Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive195

Edit war on Caldor

A couple of IPs, along with User:Caldorwards4 and myself, seem to be involved in a four-way edit war over Caldor. The IPs keep adding the lyrics to a jingle that the chain used, both in violation of WP:LYRICS and WP:IINFO. One even added an Urban Planet forum as a "source". I don't want to violate WP:3RR so I could use some help in stopping this edit war. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing

This is overdue, probably: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing. Given that this (and related WP:COI issues) seem to be coming up more and more, I've launched this basic RFC. We've never had an actual community discussion or mandate about this. Please review the statements, leave yours, endorse as you see fit. Should make for an interesting and enlightening discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Ostrich page

On the June 8 Late Late Show, Craig Ferguson provoked an edit war on the Ostrich page by claiming "Wikipedia says the Ostrich can run at 85 miles per hour". Since then, multiple edits to the page have been made adding that (false) detail. All are being reverted by various users, but this is likely to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunniff (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 3 days to allow the meme to run its course. That's probably quite harsh for only minor vandalism that has been quickly reverted so far, so other admins should reduce/overturn if they disagree. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I tried parsing through the various warning / vandalism templates but could not figure out the right thing to do (I'm a relative newbie at official Wikipedia culture, sorry...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunniff (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They're hard going when you're new at it, so asking for help is the best thing. Thanks for doing so! I've dropped you a generic welcome template with some useful links that may help in future. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Far better than simply having your head stuck in the sand, and not asking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy speedy AfD close please

Resolved

I'm involved so would someone please visit and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowthyneighbor.org? -- Banjeboi 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye.

(Undoing "resolution") no admin action needed. //roux   19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not close this sort of thing anymore, Roux. Fifteen minutes, for pity's sake. Whether or not you think Shoemaker's Holiday has a point, he deserves to be treated with a bit of dignity and respect. Each administrator or editor may determine personally whether or not they wish to respond here, but a peremptory close by a non-admin on the Administrators' noticeboard is not called for at all. Risker (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you show me what admin action is needed here? //roux   19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It may not need any admin action at all; however, this dismissive "don't let the door hit you on the way out" closing of the thread is not an acceptable response to a longtime contributor's expressions of concern. Perhaps the appropriate action would be for administrators not previously involved to review the incidents described below and determine if there is a better resolution. Whether it changes Shoemaker's Holiday's mind about leaving, I won't venture to guess. It is, however, a sign that there may be issues beyond this noticeboard that warrant attention. Risker (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It wasn't meant to be dismissive, just keeping the board on-topic and trying to avoid the inevitable drama. //roux   19:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Risker, there's already a section at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged abuse of admin powers by Stifle. We have no need of duplication from AN/I to this noticeboard. Nor do we need a duplication of what could already be found in multiple sections at User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday, which is in response to a copy of the below announcement that was already posted to User:Shoemaker's Holiday. There's also a lengthy thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup#Please withdraw me from the cup. Let's not have this same discussion duplicated across umpteen noticeboards and talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And not one of them referenced with the intended close. This thread is hardly a dramafest, compared to any number of other threads on this page and on ANI; on seeing it, most people chose to respond by going to Shoemaker's Holiday's user talk page. If the thread had simply been closed instead of collapsed, with a reference to one or more of the other discussions, there would have been some sense to it. But a thread titled "Goodbye" and almost immediately collapsed with a "nothing to see here folks, move along" message is more likely to attract attention than one that is pointedly ignored by those who spend a lot of time on the messageboard. Risker (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving Wikipedia. It's more and more clear that even when policy is on your side, the general adminship will do nothing. Wadester16 modifies my posts, puts them under an inflammatory edit summary, and edit-wars to keep his version up? AGF. Nothing to see here. Someone invalidly non-admin-closes Plot of Les Misérables' discussion, then an admin claims that The changes to WP:PLOT made after a majority of people sid it shouldn't exist at all in WP:NOT were probably forced through without consensus because they watered the old, no-consensus policy down. So he protects the redirect. I complain, I get attacked.

Every time I state my concerns, I get attacked for raisingthem. Durova even often states they havee merit, but urges people to ignore me anyway.

Arbcom have been promising to deal with the Matthew Hoffman case for two months now. Kirril Has twice been asked for progress reports, and told me a statement was being prepared. No statement has ever been forthcoming.

I turn 30 today. That's too old to put up with this shit any more.

I'm out of here.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd reconsider. Your contributions here are highly valued and appreciated. If there's anything I or anyone here can do to help you, please let us know. And happy birthday. 30 is the new 30. Kingturtle (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, can someone explain in a little more detail just what happened here? Comparing the edit history of Shoemaker's Holiday & Wadester16 sheds no light on this. And the AfD for Plot of Les Misérables was closed a little hastily for my taste, but hardly enough by itself to make one shake the dust from one's sandals & leave Wikipedia. This sounds like another case of WikiBurnout -- in which case, sorry to see you go SH, but the best of luck to you. (And if 30 is too old for Wikipedia, then what is yours truly, a 51-year-old, doing here?) -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, Shoemaker made a more detailed statement at a talk page shortly before announcing his retirement. And in that he made specific accusations of misconduct regarding a dispute in featured pictures, but didn't back any of the claims with diffs. It's a bit awkward: Shoemaker's Holiday names me in the post as someone who agrees with him (which I mostly do), and I do confirm that he was in a conflict with a specific individual there, but I don't recall any of the particular actions he describes (edit warring, altering another editor's posts, etc.). Posted a query to Shoemaker's talk a few hours ago to ask for details. Awaiting reply. Durova^Charge! 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SH, fortunately there is no "general adminship" --there are almost 1000 active admins who are a very assorted lot of people, not many of whom are likely tamely submit to domination by any attempted cabal. it takes some amount of time and effort to get things moving among them all, just as among WPedians in general. that's why actions like that of Roux who closed the discussion are totally wrong-- we need some time to consider things. And, as durova said, if there are multiple issues, we need to consider them separately. The first-level treatment for Wikiburnout is communal support & if necessary a change of concentration here--experience is too valuable to be just discarded. I'm even older than Llywrch, and I would hate to think the young people here did not have our stamina. DGG (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed baffling that "not plot" would exist given the clear lack of consensus behind it, but hey when it is clear something lacks legitimate support, then WP:IAR anyway. But look, do not allow one incident to bully you away from here. I see things that baffle and disgust me frequently on this site and frequently wonder why sometimes I am even arguing with non-experts on certain things (I tend to avoid discussions concerning content of which I am largely ignorant) and yet, I still find Wikipedia useful and worth volunteering my time for, although I am increasingly thinking some kind of reform may be needed, i.e. we had the model that we have had and seen its flaws. I realize the whole appeal of "anybody can edit," but I do not think some of that is working, and the fiction and bilateral relations discussions are really showing me the downfalls of having certain blocks of accounts wanting to deletes specific kinds of articles for which they just do not like them, but clearly have no real, even amateur knowledge of the topics, they just do not like them (and no, I am not saying "everyone" who says to delete them, but a disconcerting number nonetheless). Perhaps even now to be qualified to say comment in AfDs on fictional characters, you have had to have created at least one DYK worthy fictional character article or something? The same for bilateral relations articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday has quit wikipedia before. This is not something new. Not everyone has the necessary patience, skills and temperament for editing online. --Kleinzach 06:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but a tolerance for getting #(@*-ed over by ArbCom really shouldn't be a requirement to edit here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only two Wikipedia arbitrations have ever been vacated and Shoemaker's Holiday was the target of one of them. Kleinzach, please consider withdrawing that post. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul R. Traub

Paul R. Traub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) on 6 June. It uses this site as a source, as well as court documents, and was entirely written by Furtive admirer. Less than 3 days later, the article was given a prominent link on the same site. His writing style and the one on petters-fraud.com are practically identical. The article, in my opinion, is original research, and is not even close to neutral.

I am concerned that Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) runs petters-fraud.com, or at least has a conflict of interest. In this discussion, initially regarding an employee of Mr Traub whitewashing the article, Furtive sees himself as "superman", believing in "truth, justice, and the american way". He's quite adamant about 'outing' the alleged crimes commited by several people, leading to to believe he's not exactly neutral himself, even though he may have no link to the people involved. I'm very close to removing the page from mainspace, or possibly deleting it, unless/until it can be scrutinised for BLP problems.

Can someone provide me with a second opinion here?

Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of the BLP is terrible, the way the article is written draws a line between someone who has been accused of a crime and someone who as far as i can tell has not been accused of a crime, which should be gotten rid of immediately, and i don't see how "petters-fraud.com" could be considered a reliable source, it's an attack page of some sort (says so right on the front page, i.e. "The plan is to GET TRAUB for his crimes and roque DOJ for Cover UP" (sic).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This still needs work but it's looking better thanks in large part to Bali's efforts. As for Furtive admirer, I have no idea if he has a COI, but he is clearly editing with an agenda and trying to publish original research on Wikipedia, and in a BLP no less. Also, Furtive's claims need to be checked carefully: I found one that said that Traub's firm was ordered to refund $750K worth of legal fees; in fact, that was what a plaintiff's motion had requested and the judge had denied that motion. Traub does have a PR person on Wikipedia (User:W Cwir from Saylor) but W Cwir was just unblocked after agreeing to religiously follow WP:BESTCOI so I hope that part will go away. Mangojuice^talk 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) also introduced, more or less word for word, the same sort of original research attacks (much of it demonstrably innacurate, much more of it simply not supported by reliable sources so it's difficult to prove or disprove) in the article on eToys.com with this series of edits.[1]. I've since reverted most of it. More eyes are needed on this, and we should really no tolerate more of this from an editor who's been around for a year, long enough to know better. I'm taking a look at a bit more of his contributions.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

--removed diatribe by Furtive admirer that consisted mainly of personal attacks and BLP problems--Shell ^babelfish 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of that above diatribe MUST be deleted as a violation of WP:BLP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this matter. I support a BLP review and am willing to work with Furtive Admirer and Ms. Cwir to perform one. There is no need for the escalation of a simple content dispute to this forum at this time. While both parties have a POV, I suspect that they are rational individuals who both want a functional and coherent article. I therefore offer my services as an independent reviewer who has no interest in the subject, to work with both parties to scrub the pages. Geoff Plourde (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider my commentary, a narrative, not a diatribe. Since you gentlemen exhibit a default negative POV and experience a catharsis when deleting, do whatever feels good. I have touched up and tweaked the traub page a bit, and it is satisfactory to me. there is no need for Geoff at this time, but i will save you for future issues. thanx in advance.

