun before the user to be sanctioned has had a chance to respond here. (I'm aware of his previous comments on ANI). --causa sui (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, I may be inclined to support the measure with the caveat that it was a temporary injunction pending the completion of regular dispute resolution channels. --causa sui (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What vote, where? I don't see one. I see a community discussing to reach consensus, yes, but no vote. GiantSnowman 19:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- You've described the two ends of the stick. Situations like this need a closer look than a complaint and a summary vote. For example, there may be more editors involved who need their conduct scrutinized as well. Also, it is outrageous that voting has begun before the user to be sanctioned has had a chance to respond here. (I'm aware of his previous comments on ANI). --causa sui (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's not a question of "mob justice"; it's a question of an editor simply not following standard and easily enforceable rules. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Opposed - In the current environment this is an obvious partisan move, regardless of whether it was intended to be or not. If you want to join the diacritics debate then do so. Attempting to generate sanctions against those with differing opinions than yourself, in the middle of a debate, certainly isn't the best example of collegial behavior.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- This is certainly not why I launched this ANI. As I have shown in my original post, this boils down to much more than the diacritics issue, something I have tried my best to stay away from, as I am impartial to if they should stay or go. Rather, this is a case of abusing one's ability to move pages. Saying I am lacking in collegial behavior despite an intensive research of Dolovis' editing patterns is rather disappointing. If you are arguing about action in the middle of a debate, perhaps you should be more inclined to support a page move ban. It is, after all, Dolovis who is blatantly moving pages while the debate is ongoing. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying, but perception is reality, you know? Also, I would be supportive of a page move ban if it included the other parties in the debate who have been moving pages in the other direction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Running to AN/I to try and place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate is hardly constructive.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- As I said, your bad faith accusation of me is very offensive. I did not "run to ANI" to "place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate". Absolutely not the case. I brought multiple issues to the table in the hope that third party administrators could add their commentary. I don't want to see Dolovis banned. I think he's a great editor, and being an inclusionist, I love the work he does creating articles for people that meet notability standards. What I am opposed to is his often confrontational demeanor and the fact that he has moved 85 pages in the past week. That's not normal. Please refrain from accusing me of whatever you think I might be doing here. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- If that's actually the case, then why not participate in the RM's (even create them, if needed) and in the ongoing discussion on the WP:UE talk page? Instead, you're here picking on one participant in that debate. What about the other participants, who have been moving pages in the other direction? You say that I'm making an bad faith accusation, but you're provided the proof that you're not acting in good faith by singling out the actions of one editor in what is essentially a multi-party content dispute. The cries of neutrality here ring very hollow.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)- I'm not going to get into an endless argument with you. For the last time, I did not come here on the specifics of the diacritics issue. I actually have an almost bigger issue with how Dolovis conducts himself on his talk page or when he communicates with other users. Other users have come into this discussion and claimed that the page moves thing was the overriding problem; it's not. If I wanted to out Dolovis from the diacritics debate, I wouldn't have titled this ANI the way I did. As it states, this is an all encompassing account of his disruptive editing patters, not specific to one event. Check my history, check my background. I've been doing this Wikipedia thing for 6 years now. I have never once seen an editor that has been so overwhelmingly disruptive across the board that I decided to take my complaint to ANI. Go ahead an accuse me with whatever you like, but know that it simply is not constructive to this debate, and I know you are acting in bad faith making those accusations. This is Wikipedia, and everyone has the right to be heard when they feel a user as stepped outside the boundaries of what is acceptable editing practices. That is why I brought this here, not because of some silly diacritics dispute that has been ongoing since Wikipedia was first created! – Nurmsook! talk... 22:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- If that's actually the case, then why not participate in the RM's (even create them, if needed) and in the ongoing discussion on the WP:UE talk page? Instead, you're here picking on one participant in that debate. What about the other participants, who have been moving pages in the other direction? You say that I'm making an bad faith accusation, but you're provided the proof that you're not acting in good faith by singling out the actions of one editor in what is essentially a multi-party content dispute. The cries of neutrality here ring very hollow.