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could one the editors familiar with this incident take a look at the comments Furtive left on my talk page? I would like to remove them, but given my COI I am wary of editing any material about Paul Traub, even if it is on my own talk page. I think the comment content might not conform to BLP rules, but I would like a second opinion on that. Weronix (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Any user is free to remove whatever content they do not want from their user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My block of User:Diete003

Resolved

Diete003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just did this in response to this. The user has a history of incivility, eg this edit summary and this comment, and therefore I felt my block was appropriate to prevent further disruption. I brought it here in case anyone felt otherwise, and I will not consider any reduction of the block a wheel war, though I'd hope that any reduction will be held off unless and until the user has a chance to make a comment. However as I was typing this I changed the block to prevent editing of the talk page as he restored the text in question. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm - looks like they recently had a dispute over content that got out of hand and ended up blocked for edit warring. It seems likely that the rant is probably a bit of blowing off steam after all that; I didn't notice anything in the post that prompted your bock was particularly shocking. It does look like they might have had some snippiness in their history, especially during that edit war but I'm not seeing anything here that warrants an indef block. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think I would have have blocked for that at all. Shell ^babelfish 09:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the text in question referred to Wikipedians as a bunch of amateur pricks. But most importantly he called a specific editor (who he named in 2nd paragraph and called his enemy WP:BATTLE) a capricious son of a bitch and a crook. And five days ago "Yankee sonabitch you die!". Nja²⁴⁷ 10:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This text is unacceptable, as was the restoration of it. That being said, I've re-enabled the talk page privileges so that the editor can request unblocking if he wishes and asked him not to restore the text in question. If he does, the talk page privileges should be revoked again. Indefinite =/= infinite and I hope that this user might issue an unblock request after calming down. –xeno^talk 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

He restored it again... Talk page priveleges disabled, block endorsed. –xeno^talk 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

general watch for Gabon articles

The entire country of Gabon has suffered an internet blackout since Sunday. This may be related to the death of the President Omar Bongo or a optical fibre problem, depending on the source. Some of the articles seem to be written by Gabonese (who now have no internet access) so a watch on these articles for vandalism is in order. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

neo-Nazi activist at work on White People article

Apparently endorsing Adolph Hitler's "the Jews aren't white" theory, Arjacent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying remove all images of Jewish people from the White People article [2], as well as censoring information that might make Nazi Germany appear anti-quantum physics; see my talk page comments for further elaboration. Since Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum for blatant antisemitic activism, I am requesting administrative assistance in stopping this nonsense. Erik9 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The account only has two edits and nothing but a welcome template on their talk page. Maybe try discussing it first and make sure its not a misunderstanding? If it turns out they're aware of policy and intend to ignore it, I'm all for taking action. Shell ^babelfish 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I've lost it, but could someone explain why we prominently discuss Nazi Germany's attitude toward quantum physics in our article on white people? MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean the caption to the photo of Heisenberg? That is something that does not clearly tie into the rest of the article. (It seems to be a remnant from an earlier, less NPOV draft.) I have some other criticisms of this article in general -- for example recorded European racial opinions of the people of Ethiopia & how they have changed -- but seeing how I might get my toe bitten for dipping it into this controversial topic, I'll decline. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect into userspace

Just a heads up here. I just discovered a link from this catgeory leading to a userspace article. He appears to be fairly new here (may 5). As far as I know, such links aren't permitted (linking from main article space into userspace). I'll remove it for now with a polite note on their page about this . I'm posting here to give notice, and, should anyone (admin or not) find fault, feel free to revert me, and if a trout needs to be applied, feel free!

--_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mainspace categories should not be used on anything apart from articles and, occasionally, portals. I was just about to remove it, but someone beat me there. In future, removal/dewikifying and a note to the user would be best. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You can always just put nowiki tags around the categories in the article until such time as the user is ready to move it into article space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting user ban

Resolved

 – User has been blocked. --Vivio Testarossa^Talk 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I reported about up to 30 days ago the user Shedarian who was posting on my talk page asking for me to illegeal copy material and send it to them. a admin advbise them nto to do it and left at that. however the user has again today asked me to send them illegeal recording please cna they be blocked?--Andy Chat c 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked them, because that was all they were using Wikipedia for. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I aint one for reporting people but they are goign beyond what is acceptabel even in my books.--Andy Chat c 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for outside review of my action

Hi, I'd like some feedback on a move request I closed, moving Military history of the peoples of the British Islands to Military history of Britain. It's a big mess, but here are the relevant sections: Talk:Military_history_of_Britain#Poll_on_Article_Name, the discussion I closed. There's lots of discussion above and below it, but I'd primarily like a review of my evaluation of that discussion. My close of it is being challenged on my talk page, at User_talk:Aervanath#Vote_rigging_at_Military_History_of_British_Islands, with allegations of canvassing, although I did take the canvassing into account when I made the close. This is a controversial area, with lots of nationalistic fervor on both sides, and I'd like some other uninvolved admins to come along and give me an unbiased view. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you suggest Military history of the British Islands as a compromise? Drawn Some (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That would have been no better. No offense, but I can tell you haven't read the talk page; if you had, it'd be clear why that name wouldn't fly. The term "British Isles" is controversial among the British and Irish nationalist factions, and both sides hated the term "British Islands". Actually, the issue is kind of moot, now; the article has now been turned into a disambiguation page, and discussion has gone off in another direction altogether. What I'm hoping is that other editors/admins will go through and critique my close of the discussion. E.g., was it the correct decision, could I have worded my rationale differently, were there better ways to respond to editors on my talk page, etc. There's no actual need for emergency action, I'm just hoping for some constructive criticism. Thanks, --Aervanath (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin here but since I already stuck my unwanted foot in I went and read it. As a reasonable editor who normally doesn't question admin actions made in good faith even if I disagree with them let me point out that no matter what decision you made a majority of the editors would be unhappy. The argument there will go on long after both you and I are dead. The decision you made was a good one and you explained it well. Drawn Some (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Having looked this over, the source of the conflict is not the article itself, its the same old tired English/Welsh/Irish/Scottish/Cornish/Rutlandish/Whatever ethnic conflict and you can't be asked to solve that. You acted fine within bounds as an admin. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone stalking me

I believe this IP has been Stalking me, since it has removed several of my news items. --Chuck Marean 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, 76.64.168.94 (talk · contribs) has only 2 edits, one of which is a revert of your news item (a revert that I support, btw). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't support it because the increase in oil was more global than some of those current events. Most of those other current events don't sound to me like an article was updated either, and the current events page says nothing about updating an article. I wonder if it should.--Chuck Marean 05:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, that's a conversation to have on the talk page of that article, not here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive, edit-warring editor

Resolved

In early July 2007, User:Peterdjones did his first beer article edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trappist_beer&diff=142217813&oldid=135505666 The information he added was generally inaccurate and seemed to reflect the POV of Beer Advocate or another beer fan website. He edit-warred with knowledgable editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trappist_beer&diff=146165701&oldid=146159214) and by 21 August 2007, he was gone. All the articles that he had inaccurately written and protected with edit-warring had to be rewritten.

A few weeks ago (25 May), he returned. The edit-warring is back: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quadrupel&action=history Plus endless and pointless discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quadrupel#Links

His lack of knowledge about Dutch/Belgian beer is enough of a problem. His edit-warring and pointless discussions prevent editors from working since we need to spend time undoing the damage he caused and trying to explain to him why he is wrong.

I have reverted many of his edits because I: a. hoped/expected he would soon go away, as he had before, and b. it was quicker than having to go through his history to collect diffs to file this notice. Please ban him from the beer article so that we can improve instead of defending the status quo. Mikebe (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As an independant third party, I have to say that Mikebe is as much to blame as Peterdjones. Pay no attention to this post.Beakerboy (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two points Beakerboy. One is that you haven't provided any diffs to back up that assertion. Two is that in posting here, Mikebe is also inviting scrutiny of his actions in regards to this dispute. Administrators will look at all actions by all editors when formulating a response. Suggesting they ignore this post is ill-considered. Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What I thought I was doing is making some small and uncontentious amendments to some articles. It seems to have blown up into a huge battle that I don't really have the time to take part it. I find it odd that I can amend the article reality without comment, as I recently did, but the minutiae of Belgian beer have to be argued out exhaustively. If anyone wishes to pursue this

matter (and I can't think why they should) further, I can provide examples of mikebe making misleading edit summaries and getting facts wrong. 1Z (talk)

Peterdjones, you don't help yourself when you refactor the comments of others to remove a diff (see here) at the same time as stating your case. I have reinserted it, you should note I spotted this and am not even involved in your dispute. Mine's a Leffe Tripel ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That was accidental. 1Z (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you accidentally removed a specific piece of text, that just happened to show the reason you were brought here, without disturbing any surrounding text, when your response was some paragraphs away from the link you accidentally removed? //roux   17:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was an accident, why didn't you undo it?

It's occurred to me that it might be useful to explain why I say his edits are inaccurate since not everyone is familiar with the subject. In the first diff I posted above, he calls Trappist "styles". Trappist is a designation of origin, not a style. Secondly, enkel he has confused with patersbier. Thirdly, tripels are not "usually golden". And fourth, no Trappist make a quadrupel (however, one makes a beer with the brand name Quadrupel). His description of dubbel, however, is generally correct. Mikebe (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'first diff' is two years old.

The recent edits mikebe has been reverting do not mention styles, so his grounds are spurious.

Mikebe's claims about trappist beer styles are his own POV. Many authorities disagree. I am unable to get mikebe to edit according to WP:V.

Mikebe's claim that La trappe Quadrupel somehow is not a quadrupel defies all logic.

Mikebe is reluctant to admit the existence of non-Trappist and non-Belgian Quadrupels since it spoils his POV theory that quad is not a style.

There are verifiable sources that can be quoted on quad's status as a style, but mikebe appears to prefer censorship.

The use of Enkel as a 'Patersbier' (for consumption by the monks) is verifiable.

1Z (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trappist_beer&diff=next&oldid=149962845) we've got Peterdjones declaring that authorities like Tim Webb recognise Trappist beer styles. That would come as a big suprise to Mr. Webb because on page 52 of his "Good Beer Guide to Belgium and Holland" (ISBN 1-85249-174-4) he wrote: "There is no beer style called Trappist. The term 'Trappist beer' is a designation of the brewery of origin."

The difference between 'style' and 'styles' is key. There is no one Trappist style, but Webb and others do recognise Dubbel and Tripel as styles. 1Z (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not specifically Trappist styles.Patto1ro (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? None of the material I want to add says anything at all about styles. Mikebe's POV-pushing of his styles-don't-exist theory has reached the extent where he deletes completely neutral material.1Z (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trappist_beer&diff=next&oldid=150440750) is PeterDJones again playing the POV card against an editor trying to correct the Trappist beer article against the edit warring of Mr. Jones. This anonymous editor, by the way, is [...] one of the foremost European authorities on the Trappists and Trappist beer [...]. Mikebe (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here again we have something dug up from years ago. 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed with this latest dispute and Mikebe may well be warranted in filing a complaint about this other editor's actions, Mikebe has been known to push his own POV too. He has sytematically worked his way through beer articles over the last couple of years removing all links to the BJCP organisation to the chagrin of many editors and sparking off several edit wars in the process. So if someone looks into this I advise they look over the complete edit history of the article extensively because this other editor may be just restoring something that Mikebe removed at some point without consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a consnsus about those links until you came in and ignored it. Having shown no interest in the beer articles before you suddenly arrived and started reverting all of mikebe's edits. That couldn't possibly be connected with the fact that he'd removed irrelevant details about vegetarian beer you had added to some article, could it?Patto1ro (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for information about standing consensus. In the only case where it was supplied, it was in favour of my edits. Mikebe has misrepresented consensus before. I have no recollection of the vegetarian beer incident. 1Z (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Talk:Tripel

"Since two of my quotes are being used in this discussion, I'll chime in here. My thinking is most in line with 1Z. If a specific brand of beer is noteworthy enough to be called out as an important representative of a particular "style", a sentence or two should be written within the article about that particular beer. In effect, working the notable examples into the body of the article. I've been pretty hands off on these articles for a while, and I'll continue to be for the foreseeable future.Beakerboy (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)"

1Z (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above post by Mikebe might contain an unintentional outing of an IP editor. Unomi (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Refactored. If the anonymity is important to the editor, should the intervening revisions be oversighted? user:J aka justen (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed restoring one of mikebe's deletions with one edit: Here is a diff showing mikebe removing some material -- which is in fact verifiable--with the misleading edit summary of 'cleanup'. [3]

Assuming that is Peter just above, here is a later diff showing what he claims is "verfiable fact" was, in fact, not: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brouwerij_de_Koningshoeven&diff=next&oldid=294415007

Peter has chosen to defend himself here mostly by attacking me. I hope you will agree his reactions in this notice have given a good example of why I said he was disruptive and edit-warring. In defending himself above, for example, he uses phrases like "Many authorities disagree" and "There are verifiable sources..." But has he posted a single one? That is exactly why I brought this request. Mikebe (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clutching at straws. My source is ambiguous on the issue of the use of Blonde as Patersbier. That is a small detail. Patto1ro was wrong to delete the whole passage over one word, and now seems to have accepted that he is. I amended the passage to remove the reference to Blonde as it is not unequivocally supported by the source, and mikebe deleted it anyway, as this diff shows: [4].Mikebe is still wrong to say that I am "confusing" enkel and Patersbier. I still have verification for that claim. Mikbe is still deleting verifiable material and arguing from self-declared authority.1Z (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a grand total of one. And that IS a fact. Mikebe (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And here are some of the references I have been using (I put them on the talk page to protect them from mikbes deletions). A glance at talk:quadrupel will show that it is mikebe who is making unverifiable claims:-

Here's one that brews a Tripeland a quad: Weyerbacher Brewing Company
here's another Boulevard Brewing Comapny
And another Midnight Sun 'Venus'

1Z (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And once again, proof of Peter's lack of knowledge and understanding of beer. Here, for example, are five other breweries:

http://www.churchendbrewery.co.uk/
http://www.drinkdrakes.com/home.html
http://www.emersons.co.nz/
http://www.falconbrewing.com/
http://www.thebackyardbrewhouse.com/

All of these breweries brew a beer called "George." According to Peter's logic, this "proves" that "George" is now a beer style. One of these breweries even produces a "tripel". This, according to Peter, would "prove" a connection between a George and a tripel. Clearly this logic is flawed and the claims are untrue. Should Wikipedia continue publishing fiction about beer? Mikebe (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The status of quadrupel as a style is doubtful, and I have reference , and I am happy to mention it in the article, and I haver already told mikebe that I am. Mikebe thinks it isn't a style and that there are in fact no beer styles at all. He has no evidence for any of that, it just his personal theory. Mikebe must stop removing verifiable material, and start editing according to the guidelines and not according to his personal theories. 1Z (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Peter writes: "Mikebe's claim that La trappe Quadrupel somehow is not a quadrupel defies all logic. Mikebe is reluctant to admit the existence of non-Trappist and non-Belgian Quadrupels since it spoils his POV theory that quad is not a style." (These quotes are taken from his posts above.) And now, suddenly, "quadrupel as a style is doubtful." Who is writing this? One person says it is a style, then says its not? Peter writes/edits ONLY without sources, and when sources are requested, he either uses flawed sources . He wrotes ONLY his POV, then turns around and says that information that contradicts his are "personal theories." Likewise, he criticises editors for "reflexive reverting" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patto1ro&diff=prev&oldid=294418679) but, look at his history and what does one find? Why HE's the "reflexive reverter" (e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brouwerij_de_Koningshoeven&action=history). Have we somehow slipped into an alternative reality? And finally, as I have already said above: Peter tries to defend himself by attacking me (again).Mikebe (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The verifiable claim about quadrupel's status is specific, and not part of an all-encompassing theory about the non-existence of beer styles. Moreover, it is not conclusive, although mikebe's very strong prejudices on the subject naturally make him read it that way.

I have sources for everything I want to say, and I have demonstrated I do repeatedly despite mikebe's false accusations to the contrary.

Mikebe has still provided no sources for his no-style theory.

I cannot continue editing beer articles until mikebe is prevented from making spurious deletions, hence I must criticise his approach, just as he is attempting to criticise mine by starting this investigation.

08:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical post: 1. claim evidence, but don't provide any, 2. make baseless accusations against someone, but don't provide any evidence, 3. claim it is possible to prove a negative. If Peter actually knew anything about beer instead of just claiming to, he would provide evidence. But he doesn't, which proves the point of this notice. Mikebe (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia,negatives are "proved" the same way as positives: you find a notable source saying "there is no X". If you can 1Z (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Uuuuuuuugh. How about a pair of topicbans from the entire subject of beer? Anyone object? //roux   16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my world! It's not fun, is it? Isn't there enough evidence here of what I said at the outset? - Unfamiliar with the subject, argumentative (edit-warring), disruptive. I say end it. Mikebe (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter for this noticeboard. Content disputes are a matter for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or Wikipedia:Third opinion. As the content is specialised, and the dispute is deep, I suggest Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Further discussion on this matter should continue on the talkpage of the articles concerned, and/or at Mediation Cabal. SilkTork *^YES! 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete an article I created

Resolved

As the page's creator, I don't feel right doing this myself, as other people have made contributions to the article itself. I thought Adam London was notable for inclusion, but for reasons I was unaware, he is not, as yet.

Could someone please delete this article for me? Thank you. Bobo. 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just place a prod tag on the article to have it deleted? If no one objects, it will be deleted in a few days. The Seeker 4 Talk 13:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's gone. Thank you for the advice — I've never before used PROD tags on my own articles before — but if such a situation arises in the future, I will be sure to do so. Bobo. 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia ArbCom Case