- As I said, your bad faith accusation of me is very offensive. I did not "run to ANI" to "place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate". Absolutely not the case. I brought multiple issues to the table in the hope that third party administrators could add their commentary. I don't want to see Dolovis banned. I think he's a great editor, and being an inclusionist, I love the work he does creating articles for people that meet notability standards. What I am opposed to is his often confrontational demeanor and the fact that he has moved 85 pages in the past week. That's not normal. Please refrain from accusing me of whatever you think I might be doing here. – Nurmsook! talk... 22:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying, but perception is reality, you know? Also, I would be supportive of a page move ban if it included the other parties in the debate who have been moving pages in the other direction. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Running to AN/I to try and place restrictions on one person involved in an ongoing debate is hardly constructive.
- This is certainly not why I launched this ANI. As I have shown in my original post, this boils down to much more than the diacritics issue, something I have tried my best to stay away from, as I am impartial to if they should stay or go. Rather, this is a case of abusing one's ability to move pages. Saying I am lacking in collegial behavior despite an intensive research of Dolovis' editing patterns is rather disappointing. If you are arguing about action in the middle of a debate, perhaps you should be more inclined to support a page move ban. It is, after all, Dolovis who is blatantly moving pages while the debate is ongoing. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Support I feel most of these actions all fall into the category of edit warring. There should clearly be a moratorium on any page moves surrounding diacritics, particularly by Dolovis and Nurmsook, whilst the discussions are pending. As these involve global interpretation, it makes little sense to tackle these page moves on a piecemeal basis; a global solution needs to be found. There are currently RfCs in progress, and Dolovis appears to be executing the page moves in an deliberately pointy and provocative manner. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question for Ohconfucius: What about undoing a controversial move? How is that pointy? I would think that it would be the first bold move that is provoking, not the editor (me) who is undoing that move. How would an editor invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- The sum total of your actions here and elsewhere indicates that you have an active agenda of ensuring diacritics do not impact Wikipedia. Something does not become controversial merely because you or I or any one individual object; it does, however, so become when there are a number of people. Most people running into the sort of opposition you are facing would be right to question their own actions as "controversial". As to your "undoing a controversial move", it seems that it is intimately related to the issue of diacritics use. Two wrongs don't make one right; you are not a Wikipolice officer. WP:EDITWAR and WP:DISRUPT were written to cover what you are doing. You should self-impose a moratorium, not only on page moves whilst the discussion has not been resolved, but also mass creation of stubs of marginal "presumed" and not "actual" notability. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure why my name was mentioned as a potential page move banee. I certainly have not been active in moving any diacritics pages. Rather, if I do stray into these discussions, it is only at RM. I simply brought an issue to ANI that has been ongoing for months at WP:HOCKEY, so this would be a clear case of shooting the messenger. I know I opened myself up to scrutiny when I brought this issue here, but the level I have received from users for simply trying to bring an extensive list of disruptive editing patters to light is really discouraging. I think I'll try to stay away from these sorts of discussions in the future. – Nurmsook! talk... 13:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Question for Ohconfucius: What about undoing a controversial move? How is that pointy? I would think that it would be the first bold move that is provoking, not the editor (me) who is undoing that move. How would an editor invoke the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Dolovis (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not that there'd be anything terribly wrong with imposing such a ban on all parties involved in this round-robin fracas until the underlying issue was worked out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose specific ban on Dolovis, because in the two examples specifically called out above, Tomas Svoboda and Lukas Endal, Dolovis originally created the articles with diacritics before moving them to non-diacritic versions, and there was very little substantive editing besides his. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Lithuanian edit-warring
I hope there's an editor or two with some experience in a Lithuanian/Polish naming issue. By chance I came across this edit, where an editor adds a Polish name to an article on a Lithuanian town. It becomes clear pretty quickly that Keepweekmestary (talk · contribs) is duking it out with Xraig (talk · contribs), who's duking it out with another few editors including Angryplansss (talk · contribs), Agensaved (talk · contribs), Lefttheresomeshi (talk · contribs), and Enjoykeepsmeone (talk · contribs). The stench of socks is overwhelming here, no one is bothered with providing edit summaries or addressing matters on the talk page, and it's a mess. Keepweekmestary is at 3R on Labanoras (or may have crossed it while I'm typing this--if so I have no qualms about blocking them), but I think there's something bigger here than one or maybe two hardheaded editors. Your help is much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Note: I see that HelloAnnyong has blocked an account (Weeksusuallllllll (talk · contribs)) that seems to be related. Hello, I'm about to call you up here. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Urgh. No one's done any laundry in a while, that's clear. Suggest a day's worth of full protection along with a full WP:SPI check. Once the quacking dies down, perhaps the principals will do what should be done and talk it out on the Discussion page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- A bit of digging through Hello's activities brought this one forward, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weeksusuallllllll. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Full protected for a week. Drmies, why were you engaging in this edit war? Fences&Windows 20:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, one page protection won't do much... Fences&Windows 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted twice and then came here. That's not much of a war. The user in question has now reverted four times, and they received a 3R warning after the third time. You're right, protecting one page won't do much. You could have blocked the editor who reverted four times, of course. Or you could call them ducks and block them and the other ducks (and there is good evidence, considering the case of Weeksusualll. I think by coming here and not blocking anyone I did the proper thing. Fences, do you want me to proceed to the 3RR noticeboard? Drmies (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Um, why was I called here? I'm not really sure what you're asking for. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- You blocked Weeksusuallllllll with the argument that they were socking (at the time I checked I don't think there was a link to the SPI). I had opened up a thread here on edits like the ones Weeksusuallllllll made. I thought that as the blocking admin and a known expert in socks you'd be interested. That's all. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can't speak for Miacek, but I reckon that, yes, they'd want them checked too--I'd like that. Enjoykeepsmeone, Agensaved, Angryplansss, and Lefttheresomeshi are still at large. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Well, um.. I blocked that account per the checkuser findings. It was found that the account and its confirmed socks were Unrelated to Jacurek - so I kept the listings separate. If you want us to run a CU on those other accounts, then we can do that - but this is the first I've heard of those. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about the ec, Hello. Agensaved was mentioned in Miacek's note at the SPI; I assume that the others were included in the "to name just a few". Yes, I'd like them included. Should I add them at the SPI? 23:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, toss it on. (Unless a CU sees it here first...) — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about the ec, Hello. Agensaved was mentioned in Miacek's note at the SPI; I assume that the others were included in the "to name just a few". Yes, I'd like them included. Should I add them at the SPI? 23:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Well, um.. I blocked that account per the checkuser findings. It was found that the account and its confirmed socks were Unrelated to Jacurek - so I kept the listings separate. If you want us to run a CU on those other accounts, then we can do that - but this is the first I've heard of those. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- A bit of digging through Hello's activities brought this one forward, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weeksusuallllllll. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
This is Jacurek (talk · contribs), a well-known long-term troublemaker who is already blocked for multiple issues, including the creation of sock farms to edit-war Polish exonymes into the opening sentence of multiple Lithuanian locations. He is now continuing his edit wars from a travelling circus and attacking those who report his socks, I added respective background information to the current SPI. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Cyber-bullying at John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley
- John Anderson, 3rd Viscount Waverley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wormeatingforbears (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This BLP article has been discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It appears that Wormeatingforbears (talk · contribs) insists on inserting assertions about the Viscount's son. The edit summaries make it clear that the user is intent on harassment, and even the user name appears to be some kind of pejorative allusion. I suggest that they are not here for any constructive purpose. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because I'm not an expert on the matters. It seems to me a problem, with a real-life aspect, that needs quick and effective resolution by an admin and I couldn't think of a better way of getting it than here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Neither am I, but it doesn't take a royalty wizard to see that Worm is up to no good. AIV is usually faster than this board. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I've given them a final warning for unacceptable BLP violations. The SPI case seems inconclusive, BTW. Considering that this vandalism has been going on for a while I will semi-protect the article. As for Worm and their pals, let's await the close of the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarbieHencock. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should we use RevDel at all? Some of that is pretty nasty stuff about someone who is presumably a child. Fences&Windows 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Definitely RevDel, the accusations are against a 15/16-year-old. Even if he wasn't a minor, it's still offensive and on a BLP page. GiantSnowman 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. It's an unsavory history. Drmies (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- So much that I have suppressed it, per potential libel rationale, after indef blocking the account. I concur with the page protection, also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should we use RevDel at all? Some of that is pretty nasty stuff about someone who is presumably a child. Fences&Windows 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because I'm not an expert on the matters. It seems to me a problem, with a real-life aspect, that needs quick and effective resolution by an admin and I couldn't think of a better way of getting it than here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
user:Gamaliel Adding highly contentious material to a BLP without consensus.