This is absurd, and I strongly encourage others who feel the same way to stand up and say so. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I second this encouragement. While I know many will sneer, I do belief this judgment is dreadfully punitive and threatens to undermine Wikipedia's core content values; it gives one-purpose CoI tendentious nationalist users a victory over one of the few admins who has put his neck on the line to stand up to them; it punishes a user who has given so much to maintain wikipedia's first two pillars, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view". It is a judgment which sends a message to all Wikipedians and to those outside that our leadership care less about our first two pillars than they do about attempts to subvert them in pursuit on anti-encyclopedic ideological goals. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. We have a serious problem with 'no go areas' already, and recent actions are likely to make this worse. Bottom line, is this going to have an effect on Admin involvement in these problem areas? I think it will and that effect will hurt Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social-networking site. Conduct is more important than content. The information in our articles may be biased, tendentious nonsense but - hey - at least it was written by polite pushers of biased, tendentious nonsense. Britannica must be kicking themselves they never used this way of compiling a reference book. --Folantin (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse the comments above. - Ev (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So it's OK for admins to return incivility for incivility without restriction, as long as they don't use their tools to block people? That's what I'm gathering from a brief reading of that set of rants. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Rants"? Very civil. --Folantin (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this a bit ironic with your post a few lines up. Also, compared to some of the stuff we see daily, the comment is relatively civil. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was using irony. Well spotted. No, I don't care about "civility" as much as editing a decent encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. :P Tone just doesn't pop out as well on the internet as well as in rl conversation. ;) Icestorm815 • Talk 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just post here what I posted there: FutPerf is a one-purpose admin, the best kind; his purpose is to disallow nationalist bullshit to disrupt the project. More people, Arbcom especially, should be lauding him for doing the right thing. This... well, I have to call it a 'proposal' as any of the more accurate words would get me blocked... this proposal is an utter travesty, and a complete betrayal of everything this project stands for. I call on every admin to resign the bit en masse, and request that Arbcom deal with all admin-attention-needed problems from here on out. They are unequivocally stating that they know better than a hard-working admin how to handle the relentless nationalistic idiocy that infests large chunks of the project, not to mention the other excellent work FutPerf does. So I say to you, admins: let them. Show them exactly how shortsighted this ridiculous proposal is by either resigning or going on strike. Wikipedia should be cheering the admins who are brave enough to stick their faces in these blenders, not removing the very tools they need to enforce one of our core principles. //roux   17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, there are two good reasons why a lot of Admins stay away from these cat-fights: few of us have the patience to handle the grief that comes from groups who are only a few steps away from shooting at each other, & even fewer know enough about the disputes to know when the individuals involved are BSing. That said, if the ArbCom is correct about FPaS, I would be very surprised; he/she has always struck me as level-headed. Maybe FPaS did lose patience & wrote something incivil -- but considering the type of people who day after day push their nationalist POV over all other POVs on a topic, often using language which is hardly civil, I'd be inclined to cut him/her some slack for it & do no more than issue a warning. The ArbCom is going to need to provide a very detailed defense for removing the bit from FPaS if they don't want another round of "vote out the bums". -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see arb com is currently backing off from the sanctions, and, without any personal feeling against any of those involved, I hope they have not yielded to the pressure expressed above and on the talk page linked to. Admins operate in a setting of almost complete freedom to conduct arbitrary action, and this is only tolerable to the extent that all of them retain the trust of the community. this trust is endangered by two things: appearance of non-neutrality, and rudeness. No matter how difficult the issue, someone who can not act calmly in it should not act in it, nor should someone whose neutrality is even subject to challenge. It is admittedly as I too have found difficult to continue involvement in a matter without acquiring a POV in some direct, and probably the only way to handle it is to take it in relays and act independently. Once one feels frustrated at something, one must step back from it as an admin. There reaslly should be no exceptions due to friendship or expertise or even overall quality of editing or adminiship-- but perhaps we need to be slow in transitioning to better expectations, to avoid the appearance of unfairness to individuals. The discussions above and on the talk page have an uncomfortable appearance of admins gathered to protect each other. DGG (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see now that my comment wasn't as clear as it should be, so let me try again. These subject areas -- those touching on ethnic/nationalistic hot buttons are difficult to moderate well, & few people (Admins & non-Admins) try. And Nietzsche's warning about battling monsters also applies here: mediators in these conflicts will eventually lose their patience & cool. (It's not a question of if, but when; even handling relatively uncontroversial topics eventually & unavoidably leads to a potential WikiBurnout event.) And if a mediator has totally lost it -- say, banning all parties & letting the ArbCom sort it out -- that individual deserves sanctions. However, when a person takes on a difficult task -- like moderating these ethnic/nationalistic conflicts -- & does do something unacceptable, then the ArbCom needs to explain very carefully & in sufficient detail the reasons for the sanctions. Because otherwise potential mediators will avoid these topics if it appears that the ArbCom doesn't have their backs, & there will be a backlash against the ArbCom. And I don't think anyone who cares about Wikipedia wants to see that happen. -- llywrch (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already happening. As a direct result of this case, one admin (myself) has resigned; a long-term editor and another admin have retired in protest. Other admins are saying that they never want to have anything to do with nationalist conflicts ever again. The message from this case is that ArbCom does not have admins' backs and there is already a backlash against the ArbCom - the strongest I've ever seen, in fact. FloNight has already explicitly summarised the ArbCom's attitude: "The topic ... needs all editors and admins that make provocative edits to be removed so that the article can include stable NPOV content." Note the criteria being applied here - "provocative" edits are declared unacceptable regardless of context. In nationalist conflicts especially, simply insisting on NPOV and reliable verifiable sources is provocative, because the nationalists do not accept anything that contradicts their fixed view of "the truth". The message from ArbCom appears to be that not being "provocative" is a higher priority than ensuring encyclopedic quality, which of course defeats the basic purpose of Wikipedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When it gets to a stage like this, people involved with the article have to pass it into other hands. The question of when one is too involved to continue cannot be left to the individual to decide for himself. DGG (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's a broad topic area. Lots of articles touch on the Republic of Macedonia, and even more touch on the Balkans. And no one has shown much sustained interested in dealing with the problems in this area except Moreschi, Fut. Perf., and ChrisO. Most admins who have commented at the voluminous talk page of the Macedonia 2 case have said that they're not that interested in getting involved in the topic area, because it's difficult, unrewarding, and seemingly futile...and the arbitration case gives me and many other editors the feeling that the ArbCom doesn't have much sympathy for admins who take on the task. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take Akhilleus' statement even further. It's beyond just a broad topic area, as the revert war over the name of Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia extends almost everywhere in the project (including such odd areas as a Colombian telenovela and an American musician), and I have no doubt that some of the participants in this long-term war will scream for enforcement the first time one of the parties to the case reverts an edit which changes "Macedonia" to "FYROM". Horologium (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

@DGG: I will rush to the defence of anyone working to protect neutrality, admin or otherwise, and I'm pretty sure others involved in defending FutPerf will do the same. Furthermore, the notion that this is admins defending admins is clearly mistaken because a number of those defending FutPerf are not admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remove Egyptian Language from Wikipedia

Resolved

 – This is the English Wikipedia which does not have any authority over other language projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

We are a group of Arabs including many Egyptians, who are not satisfied with the existence of an Egyptian Language in Wikipedia.

We benefit from Wikipedia and we appreciate the Wikipedia Project and consider it as a useful source of knowledge، which comes from the community to the community.

As a part of this community we would like to share our opinion, in order to improve the way people receive this knowledge.

We would like you to remove the so called Egyptian language from Wikipedia under the link: http://arz.wikipedia.org

There are a lot of reasons:

1. There is not an Egyptian language as it is claimed to be. There is an Arabic language and in Egypt there are a lot of dialects which derive from the original Arabic language, but none of them can be defined as a Language, as they have no grammar, no dictionaries and even there is not a common pronunciation of words. Every one would write a certain word in different ways.

2. The expressions used on the Egyptian Wikipedia site are mostly the exact English expressions, just written in Arabic letters. like "IP, Login, Save, etc." They have no Arabic or Egyptian origin. It is English in Arabic letters. This doesn't deserve to be a language.

3. Arabic is the language taught at schoolsin Egypt, and the language of many important literature and knowledge sources. By claiming the Egyptian dialect to be a Language, people will neglect Arabic language and by time they will forget it and lose access and understanding of their culture.

4. In Egypt there are different dialects; each city has its own dialect, from the north in Alexandria, till the far south at Aswan and from Sinai at the East till Libya. There are a lot of dialects. Why is the Egyptian Language on Wikipedia the true and official Egyptian language? Then instead of calling it Egyptian, call it "Egyptian, Cairo, followed by the name of district where the dialect is spoken".

5. We don't think it is your aim to add all dialects in each country and all dialects of each language. Think what it means 23 Arab countries, each of them, has many dialects!

6. If your aim is to let people understand the information on wikipedia, then let them learn their own language correctly. This is easier and more helpful than inventing a new language.

Our Suggestion:

If the above reasons still don't convince you, we suggest you to make a voting, to see the percentage of people for or against the claimed language.

We hope you can cooperate as soon as possible. Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.168.2 (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, this is not something we here on the English Wikipedia can decide. Each language edition of Wikipedia is its own separate and independent project. The creation of the Egyptian-Arabic Wikipedia was decided on the Meta-Wiki (meta.wikimedia.org [5]), the central coordination place for all projects. Any closure discussion will have to take place there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Administrator above beat me to it. That's absolutely correct, this is a separate Wikipedia and we don't have the power to make the change you are asking for. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that it probably does not mean anything within a global community, but the IP that posted this request geolocates to Darmstadt, a significant distance from the Nile Delta.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I started the same discussion on the Egyptian Wikipedia and the admins deleted it. Because they don't want to listen to any critic. Being in Darmstadt, still doesn't mean that I'm not Egyptian. I do care about my language wherever I am. Please lead me to the correct admin. I sent an email to wikimedia admins. They said I have to join the discussion board. Now here you tell me this is the english wiki and it is different. So now who can I talk to??? Who is responsible for adding and removiong languages? Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.168.2 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want something done and believe it is a real problem, the only thing you can do is contact the Foundation itself. Even if people here "voted" to delete the entire Egyptian language wikipedia, the vote would have absolutely no influence as nothing decided here, on the English language wikipedia has any effect on any other language's wikipedias. Sorry if you feel like you are getting the run-around, but there is nothing anyone here can do. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should take place at the same venue where the request for its establishment was made. Please follow the link provided above by Future Perfect at Sunshine. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Xilbabans

I noticed the article on Pre-Columbian Maya dance had a red link for a reference to Xilbabans. However, there is an existing article called Xibalba. But when I went to create the redirect, I was led here with a message that the title was restricted or possibly on a blacklist. I see no reason why this simple and helpful redirect could not be done. An alternative, of course, would be to edit the Pre Colombian Maya Dance article so it cites correctly. I may do that...unless that is blacklisted too...sigh.... just trying to be helpful. Natcolley (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, done. Natcolley (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried to get the blacklist warning, but was successfully able to create the redir at Xibalbans (NB spelling: Your section here is called Xilbabans). Not quite sure whether Xilbabans would work, or whether it's a desirable redirect. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restore deleted featured picture

Would an administrator please restore File:Military aviary2.jpg? The file was inappropriately transferred to Commons (where it cannot be hosted due to Commons policy), and then deleted locally. As a result, no WMF site currently has a copy of it. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) BTW as a reminder to the admin community, when a featured picture is hosted locally it is always a good idea to check with the uploader before deleting it. Due to variances in policy and copyright law a small number of featured pictures must be hosted locally, and local deletion risks losing them entirely. Durova^Charge! 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that was weird. It let me see the deleted picture, but when I tried to restore it, it threw an error. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's back and running now. Much obliged. Illustrates a silly little article that just made GA. Would love to get it to FA for a chance at next year's April Fool's main page. :) Cheers! Durova^Charge! 17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In case any devs happen to see this, here's the error I got:

Undelete failed; someone else may have undeleted the page first.
<p></p>
Error undeleting file: Could not find file "deleted/p/9/w/p9w061e3t8al312qgmd6r5v0lj5ba1g.jpg".

But I could still view the deleted file by clicking the link to the version. I ended up just downloading the image, and then uploading it manually myself. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits and Kittybrewster

Vintagekits (talk · contribs) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs) were given some sort of topic ban by the community a while back, which was confirmed by ArbCom without ArbCom taking the case. The motion they passed is here. From my reading of that motion it seems clear to me that they are not banned from article editing on Knights and Baronets, only from page moves (plus pointy AFD noms). However, ArbCom also says that the community enacted topic ban is recognized and confirmed, and in that discussion, it was definitely not clear that the ban applied to moves only; in fact, at least one admin requested Kittybrewster be blocked for article edits: [6]. Both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster seem to believe they are banned from article edits as well. If that's the case, it's due to the community, not ArbCom. I'd like the community to follow ArbCom's lead and agree that the topic ban applies only to page moves related to knights and baronets, not to article edits. Mangojuice^talk 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Community topic bans normally include article editing. Got the link to the community ban so we can read it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It's the constant fighting over the entire topic of nobility that causes this, and my understanding at the close of that latest AN/I discussion was that both were banned from the topic, writ large. ThuranX (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The (lengthy) thread is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl –xeno^talk 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support this motion. I am of the opinion that the community consensus was somewhat shaky, especially considering a good number of the community who commented were hardly neutral observers, having long histories of animosity with one or other of the subjects. There was no evidence presented for a history of problematic editing, which leaves a complete topic ban without much justification. I suggest both editors are given indefinite community page-move bans on the subject, with a strong message that any further issues on this topic will result on it being expanded to a full topic ban. Rockpocket 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me also add that ArbCom actually rejected other motions that were unambiguous about the ban applying to article edits. And, furthermore, the proposal to ban, from Tznkai, was originally worded as a temporary measure until arbitration can be pursued, and some people (like me) supported it on that basis. And while we're on it, is the community ban temporary? It was originally proposed that way. Mangojuice^talk 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That thread is extremely hard to follow. I suggest the community start a new discussion with a precisely worded proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Without going into personal details, I am very busy in meatspace, and that takes priority, but I will clarify briefly, and hopefully be back onwiki tomorrow. The wording on the community ban was rather specific "I think the amount of energy spent here shows quite clearly that all three disputing users are too passionate to remain suitably objective for writing on the topic. That, and there is obviously disruption, so I suggest a community topic ban on the the topic of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on Vintagekits, Brownhairedgirl, and KittyBrewster until disposed of by Arbcom or six months time, whichever comes first.'--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)" I found sufficient consensus to enact that ban on Vintagekits and Kittybrewster both, that ban was in fact confirmed by ArbCom. The subsequent discussion is confusing, especially on the matter of time, but I think there is definite consensus for the topic ban to go far beyond pagemoves, but is in fact a complete vacation from the topic area. Statements on the request for arbitration should be illuminating as well as to the reasoning involved. The motion passed confirmed that ban, and then restricted page moves indefinitely as a separate clause.

I am of the opinion that the record shows that the Committee avoided arbitration because they thought a topic ban + moveban was sufficient and reasonable, and that actual arbitration was unnecessary. If we want to argue this all on the merits, I think the committee should be invited back into the discussion. --Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with a community ban (in practice, someone proposes and a sufficient proportion of those who comment - often those with axe in hand, ready to grind - agree) is that there it is difficult to interpret and enforce. As we found with Vk's all-but-boxing ban last year, community bans are ripe for lawyering and exploitation, even if the terms are carefully stated, because all it takes is a small cohort of like-minded editors to artificially sway the community consensus one way or the other. This one, quite frankly, it is going to lead to nothing but more problems. For example, Kb recently got in trouble for moving an article on someone who was not a Baronet, but, partly because the subject's father and brother were Baronets, it was considered justifiably within the topic ban. So Kb quite rightly would like to know where the line is drawn. Are they banned from editing bios about people who have brothers who are Baronets? How about fathers? Grandfathers? Husbands? Cousins? Who decides and how do we know that was how "the community" interpreted the ban at the time it supported it? Unless someone - and as proposer I guess it falls to you, Tznkai - is able to define what the ban to those affected and demonstrate those limits are what the community agreed on, I don't see much point with continuing it. Because as it stands only Tznkai seems sure about what the terms of it are. Rockpocket 03:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore, I wish I had a better idea of what exactly Kittybrewster was doing wrong this time around, apart from the inappropriate AfD nomination. As for inviting ArbCom in, I think their solution was poor and they should have taken the case. Mangojuice^talk 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that Kittybrewster's has a known/suspected (depending on who you ask) significant conflict of interest in the area of Baronets, in addition to a flare up in a known user interaction problem (the AfD nomination the latest in a series of failures). Kittybrewster and Vintagekits do not get along at all well, and both have demonstrated an inability to write neutrally and without causing trouble in the topic area. I'd ask Fozzie, Giano, and Alison to back me up on this, but I believe they've all left with their hands thrown into the air.

As for the topic ban itself, I generally make pains to define my proposed bans as widely as possible, and I believe most supporters understood that. Now, we can argue whether or not Arbcom was wise or not to do something, but the fact is, they did confirm the ban, wise or not. You may want to ask them to clarify what they thought the ban was on WP:Arb/R or whatever the shortcut is now, and you can argue that I called the consensus wrong the first time around, but I think thats going too far down the Wikipedia as a game path of problem solving. Instead, I invite those who have a problem with what I've done to come up with a better solution, take some time (a few days) and forge a new consensus. I however, remain adamant that whatever solution is found, the Baronetcy area needs to be quarantined from these two for everyone's good, and that the efforts by one or both parties to edit nearby should evoke more concern than sympathy.--Tznkai (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First, can you explain the Conflict of Interest allegation? As far as I remember it was that Kittybrewster is titled and thus has a seeming interest in titles being respected? Because that is not really a WP:COI, just a viewpoint. Second, at least one commenter (me) supported the ban only as a temporary measure until ArbCom ruled. In fact, that wording is there in your ban: ArbCom has now ruled, doesn't that mean the ban has expired? Mangojuice^talk 11:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The COI issue has been "cold" for well over 18 months. It was in relation to Kittybrewster writing articles on his own family members. It was raised (somewhere) and addressed - Kb was told not to do it again and has refrained from doing so. There is one "exception" I'm aware of, where he edited an article on a geographical feature named after (I think) one of his family. So I don't know why it was raised again.

In addition, I am not aware of problems in the area prior to this issue blowing up last time. Kb had been working away in the area without any issues being raised, here or elsewhere. Vintagekits year-long topic ban ran out, and within hours he was moving baronet articles. Kb reported it here. And, somehow, bizarrely, ended up with a topic ban from his area of interest. Apart from his ill-advised and pointy AfD nomination of a Vk boxer article, Kittybrewster had done nothing wrong apart from follow procedure. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you are saying all that out of blind hatred for me or you've had a wee bout of amnesia! I think you need to go back and read the ANI reports if you think that Kitty did nothing wrong except stupidly AfD Ben Flores.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits year-long topic ban ran out, and within hours he was moving baronet articles. - the flip side of that is - Members of the Peerage Project ignored that articles were systematically titled incorrectly and it was not until Vintagekits topic ban ended that this issue was hightlight - said members of said project didnt like that because they owned these articles and created a shit storm as a smoke screen to stop it happening.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The CoI cannot be discussed without risking an WP:OUTING violation, so I recommend that stop. We all know he's got one, so we should move on from there. This went through the community once, as I read it, it was clear that there was a topic ban from the community, but at the last second a couple people swooped in and sent it to arbcom, hoping to derail the topic ban. It seems to have worked. If people would knock it off on the asinine infinite good faith with obvious problem editors who continue to war and POV push, we could get more done around here. The topic ban clearly has great support for KB and VK, and a not as much for BHG. I see no reason to show up over here on a different AN, to restart this entire process after the events have cooled again, to see if a new consensus from different editors can be found which is kinder to VK and KB. Block them both for a year, let them actually go write articles that don't push their personal agendas or buttons, and get on with things. ThuranX (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it would be an "outing" as Kitty had on his user page who his is and a link to the page which had details about who he is.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Entirely agree with VK here. It's not "outing", given that Kittybrewster (to his credit) has always been scrupulous about making his COI as regards the Arbuthnot family clear – see here. – iridescent 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The big deal part COI issue is discussed above, but my concern is mostly with the little deal portion of it - in my opinion KB has demonstrated that his viewpoint is held strongly enough that he cannot keep his cool in editing disputes on the topic - black and white thinking, behavior in ANI threads, so on and so forth. VK is the same way, and more than a few administrators felt this was a long extant baiting/escalation cycle between the two. As to the temporary nature of the ban (Answering mangojuice's question directly) it was specifically worded as a topic ban that would last for six months, OR until disposed of by Arbitration, whichever came first. Since ArbCom has not seen fit to overturn the ban, that condition has not happened. It is still feasible that ArbCom may still get involved, at which point they will get another chance to dispose of the ban. As far as I'm concerned, that means ArbCom agrees with the ban as it stands, but has pawned off responsibility back to the community for changing it through normal means.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputes between these two have been extremely disruptive. The topic ban seems to have worked and I don't see any need to alter or lift it. If the topic ban on these two users is lifted then I'd support proposal to replace it with a community ban.   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to have a dispute. Vintagekits' topic ban had already been reimposed on an indefinite basis before the temporary three-way topic ban was proposed. If we go back to that solution, we are still preventing them from fighting over these topics. In carefully rereading the discussion, here is everything that has been pointed out about KB's actions. (1) He created Arbuthnot Lake, and included a link to his personal website in describing it as named after a specific Arbuthnot (this is the point you raised.) KB is right that this is not exactly the issue he got in big trouble with in 2007, but at the same time, the link to his own website was not good and this is a topic he should have steered clear of. That said, I don't see how the topic ban prevents a similar situation from arising again: if it's Arbuthnots or WP:EL we're concerned about, that should be the issue in the ban. And in any case, KB has steered clear of trouble relating to Arbuthnot bios for 2 years. (2) Some of his actions were baiting, including his support for VK's topic ban, some personal comments about him, and the WP:POINT violation. This is handled by the ArbCom motion separately: they are restricted from nominating pages created by the other for deletion and generally warned to keep away from each other. Finally, (3) he is the other party in some of the page-move reverts, but not many compared to BHG. Again, this issue is handled by the ArbCom ruling in that he is restricted indefinitely from page moves in the area. So I think we should just lift the article ban for KB, or at least open that part up for discussion again. Mangojuice^talk 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you really open with "It takes two to have a dispute.", then spend the entire rest absolving KittyBrewster of his actions while insisting that only VintageKits be topic banned? That's rich hypocrisy. Both should be banned, as it DOES take two to tango, Mango. ThuranX (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All we have to do to stop the disruption is to keep them separated. The ban on Vintagekits, which has very clear support and for good cause, accomplishes that. Kittybrewster has been largely behaving himself for two years; he got defensive when Vintagekits' ban expired and he went on his ill-advised rampage. His behavior does not justify this. Mangojuice^talk 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Kittybrewster has been largely behaving himself for two years" - poppy cock! "when Vintagekits' ban expired and he went on his ill-advised rampage" - extreme poppy cock!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept the COI argument. I have a PhD, but does that mean I have a COI when editing an article about anyone else with a PhD? Of course not. Banning Kb from editing all Baronets because has happens to be one is ridiculous. Fine, ban him from editing articles about his own family on that basis, but not just because they share a post-nomial. But that notwithstanding, no-one has yet addressed what is and is not covered by this topic ban. If we - as a community - are going to restrict an editor from a topic on threat of blocking, we should at least have the courtesy to explain to them what the scope of it is. Are they permitted to edit articles of relatives of Baronets? Rockpocket 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you edited every PhD you found by adding "Dr. so and so PhD" at every instance of a name (for example) then yes, you would have an unacceptable editing pattern relating to a conflict of interest. And Mangojuice, I your willingness to slice and dice the ArbCom ruling a bit disconcerting they addressed the situation as they did, by confirming a community ban and then adding a separate clause about page moves.