user:Gamaliel Has added some highly contentious material to Michele Bachmann over the past couple of days without consensus. The issue is currently under discussion for various issues including NPOV, Undue Weight, and BLP problems. The issue is from a 2006 account that at the time was eventually removed from the article for apparent BLP violations and being a minor issue. Recently due to the higher profile nature of Michele Bachmann a couple of left-leaning sites have gone through her history to bring up old issues, this being one of them. Given that Bachmann is now a national political figure it appears that this is being done for purely political reasons and is undue weight. This was a minor issue at the time and is no less so now. Additionally, there are some serious BLP issues as one section quotes Bachmann directly yet the quote can only be attributed to the two women she encounterd in a bathroom as their point of view of what happened. Additionally, Gamaliel should be reminded that there is no race to include information in a BLP. This is something that has not been in her article for at least 3 or 4 years, yet he seems hell bent on having it included right now without letting the natural discussion move forward. Most disturbing is that Gamaliel is an Admin and should be expected to uphold basic WP policies, especially when dealing with a BLP. Arzel (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Arzel, for years, has been a contentious and offensive partisan ideological warrior. He has followed me and others from article to article and never, as far as I have witnessed, participated in any sort of congenial discussion or editing with any editor who has disagreed with him. His opening comment about this matter was to accuse me of a "hatchet job" and from there just more and more and more attacks and not a single effort to find common ground. I have researched this issue carefully and extensively, I have produced multiple local, national, and international sources, I have answered every objection including the inappropriate personal ones. I want nothing more than to discuss this issue on the talk page, but Arzel doesn't want to discuss this with me, he wants to use the talk page as a forum to attack me. I have no wish to nor do I see the need to seek consensus with someone whose idea of discussion and negotiation is personal attacks and accusations. When he wants to stop libeling me and edit warring, I'll gladly have a policy and content-based discussion with him. Until then, his "objections" are nothing more than IDONTLIKEIT and IHATEGAMALIEL. Gamaliel (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- From what I can see on a quick read, the material Gamaliel inserted doesn't violate WP:BLP or WP:NPOV, since according to reliable, verifiable sources, the events occurred as described and are noteworthy, although at least one of those events should probably go into a "Controversy" section or similar. Whether they cross the WP:UNDUE line is a matter for discussion on the article Talk page; doubly so now that Bachmann has declared herself a candidate for the office of President of the United States. I think Arzel's complaint is likely to come back on him. Bringing Gamaliel's admin bit into the argument appears to be a red herring. I'd strongly suggest this be taken to WP:DRN, if not back to the article Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- So adding highly contentious information about a living person from one point of view without including Bachmann's point of view at all is not a NPOV violation? Please explain to me how that works. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I responded to you on the talk page, I feel I did represent Bachmann's point of view as best I could given that she does not seem to have spoken publicly about the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's still a matter of WP:RS. Just because it conveys a less-than-flattering image of a person doesn't make it contentious. Had the material been published by, say, Democracy Now! or a similar clearly-biased source, I would have no compunction about seeing it removed. However, the stories came out in mainstream news outlets, and I see no reason to question the accuracy or reliability. As to Bachmann's refutation (or lack thereof), that's a matter for her press secretary to deal with, not Wikipedia. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- As I responded to you on the talk page, I feel I did represent Bachmann's point of view as best I could given that she does not seem to have spoken publicly about the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- So adding highly contentious information about a living person from one point of view without including Bachmann's point of view at all is not a NPOV violation? Please explain to me how that works. Arzel (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just from a very brief look, my first impression is that the material is rather a bit of WP:UNDUE, but that's a content dispute best left for the talk page. And personally, I don't really want to get into those political discussions. (again). Didn't really see any attack by Arzel either, especially the "I HATE" part, but perhaps that was deleted. My view is to use caution in accusing someone of personal attacks, but I know some folks are more easily offended than others. Not sure there's anything to do here to be honest. Find consensus on the talk page maybe? — Ched : ? 01:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- At least two personal attacks by him, including the "hatchet job" comment, have been deleted. Every comment from him is something about my "agenda", how I'm performing character assassination, etc., etc. This is pretty much par for the course from him, as if he's unable to discuss anything without violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Gamaliel (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- OK ... I agree that we shouldn't try to judge another person's motives here on WP. I suspect that we'll all see quite a bit of these types of disputes as we get ready to head into another election year in the US. I'd just like to mention that the last one, 08 and 09 escalated into a rather unpleasant mess that ended up at Arbcom with some rather un-enjoyable results for many of those participants. Having seen already one request (the santorum issue) there recently, I'd just suggest that it best to remain calm, and be respectful of all the editors here. — Ched : ? 01:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea ... but that's just IMHO. — Ched : ? 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like Gfoley4 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did it already. --causa sui (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Except he protected it WITH that contended material, contrary to what Causa sui was suggesting. And Gamaliel broke through to add an ironically-fitting "correct title" to the source: "From Tea Party kook to contender". No sirree, no bias in that source, nope. This being a BLP issue with the reliability of the source questionable, that segment ought to be removed until or if consensus can be reached. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is sub-trivial tabloid style material that really has no place in an encyclopedic article. Jimbo has weighed in on the talkpage and seems to have hit the nail on the head - "They are just weird little bits that happened to make the press somehow." - unprotect, remove the material and minnow the admin who protected the version with the disputed material in the article. Exxolon (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Except he protected it WITH that contended material, contrary to what Causa sui was suggesting. And Gamaliel broke through to add an ironically-fitting "correct title" to the source: "From Tea Party kook to contender". No sirree, no bias in that source, nope. This being a BLP issue with the reliability of the source questionable, that segment ought to be removed until or if consensus can be reached. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like Gfoley4 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did it already. --causa sui (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea ... but that's just IMHO. — Ched : ? 02:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This was posted on ANI twice before, about 6 and 10 days ago, and to be honest I do not in any way blame admins with sense for ignoring it. It's a trivial content dispute in a trivial dicdef article that has been built, against an admin (at the time) intervention out of a REDIRECT to Nazarenes, as a POVfork promoting the "pre-Christian Nazarenes" theory that has two main primary sources : the heresiology of a 4th Century bishop who wished to show that a "Nazarene" sect in his day was non-Christian, and a rabbinical History of Jesus of uncertain date. Most, if not all, mainstream secular/scholarly sources do not take these two relatively late sources as having much value in establishing possible lost usage of Nazarenos/Nazoraios/Notzri prior to "of Nazareth", however the view is apparently strongly held among some Syrian Malabar Nasrani in India, again apparently (?) as part of the claim to Jewish ethnic origin and the need to support endogamy in the Knanaya community and diaspora. I've tried adding scholarly refs to Notzrim only to have them "backfilled" by a cluster of IPs (by "backfill" e.g. writing the exact opposite of what 3 dictionaries say before the source refs). I personally am of the view that an AfD should go ahead, and the REDIRECT restored, plus academic sources salvaged into main article. However a concern would be that even if an AfD goes ahead, the IPs activity will continue trying to rewrite other articles. Advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- How is this an issue for admins, instead of a content dispute? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hello The Mark of the Beast. Well it isn't, as above "It's a trivial content dispute in a trivial dicdef article" aside for all the IP activity. I'm merely looking for advice that's all, if advice is available, and if not then no big deal. Two admins recommended ANI and RfC, RfC seems to be dead. Certainly could proceed to an AfD, for example, without bothering admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- What you're describing sounds like it would be disruption by IP's, especially if they (or it) were to gang up in order to create artificial "consensus". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Baseball Bugs. Now that you mention it, yes, the word "consensus" has been used quite a lot by the IPs. There's 1 core IP who has an objection on principle to registering (fair enough I guess) and has some edit history, mainly on related pages, wheras the other 1,2,3(?) seem to be simply moving around terminals travelling - though User_talk:149.254.218.241 did welcome himself by pasting a welcome template to his own User talk, so I left the ANI notice there. Is it (a) technically possible (b) appropriate/advisable, to get page protection so that only registered users can edit a specific article? And maintain the protection even if, post AfD, the result is to bring back the REDIRECT, given that there's no logical justification for having a separate POVfork article for the Hebrew spelling of a word which already has an English article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- If there's demonstrable vandalism or contentiousness or edit-warring or other misbehavior by IP's and redlinks, and if it's mostly just this one article, you could try WP:RFPP and make your case for temporary semi-protection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Baseball Bugs. Now that you mention it, yes, the word "consensus" has been used quite a lot by the IPs. There's 1 core IP who has an objection on principle to registering (fair enough I guess) and has some edit history, mainly on related pages, wheras the other 1,2,3(?) seem to be simply moving around terminals travelling - though User_talk:149.254.218.241 did welcome himself by pasting a welcome template to his own User talk, so I left the ANI notice there. Is it (a) technically possible (b) appropriate/advisable, to get page protection so that only registered users can edit a specific article? And maintain the protection even if, post AfD, the result is to bring back the REDIRECT, given that there's no logical justification for having a separate POVfork article for the Hebrew spelling of a word which already has an English article. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- What you're describing sounds like it would be disruption by IP's, especially if they (or it) were to gang up in order to create artificial "consensus". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hello The Mark of the Beast. Well it isn't, as above "It's a trivial content dispute in a trivial dicdef article" aside for all the IP activity. I'm merely looking for advice that's all, if advice is available, and if not then no big deal. Two admins recommended ANI and RfC, RfC seems to be dead. Certainly could proceed to an AfD, for example, without bothering admins. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Repeated name calling, historical revisonism, and intentional misrepresentation of disagreeing users by Paul Siebert
Active discussion of WP:BOOMERANG's application to the complaining party
(complaint/report withdrawn)
The user Paul Siebert has been repeatedly engaging in intentional historical revisionism on Rape during the occupation of Germany and associated discussion pages. Such revisionism includes pro Russian/Communist denial of genocide, as well as Holocaust denial. He has also used name calling as a way of deliberately misconstruing anyone who disagrees with him as "racist" or "Nazi". He has also made comments in support of rapists.
Historical revisionism
Paul has repeatedly made pro Russian/Communist edits to Rape during the occupation of Germany to remove any information that portrays either unfavorably, regardless of whether such information is of neutral POV, or cited reliably as fact. Through discussions, he has also made clear his intention to portray the mass rape by the Russians as a German-Russian issue, focused on revenge, rather than as a mass rape and murder of defenseless occupied people by the Russians, which is supported by reliable sources. I provided numerous examples of mass rape and murder of Russians, Poles, Jews, and Germans persecuted by the Nazis.
Holocaust denial
After citing numerous sources (including The Fall of Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor and Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State episode six) about the mass rape of Jews, Poles, Russians, and Germans "liberated" from Nazi concentration camps by the Russians, Paul has engaged in numerous incidents of edit warring to remove such information. He has also engaged in arguments in which he openly denies that mass rape of Holocaust victims by the Russians occurred in any significant number of occasions, if at all.
Name calling
During many discussions, Paul has fallen back on a tactic of arbitrarily bringing up some accusation of racism or Nazism as a way of damaging the reputation of those who disagree with him. One example is when we were discussing the issue of genocide denial on Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany; without any racist comments, or anything that could have been reasonably interpreted as racist, Paul made the comment that attempts to portray rapes as genocide by some Germans were a manifestation of racism followed by please refrain from encouraging racism on WP talk pages. I had not made any sort of comment to imply racism, and have repeatedly emphasized anti Nazi views. In this incident, he was clearly attempting to deliberately and falsely portray me as racist to damage my credibility because I disagreed with him. I also went on to acknowledge that there were many Germans who held racist attitudes (viewing the rape as genocidal) toward the mass rape by the Russians, but that not everyone who views the rape as genocidal is racist, and that attempting to generalize everyone with a particular view was inappropriate and closer to the sort of behavior of the Nazis than simply claiming that mass rape is genocide.
In another incident, he referred to my insistence that five year old girls did not deserve to be raped based on the actions of other people thousands of miles away as Nazi aplogist BS, after I had expressed many anti Nazi opinions and it was clear to him that I am very anti Nazi.
Defense of rapists
Paul has also repeatedly emphasized that the rape of German women and young girls (not just of Nazis) is justified, or at least not that bad because of things that other people did thousands of miles away which caused the Russians to "suffer" "severe trauma" and made their rape of Germans, Jews, Poles, and Russians somehow less bad. He also has failed to address how the mass genocide of the Germans against the Russians mitigates the mass rape and murder by the Russians against Jews, Poles, Russians, and Germans persecuted by the Nazis (who were often found in concentration camps, and therefore known to the Russians to be victims of the Holocaust, and obviously not Nazis). Paul has repeatedly taken a sexist, victim blaming stance on the mass rape by the Russians. Under his view of rape, a boy who is abused by his father and commits several rapes is the victim and should not be punished harshly; this interpretation is taken from Paul's own statements, and I have also informed him that this is what he is saying when he expresses his attitudes toward the mass rape.