As to the details of the topic ban, to requote my original proposal "edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive". I would also point to the wording I used in Vintagekits' topicban worked well: "anything that related substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof". Inevitably, there will be some administrator discretion involved (as their always is) but yes, I would include family members - this is a topic involving heredity.--Tznkai (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it suggested I have edited every knight I have found by adding something? Where have I done that? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, no-one has provided evidence that there is an ongoing problem with Kb editing in such a manner. Where is the record of problematic edits to the relevant articles leading up to this ban? Secondly, that is not a COI issue whatsoever. If anyone went around adding "Dr. so and so PhD" to every article on an academic it would be a problem, solely because it runs counter to our MOS. Whether I have a PhD seems entirely irrelevant. These two accusations - COI and problematic editing - are being linked as a justification for a topic ban, but I have yet to see any significant evidence that either is an ongoing issue, never mind both. Therein lies the problem of a community enforced decision, the burden of proof is very low (or in this case nonexistent). Rockpocket 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hilariously, Vintagekits insisted that his pagemoves were enforcing the MOS by stripping the title from the pagename, bringing this argument full circle. But really, my example above on PhDs and conflicts of interest was just that, an example, not any clever insinuation. It goes to the point however, that if we bring who we are in meatspace, onto wiki, we tend to have problems.

As for significant evidence, I point you at the above linked arbitration request and ANI thread. You may not agree with it, and feel free to argue against it, but the fact is, many of the rest of us are convinced that Kittybrewster is unable to separate his personal feelings/stakes on Baronetcy and his editing.

Perhaps more significant, is that I, and others, is unwilling to consider Vintagekits the sole problem in any of these incidents, and one does not solve the abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground by letting one side carry the field.

I am more than a little tired of the moving goalposts. First it was what arbcom said or did, then it was what consensus was clear or not, then what the definition of of a community ban are, then a demand for particular evidence, then whether community enforced decisions are valid at all! These are my contentions, and I stand by them, and believe the record supports me. 1. It was a valid community ban. Reading the comments, and I'm not willing to dismiss them all on a blanket charge that "too many people had axes to grind" 2. The supporters, by and large, were convinced by and/or have submitted evidence and testimony that the problem is behavioral and cyclical. 3. KB has an established personal stake in the honoring, or lack therof, of Baronets as a whole, and of one family in particular. 4. The community ban was confirmed and then supplemented by the Arbitration Committee. 5. The community ban is easy enough to understand. KB and VK stay away from Baronetcy and Baronets as a topic, giving it a wide berth.

Finally, and most importantly, whatever difficulties, dislikes, and criticisms there are of me, Vintagekits, ArbCom, and the processes done, the proper course of action for those who wish for change, is to gather new consensus - over time and gathering wide participation and discussion, instead of just myself, Rockpocket, Mangojuice, the and principles - instead of trying to undermine the old one.--Tznkai (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some relevant information regarding Vintagekits and the Charlie Zelenoff article at the bottom of the page. I believe his recent behavior may warrant disciplinary action. (see below). Lordvolton (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow the guys to edit those articles-in-question. Just don't allow 'em to move articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I am extremely interested in seeing them moved!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they will be moved 'someday'. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

CU

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.

SPI case resolved; excess accounts closed. -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – per the SPI--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tajik and take care of established sock accounts? Thanks. Grandmaster 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any violation of WP:sock to "take care of". I am nobody's sock account, the accounts listed as "related" to me, are merely my alternative accounts used on different topics, which should not have been revealed by the CU in the first place (the CU was filed by an obvious sock puppet of the banned editor User:NisarKand fishing), since I am neither a banned user nor have used my alternative accounts to evade 3RR or vote-stack. I've already raised the issue with the admin who conducted the CU. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that at least one of the sock accounts was used for edit-warring to re-introduce some rather blatant WP:BLP violations here, and that the whole scheme of half a dozen accounts was clearly used to "cover your tracks" over your total editing pattern, the story of "legitimate alternate account use" is not very convincing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And why do you need so many accounts to edit the articles that are mostly Iran/Afghanistan related? From what I see, you use multiple accounts to edit war on various topics, and 3 of your accounts have been blocked for edit warring/3RR: [7] [8] [9] It is so convenient to jump from one account to another to edit war on different topics. Grandmaster 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[To Future Perfect at Sunrise] That was an honest mistake, I was merely rolling back an IP removing sourced material, and did not pay enough attention to the content. Regardless, I am neither a sock, nor a banned user. My active alternative accounts were used for four different topics, namely politics, geography, history, and film. The accounts should not have been revealed in the first place, because it's an infringement of my privacy. Furthermore, the the person who filed the CU, is actually a banned user (User:NisarKand), who was clearly fishing after I reverted the edits of his latest confirmed sockpuppet User:Mullaji , per WP:Ban#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[To Grandmaster] You have 9 blocks for edit-warring yourself [10]. My 3 blocks were on completely different topics (sport, politics, history) in the span of 3 months, and I have not had a block in the last 6 months. Fact remains, I am neither a banned user, nor have used alternative accounts for evading 3RR or vote-staking. In fact, I have tried my best to be an exploratory editor lately, and have been rigidly following policy --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Kurdo very well but he has been perfectly reasonable in the interactions I have had with him on Iranian topics (I don't really edit Afghan stuff except in so far as it relates to the Safavids). It's a shame if he turns out to be a sock account. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kurdo might be Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Certainly the use of multiple accounts is ill-advised, especially when the topics overlap so much. Thatcher 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note, other smart folks think he is not Beh-nam. I might be wrong (after all, I only said "might" anyway...) Thatcher 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The topic ban placed on Benjiboi (talk · contribs) in relation to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine is rescinded.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Possible COI editing by Microsoft

Resolved

Closer at WP:COIN thread recommended taking directly to arbitration. Nothing more to do at AN. Durova^Charge! 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

There are some quite serious COI problems being discussed at COIN here that I think admins should know about. Smartse (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I resent the title you are using here as this is definitly not the case. The only COI actions shown are those of IBM and Groklaw making publications on Wikipedia article to get their readers to "improve" the article on OpenDocument and an OASIS OpenDocument committee involved person making false COI claims about editors on a competing format to OpenDocument namely Office Open XML. hAl (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) While I agree that user HA1 should be blocked from editing pages related to Microsoft or its competitors (the quality of his frequent edits in regard to ODF and OOXML has stood in the way of NPOV for a very long time), it should be noticed that the basis for the Weir/Groklaw criticism leveled at Wikipedia has been debunked and that Weir has confessed that he silently edited his prior article that stated exactly what he had labeled as Microsoft FUD. See No one supports ISO ODF today? and Weir's admission in the comments there. Marbux (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC) It appears that HAl will never learn, he has had a clear COI problem for a long time. There is a clear subverting of Wikipedia policy on almost every page HAl edits. There is an oganized pro microsoft agenda at play with multiple editors. He even had the gall to have OpenDocument locked. Thats like the fox locking the dog out of the henhouse.AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC) How exactly has this been resolved? I don't see the explanation. Verbal chat I've re-opened this issue which was closed without comment because there are clearly some very serious issues here that need to be investigated. The fact that I contributed to a charter for an interoperability working group a year ago (I'm active in various standards bodies including OASIS, W3C and OGF) is by no means reason to close the issue and I am certainly not alone in wanting action to be taken. My identity as well as all of my work in the standards community is open to public scrutiny. This is more than can be said for hAl who has been successful in bringing a lot of negative attention to Wikipedia while promoting Microsoft and repressing opinions of other editors who aren't so committed to his cause (for whatever reason). -- samj inout 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I agree that action needs to be taken against hAI and any other problematic editors in this area, for the good of the project and the editing environment. Verbal chat 13:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC) FWIW I'm committed to open standards of all kinds (and open process behind those standards) but nobody is *that* committed that they would devote so much energy over such a long period of time to subverting the process (at least not without some significant incentive). Virtually all of this users' edits are problematic and the benefits of requiring them to contribute via talk pages for certain articles far outweighs the costs of permitting continued disruption. -- samj inout 13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Sam, what you're doing here is a pretty serious violation of WP:AGF. The contention that HAl works for Microsoft is not provable through anything this editor has said and done on Wikipedia; it's all conjecture. You could look at my body of 20,000 edits, much of which are on Windows-related articles, especially in the area of stopping Wikipedia from becoming an anti-Microsoft trollfest, and probably conclude that I must work for Microsoft in some fashion because "nobody is that commited". I don't work for Microsoft -- it's just an area of personal interest for me. A hobby, if you will. Maybe HAl does work for Microsoft, but what you absolutely are not welcome to do here on Wikipedia is accuse editors of working for an organization without any kind of conclusive proof, and attempt to take actions against that editor based on heresy and conjecture. You and I both know that the only reason that you're here, today, contending this is because you read Groklaw and Slashdot, and decided "hey, I'm an editor on Wikipedia, I can do something about this!" .... that's why your WP:COIN filing was closed. That, and the fact that you are an active supporter of one of the two sides in this discussion -- You have a personal, invested interest in promoting OpenDocument, which is easily identifiable from your creating related projects and participating in discussion groups related to OASIS and OpenDocument. You probably aren't the right person to go around accusing other Wikipedia editors of having a conflict of interest when it comes to document forms. Warren -talk- 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not promoting "actions against that editor based on heresy(sic) and conjecture" - I've spent some time gathering hard evidence of their indiscretions which speaks for itself. Others supported the proposed topic ban at WP:COIN and it is quite clearly justified. -- samj inout 14:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC) What you call hard evidence is actually just a bunch of nonsense. It would just about serve to show I am probalby a bit of a fan of MS Office 2007 and IE8 which is nothing to be ashamed of. However what is clearly proven is that you are closely related to the OASIS OpenDocument committees (activly doing work for those committees) and are trying to file (false) complaints on people who edit the wikipedia article on the competing formats Office Open XML article. That certainly is a clear COI. hAl (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) You've collected a series of links that show you don't like HAl's edits because they promulgate a point of view you disagree with. That's fine that you disagree with his edits, and there's certainly a valid case to be made that HAl has serious difficulty following Wikipedia's policies on edit warring..... but that doesn't constitute a COI violation. The notion that HAl's edits over the last few years show a generally favourable view of Office Open XML doesn't automatically entitle you to try to get him banned for being an "apparent Microsoft shill", as you so succinctly put it when you went to Slashdot to brag about how you're trying to get this editor banned. Again, I need to stress the point that calling a Wikipedian a shill violates our WP:AGF policy; it would serve you well to drop this behaviour, as it reflects poorly on you and your intentions towards the project. Also, we don't ban editors on the basis that they have a favourable view of a topic, even if they're paid to have that view, so long as they follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines while editing. An RFC on this very topic was opened a couple of days ago — Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing — which you may be interested in participating in if you feel that this practice needs to change. Warren -talk- 16:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC) To spare others the tedium: User:Bjweeks closed this [11]. The closure [12] on COIN offers some clues as to his thinking there William M. Connolley (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't download PDF of Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps.

I can't download a PDF File for printage^TM. Here's what I get (word for word):

The POST request to http://pdf1.wikimedia.org:8080/mw-serve/ failed (connect() timed out!).

Anyone else getting an issue like this? Glacier Wolf 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't find that URL, or anything that resembles it, in either that article's wikitext or its generated HTML. There doesn't appear to be a link to a wikimedia hosted PDF file at all on that article (there are links to several others, all hosted elsewhere). http://pdf1.wikimedia.org is a valid machine, but it does not appear to host an httpd on port 8080. Perhaps if you say which specific link you clicked on that article we might be able to look further at the issue. 87.113.129.162 (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a problem when trying to get a "PDF version" of any page (I've tried on half a dozen so far). Someone else has posted at the Help Desk regarding this. Perhaps someone there or at the technical village pump (where I can't see it mentioned so far) would have some ideas? --Kateshortforbob 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now mentioned at WP:VPT --Kateshortforbob 23:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bug submitted as bug 19167http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19167. Glacier Wolf 00:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Need an admin to restore a merged article

Resolved

 – article restored & redirected. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Striking "resolved" as the article was hastily redeleted. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugbears in popular culture was closed by Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as Delete and merge, which I believe violates GFDL licensing requirements. Rjanag declined to restore the file and redirect to the merge target, so I'm asking here for an admin who can do so. Powers ^T 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• It does, both because of the deletion of the origin but also because of the failure to follow Wikipedia:MERGE#Performing the merger, which notes the GFDL implications of not leaving clear edit summaries with mergers and gives a model. The options at an AFD include Deleting and merging but not both. The deletion and the cut paste merge should both be undone and the merge redone in accordance with WP:MERGE.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of it. Back in a moment. KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • And done. Marking resolved. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You'll find that it was just undone again by Casliber, whose edits merging content can be found here, and who also participated in the AFD discussion. It seems that at least two administrators need a refresher course in the requirements of the GFDL. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what's going on here? The response from Rjanag is underwhelming (to say the least), and the immediate redeletion by Casliber (without discussion?) is a bit bizarre. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Underwhelming? I told LtPowers that he could ask an admin to restore the deleted edits if they wanted, and that was done right here. As for Casliber's redeletion, I agree with it. If you leave a useless redirect like people are suggesting, there's just going to be an RFD later when people realize we have a redirect for a search term no one is ever going to use. And, in case anyone missed it, I did tag the Bugbear talkpage with a notification that content was merged, and Casliber added a link to the AfD, so I don't really see why there are serious attribution issues. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, that's a bit defensive and snippy. Tagging the talk page is not a GFDL compliant way to note a Merger. Admins of all people, need to be familiar with GFDL and with the requirements of WP:MERGE. This is nothing personal Rjanag, but I'm very concerned when I see an Admin respond after deleting a page: "I'm not familiar with the GDFL issues". --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I just looked at WP:MERGE and noticed "Merging should always leave a redirect", which I was not aware of, so for the record I guess I was wrong there. Although, for what it's worth, I think that's a bit of a silly rule to have if the redirect is useless (I've seen redirects like that come up at RfD, and if I had left Bugbears in popular culture as a redirect I have no doubt someone would nominate it, who knows when, maybe several months from now after everyone has forgotten about its AfD) and the entire article history is still visible to admins and linked from the tag on the talk page. Anyway, this is not the place to argue over what the merging rules should be, so I'll just leave it at that for now; you guys can come in and do whatever you want with the article, I just wanted to explain why I deleted it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't preserving the redirect so much as it is preserving the specific edit history of the content that is being copied over elsewhere. Attribution is a key issue for the project, and without that edit history, we're violating the license under which the contributors donated their work. (I think you might also have previously highlighted that administrators can still see the revisions, which doesn't satisfy GFDL.) user:J aka justen (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and it's the edit summaries that provide the necessary link back to the history. If a redirect comes up at RFD a closing admin should be checking the redirect's (and target's) edit history for the "merged to" language given at WP:MERGE before deleting, among other things. Without the edit summary the history may be somewhere on Wikipedia but we'll never find it and that doesn't satisfy the GFDL either.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the redirect should be tagged with {{R from merge}} to make it more obvious. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to do what you need to do to restore the attribution the way Wikipedia wants it. I understand the arguments and I don't see a need for anything more to be discussed (with me, at least). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you've been sufficiently trouted. I don't think we can resolve the specific page problem though without Casliber though. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, been offline. I am not fussed either way, I deleted as I couldn't see it being a valid search term. As far as history, the individual edits adding the bits of the IPC were added when they were part of the bugbear article before being hived off (I think). I am happy to restore if someone wants to do a history merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at the history but generally a full-history merge is not a good idea for an ordinary merger as it mixes the history of two different articles. Of course, now it's all confused, I'll see what the situation looks like.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, just let me know what you need me to do, if I can help. Sorry to have contributed to the confusion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For my own future trouting, when I restored and redirected, did I do it correctly, or did I screw it up? KrakatoaKatie 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you handled it correctly. Unfortunately, as of right now, the article remains (re)deleted (twice over), and the content remains unattributed to its original authors...  ???  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I took responsibility for this and then didn't have time to fix it yet. I am just on for a minute and then off again. It needs to be undeleted then merged in accordance with Wikipedia:MERGE#Full-content_paste_merger. The important steps are: 3. Edit summary with "merge content from article name" and 4. replace source with "#REDIRECT [[PAGENAME]] {{R from merge}}", note the merger (including the page name) in the edit summary. These seem to keep getting missed, people keep saying just "merged" or "merged per AFD xyz" which aren't enough. The only thing keeping me from doing that right now, is I wanted to take a closer look at the mess of a history that everyone (including me - I goofed and forgot what tab I was on and accidentally posted a message to Casliber on the deleted article) has made. A history merge is NOT required normally for mergers but the history may be dorked up now and I wanted to check.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I broke the transclusion using nowiki tags. If anyone thinks the directions should be rewritten, let me know – I've been planning to do so for a while. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed that but was in a huge rush (BTW, I just moved the first nowiki tag back to cover the "article name"). What are you thinking about rewriting? Do you think they just need clarification or is there some point on which they are wrong? I think they are fairly straight forward, they've changed little in the past couple years and I learned to merge by following them, but I'm sure they can be improved on.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I started Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Rewriting merge instructions with some small ideas a few months ago, but never went back to it. Alan Liefting has started splitting the page, which seems like a fine idea. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a closer look at all this again tonight. I think the pages that merged just need a selective undelete and a corrective edit summary, if that hasn't already been taken care of by someone who hasn't been commenting here. I'm very interested in possible changes to the instructions and will take a look there too.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I finally got a chance to go over it all and I think it's all set now, I restored the redirect and noted the merger and this discussion in the reason for the restore, I added the {{R from merge}} and I added a null edit to the target page with a "merged from" comment referring back to the [Help:Page_history#Linking_to_a_specific_version_of_a_page|permalink] for the pasting in of the text. Any issues regarding what merged content should be kept in the target should be dealt with on that article's talk page. I think the GFDL issue is effectively and fairly simply fixed now. I'd appreciate a check by J or anyone else who understands exactly why this was necessary before this is marked resolved. Thanks and sorry for the delay in making the fixes.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It looks fine now. I added another dummy edit including revision ID/oldid, making it possible to construct a move-resistant permanent link with no title parameter. Flatscan (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, that looks much cleaner, thanks. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Appalling abuse by User:Sander Säde and User:Digwuren

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.

This is going nowhere useful. Editors who believe that another editor, despite being warned, repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process in articles related to Eastern Europe are invited to file a well-documented arbitration enforcement request in order to request sanctions pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions. No invectives or personal attacks, please, just the diffs. Sandstein  09:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Sander Säde accuses me of removing sourced material ([13]) by modifying the article Erna long-range recce group to what I consider a NPOV version.

My version: [14] – I did not remove any sourced material. This claim is in bad faith and plainly wrong. This does not in any way stop Digwuren from coming back with this: [15].

Sander Säde subsequently (or – to be precise – right before Digwuren's revert) accuses me of making a Nazi attack (!) at the – get this – Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia/Nazi attack noticeboard against Estonia, on a very tendentious noticeboard created by his friend Digwuren just a day earlier: [16], a subsection of WikiProject Estonia specifically designed to recruit Estonian nationalist editors to whitewash any negative historical or current facts about the Republic of Estonia. (Digwuren was previously banned for a year for taking part in meatpuppet-related nationalist revert wars involving the Estonian Bronze Soldier controvery in 2007. See the landmark case WP:DIGWUREN.)

User:Digwuren's entire editing history here at Wikipedia is essentially a serious of POV-pushing attacks (see [17]), and this sort of little project is in very bad faith and merely serves to recruit editors for multisided edit-warring, which is hardly conducive to our aims as Wikipedians. Digwuren already regularly reverts any political article he touches twice or thrice, thereby continuously gaming the system and escaping under the radar without violating the 3RR rule. He's already been recommended for a block by Admin. Hiberniantears: [18].

On practically every Estonia-, Russia-, or Communism-related article Digwuren stalks around in packs: this is plainly documented at [19] – note that this is a partial list, the best idea of Digwuren's tendentious editing is to be gleaned by looking at his actual edit history. It takes only a brief look at the sum total of his contributions to see the apparent POV pushing that he is here for. Although what he considers to be sticking to NPOV is an amusing case in its own right: [20].