- --Anonymiss Madchen 03:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Anonymiss Madchen has a history of personal attacks. This appears to be a continuation of this history. Her recent edits [71] [72] [73] [74] have been soapboxing and argument from personal opinion. She has recently been warned in relation to NPA under DIGWUREN for soapboxing and personal attacks. She has not provided any diffs of the behaviour she alleges. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll not comment on the specific allegations here (a bit difficult, without any links), but I will draw readers' attention to this talk page dialogue during the occupation of Germany#Mentioning that Nazi women got what they deserved. I suspect that Anonymiss Madchen has little concept of how Wikipedia works, and is engaging in soapboxing as Fifelfoo suggests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- (2xec) I saw your note on Paul Siebert's talk page. The complaint you have outlined above is strong on rhetoric but somewhat weak on evidence (no diffs are provided). A look at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany suggests that there is a dispute here, which may easily WP:BOOMERANG back on you. Withdrawing this complaint can be done, I imagine, if you say so here explicitly. Forgiveness, that's an entirely different matter. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have followed the dispute involving Paul Siebert and Anonymiss Madchen and noticed her increasingly irrational and hostile attacks on him as well as irrational talk-page edits. In this discussion thread she is accusing another editor of holocaust denial against which she was warned. Could an administrator please block her. TFD (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, WP:BOOMERANG time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's the discussion in which Paul engages in name calling, the Nazi apologist BS accusation. The name calling occurs toward the end. This is completely uncalled for and unacceptable.
Drmies, I am aware of the uncivilized behavior that I did on the talk page of Rape during the occupation of Germany. I have gotten over that and I do not intend to return to it.
TFD, I am making a serious statement about Paul's behaior, and actually taking to explain objectively what he did; this is not name calling like you are trying to imply. Again, those irrational talk page edits are a thing of the past.
The other locations that Paul's offenses occur are here:
Talk:Rape during the occupation of Germany
User talk:Anonymiss Madchen/Genocide Denial (Talk:Rape During the occupation of Germany)
I think that based on what has been discussed, that maybe I should drop the report and seek advice from an experienced user, to try to get help with dealing with the situation. I have this user, (Piotrus) who left a message on my talk page, or any of you.
- --Anonymiss Madchen 04:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Based on this recent comment from Paul, "I am not sure that the vast majority of Germans knew about the Holocaust, I would say, the opposite was more correct.", I can see that I may have misinterpreted his actions before. I will withdraw my report, continue civilized discussions with Paul. I have been civilized, recently, though unfortunately not in old edits. I will also like to receive and accept help from any of you on how to handle disagreements, sililarly to how Piotrus did.
- --Anonymiss Madchen 05:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is user harassment. Paul said "I am not sure..." at 02:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC). 40 minutes prior to this being filed. I'd like to see WP:BOOMERANG here. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean "user harrassment?" I was on the edge while I was writing this up, and as I was going over everything, and I just changed my mind. --Anonymiss Madchen 05:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Read WP:BOOMERANG. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I see. That stuff was already delt with. I don't see what it has to do with user harassment, unless you are trying to say that I only made this report to get back at Paul. I can assure you that I would not have taken the half hour out of my time, plus what time I have spent on it since, just for retaliation. After reviewing some things, I realized that I'm not in as much of a disagreement with Paul as I thought. I withdrew my complaint. --Anonymiss Madchen 05:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Its nice that you've withdrawn your complaint. We are dealing with your behaviour now. Such as maintaining two user subpages with titles that accuse another editor of serious behaviour, and lack any substantiation of the same: here "Mentioning that Nazi women got what they deserved" and here "Rape according to Paul Siebert". You created one of these at 05:20 UTC after withdrawing your report at 05:12 UTC. We are concerned with your habit of falsely accusing Paul Siebert. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Accusing a fellow editor of "Historical revisionism", "Holocaust denial", "Name calling" and "Defense of rapists" without proof are serious personal attacks. You have done this previously to Paul Siebert. This is a pattern of inappropriate conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I deleted those two subpages; I thought that I was supposed to keep some sort of record of them. As for my behavior, it was already delt with. I will not make any more accusations against Paul. As for the proof, it was going to take time to go through and get specific incidents, and I'm not good with the technical wiki, stuff, so I didn't get it at the same time. I'm not going to get it now because I've with drawn the complaint. I also did give proof of the name calling. I probably shouldn't have brought this up. I promise, not one single accusation on Paul from here on. --Anonymiss Madchen 05:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am willing to work with you and any other users to prove that I have changed, and to learn how to deal with conflict better. --Anonymiss Madchen 05:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of this, I think it's something I should do. I'll write a formal apology to the users I've affected, including what I've done wrong, and explain what I'll do and how I've reformed. Looking back, there was a lot of stuff I shouldn't have done, but still a lot of civility and cooperation; I don't what those parts to be ruined. --Anonymiss Madchen 06:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Fish - help!
WTF? do you see what I see... can't fix it Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Rollback seems to have worked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh -- I didn't expect the bot to be part of this. thanks. (Still curious how that could happen though...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the culprit was Citation bot 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but the version it modified on June 16th looks OK now too, so it was probably somebody screwing around with a template somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh -- I didn't expect the bot to be part of this. thanks. (Still curious how that could happen though...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
This template vandalism was the culprit. All I can say is expect much, much more of this disruption in the future. –MuZemike 08:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- That wasn't the only one, as there was a pornographic anime thing of some kind there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Continued harrasment of User:Minorhistorian by User:Goldblooded
Simple really User:Goldblooded continues to place a nonsensical and abusive message on my talk page which I have removed several times here only to have it replaced, complete with some attempt at a threat:
"So there we go , case close and dont be a pathetic moron as to remove this for "Vandalism" or spam my wall with your blabble. And afterall it was YOU who posted it on my wall , so in other words Dont bother me again. Goldblooded (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)"
This user had placed a message on User:Dapi89's talk page, exacerbating an already tense situation:
Good call on the block, Dirk. Dapi89, you were repeatedly told that these images do need a fair-use rationale before inserting. You did not go on and place that, you choose to revert and revert. This is not the way forward. These images clearly fail WP:NFCC#10c - no rationale for this use. Not that a rationale would be enough - they also fail WP:NFCC#8 - they are here purely decorative. Please reconsider your edits. Thanks Goldblooded (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked Goldblooded on his talk page to refrain from doing this:
"The note that you have added to a somewhat unnecessary and gratuitous comment to Dapi89's talk page: ever consider that sticking your oar in does nothing but inflame an already undesirable situation, particularly when it had nothing to do with you in the first place? Minorhistorian (talk) 05:56, 23 June 20"
Which, I admit, was possibly a little strong: however I did not believe at the time that this user's intervention in a dispute was helpful or wise. Goldblooded removed this comment as "vandalism" and answered with this:
"In response to your post it was that Dapi was previously rude to me and he also vandalised my page so i thought i'd get my own back, Besides your not any better your sticking your nose into things that arent your business!" Goldblooded (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
For one thing "getting my own back" is a poor response in the first place - I have had lots of dealings over several years with Dapi89, I consider him to be a friend, and considered the matter of him retiring a matter of some importance. I also found Goldblooded's behaviour in this petty and offensive. Nothwitstanding this Goldblooded has continued to add repeated messages to my page and has added yet another message to Dapi89's page. I consider this behaviour to be childish in the extreme and ask that an administrator step in to deal with this.
Oh for crying out loud, Minorhistorian; Why ask me a question on my page and when i give you a reply you keep removing it from your page? If you dont want me to answer you , Dont ask me the questions then , and Dont post deogratory comments on my page either. Goldblooded (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
And if you want to know why i posted that on Dapi's page it was because he was rude to me a while back but anyway , why are you so concerned that isnt even your business! Crying to the admins isnt going to do anything either , So if you dont mind im trying to add a new page to the site. Goldblooded (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, Goldblooded has confirmed his "He was rude to me so I'm going to get my own back" attitude, which is unhelpful and childish: need I add more? Minorhistorian (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)