Being Jewish, I indeed care about issues like the resurgence of far-right sentiment in Europe and anti-Semitism. I take the pattern of Digwuren's editing and setting up a "Nazi attacks noticeboard" because I must have some kind of agenda to be deeply insulting. Note that this Estonian user has created an Anti-Estonian sentiment article where he portrays any semblance of an idea of bringing up Nazi sentiment in Estonia as anti-Estonian bigotry. (Anti-Estonian sentiment#Accusations of sympathies with Nazism)

I believe that this user should be warned. It not the first time that issues of this nature have arisen in regard to his editing and style of interaction.

As far as the "Nazi attacks noticeboard" – that is an unbearably insulting and prejudicial attack, certainly trivializing to the work of legitimate editors. This, simply, should be taken care of. I would appreciate seeing some kind of action from our administrators here as far as seriously approaching this. This is an abuse of Wikipedia's editing priveleges and of all those interested in making use of good-faith, productive editing.

PasswordUsername (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've not reviewed the substance of the above, but a glance at his contributions leads me to believe that PasswordUsername seems to have some issues of his own. Anyway, we have a relevant arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, and a well-documented WP:AE request for such sanctions – with respect to any editor – would probably result in swift action. This is hardly the forum for it, though.  Sandstein  17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if you check my edit history you'll see that I had no interactions with this user (and a bunch of friends) prior to his attacks on me on May 10th. There have been major issues since then. I beg you to specify how listing "Putinjugend" – an entire article devoted to comparing the Nashi youth organization tot he Hitler Youth – as an attack page is an instance of my troublesome work here. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for that digression. This discussion continues here).  Sandstein  18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PasswordUsername, I do not really know what the problem is here. Hasn't it occured to you that Digwuren and Sander Sade might simply be interested in Estonia-, Russia-, or Communism-related article(s)? Is this an offence to be interested in these topics, and to disagree over certain issues? After all, this is what democracy is all about. Tymek (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem in their interest in the topic. I have a problem with the manner they have behaved in these instances. (And as far as a good number of other ones are concerned as well – well, no one can say that I am the first one to point to this, am I?)

Thankfully, the tendentious "noticeboard" has already been deleted by an administrator, so I'm not the only one here who's finding it troubling. Thank you to the administrators here, and to Garden who has taken care of this. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PaswordUsername, with all due respect, you shouldn't present things in different light from what they were. First was the Bronze Soldier real life, then the Bronze Soldier disputes in WP, then WP:DIGWUREN, when the community did its best to issue sanctions in order to prevent such things derailing in the future. Digwuren was blocked for edit warring, i.e. for reverting too many times. And now look what you write: "Digwuren was previously banned for a year for taking part in meatpuppet-related nationalist revert wars involving the Estonian Bronze Soldier controvery in 2007." Your comment shows that you have a lot of inner load when talking about these issues, and consider ok to exagerate things into "meatpuppet nationalist". I recall that the edit war then involved two sides, and that both behaved like true warriors, and both were punished with blocks. You present things as if it was just Digwuren. Now, let's consider what happened afterwards: Petri Krohn, etc have not improved, while in the case of Digwuren I see a total change of behavior, which suggests that he/she was caught in the heat of Bronze solders dispute and regrets that now.

But, what seems to me to be the problem now, is a content dispute on a number of articles. Why don't all parties sit down and try to resolve that in a civilized manner. Step 1: make a list of such articles and start a Request for Comment. The community can get involved and help you sort things out. Content disputes should not be ignored, especially if they tend to degenerate. I believe that over the last year there has been a slight change of heart among the community in the sense that now the community (and admins in particular) are more willing to get involved in sorting out content disputes at an early stage, including admins learning about the content matter, which is very important, in order to avoid (if you don't help resolve the content dispute before it degenerates) having to sort out pointless blames of misbehavior when such blames come from all sides and it is exceptionally difficult to see who and when misuses the system, and who and when has genuine grievances. Please, make an effort to help sorting things out, and not to increase the snowball. Good faith efforts are duly appreciated. Dc76\^talk 19:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, let's consider what happened afterwards: Petri Krohn, etc have not improved, while in the case of Digwuren I see a total change of behavior, which suggests that he/she was caught in the heat of Bronze solders dispute and regrets that now. - I think this is not correct. User:Petri Krohn did not edit war after his block. His only crime was to make an unfortunate commment which was misunderstood as a threat, and that he did not apologise strongly enough afterwards. User:Digwuren has continued to edit war, although now he has been more careful and has avoided breaking 3RR. Today, Digwuren was blocked for disruptive editing. So I think your view that "Digwuren has totally changed his behaviour" is not correct. Just wanted to point this out. Offliner (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And where is edit warring mentioned as the sole rationale for blocking Digwuren in WP:DIGWUREN?

"Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]) and attempts to interfere with Wikipedia process ([32], [33], [34]), as well as incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]). Passed 7 to 0, 18:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)" – Arbcom

The case was brought up as a result of aggressive POV pushing and suspected meatpuppetry, involving editors based in Tartu. This is outlined in the first statement of the case: [43]. Offliner is completely correct insofar as he asserts that Digwuren has not stopped his aggressive edit warring: he has merely moderated it to comply with the 3RR rule as far as it has been noted since he came back.

I think you're not telling it like it is – or what am I wrong about here?

Although I had originally asked for only a warning, seeing how this user has been blocked over a completely unrelated incident of abuse, I suggest that we increase his block or perhaps make it indefinite. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, now that would be gaming the system from your part. Please, do try to resolve the content dispute and not wage wars on users. Dc76\^talk 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Being uncivil doesn't look good at WP:AN, I'm afraid. There is no content dispute involved in putting up "Nazi attack boards" to wage wars against other editors. I'm sorry. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this the whole matter? Are you suggesting I just lost one hour writing here to learn it simply was because of some stupid board that anyone could deal with in a blink of an eye? Are you seriously suggesting permanent bans for that? Dc76\^talk 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole matter is clear if you read everything entirely. I am not suggesting a permablock. I am suggesting something like a warning or preferably something stronger, essentially some kind of gesture more inclined to get this user to be less inflammatory in such obvious ways. Laissez-faire evidently hasn't been a terrible success here. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about Baltic issues, so I only talk from my impression:

- Petri Krohn has been involved in edit waring in Continuation War with Illythr, who is a very civilized person and it takes serious effort to get into edit war with. Of course I am jumping to conclusion, but that's like seeing someone engaging in edit war with Jumbo Wales and assuming it is not Jimbo Wales going crazy all of a sudden. Allow me to jump to this conclusion.

- The funny thing is the question "And where is edit warring mentioned as the sole rationale for blocking Digwuren in WP:DIGWUREN?" is followed immediately by the quote:

"Digwuren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring (...)"

:) :) :)

- ok, not the sole, but the main cause. BTW, assumptions of bad faith, and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground IS exactly what edit warring is about. And all right, is there actually evidence that Digwuren has recently re-engaged in sustained edit-warring, attempts to interfere with Wikipedia process, incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground? One single 8-hour block that is turned after 4 hours? Come on... Most people won't even bother to ask for unblocking after receiving it for 8 hours. To me this suggests he/she actually cared about the reputation, and not about edit warring.

- What is your goal, to block Digwuren or solve the content dispute? If you block Digwuren, there will be other Estonians. Why don't we address that substance of the matter, and within that scope we can see if there is also individual misbehavior that must be dealt with. It is much easier for an uninvolved person (I don't mean myself, I mean other editors and admins reading this) to sort who's right/wrong, who misbehaved after you understand the content dispute, and hopefully helped solve it. Otherwise it is like trusting one side. I agree that in the end it might turn out that one side is right and the other is wrong, but I sincerely would rather prefer to understand first the content matter. Being part of a (civilized) content dispute is ok, being part of an edit war is bad. Beware it is not good refusing to engage in content dispute resolution, or are you saying there is none in these articles? Dc76\^talk 21:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My goal is to have a workable Wikipedia. I suggest everyone read the case. That he was blocked for a full year for edit warring isn't how it comes across to me – I wonder why all those other factors are piled up there – though a year-block for edit warring is enough of a statement. Again, from the very outset I have suggested that everyone look at Digwuren's editing closely. A good look at Digwuren's talk comments shows how well he's managed to conquer the task of Dispute Resolution – a decent collection of WP:FORUM-style comments and trivial objections that speak volumes and mountains for themselves. (Descriptive locutions simply fail here – one has to enjoy this with one's own eyes.) Though seeing how you've just come from the same article that he did, I'm not surprised you see it otherwise. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. You know what is the one amazing and unbelievable thing about WP? It actually works! :) As for that case, I watched it live, I know what was going on there. The community's reaction was exemplary, albeit some think it was too much. But in retrospective, it's better giving 200 dollar fines for crossing the road on red (light) when there are no cars around and having to deal post-factum with ramblings in court appeals than to have road accidents. I know that Digwuren and others complain it was too harsh, but it helped make the "road traffic" (so to speak) more civilized place.

BTW, what article are you talking about? You are not seriously suggesting what I think you are? Dc76\^talk 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Which article would you have in mind? People are generally referred to as "whos" rather than "whats" – although I'd appreciate it if you completely clarified whatever insinuations you would like to make. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You just said: "Though seeing how you've just come from the same article that he did, I'm not surprised you see it otherwise." What do you mean? And BTW, articles have no owners, they are whats, not whos. Dc76\^talk 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant this one. I hope that was you editing from the Dc76 account. It was? PasswordUsername (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, this is my account last time I checked. :) But that's not how I got here. I was reading and editing the other day about European Parliament elections and was surprised by an Estonian independent candidate taking as many votes as the major party. This page is in my watchlist, and I review it from time to time, thought seldom bather adding two cents. All right, you misunderstood me and I misunderstood you. Forget it. Let me know when you start the RfC, please. Cheers, Dc76\^talk 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Defense against accusations of Nazism

PasswordUsername has been intimately involved in attempts to portray, through quotes of news articles, incidents interpreted as such in certain organs of the press or individuals, as constituting bona fide expressions of Nazism, deleting and reverting restorations of content, most recently at Jaak Aaviksoo, in this case, regarding Finland. He contended that, regarding a specific incident:

This has zero to do with Finland. Everything in my edit summaries below explains why I did not violate any BLP, whereas I would not take WP:SYNTH material at face value. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1. accounts of "Nazi symbols" in use must be taken as factual because "that's what the source said"--in gross violation of WP:BLP
   1. How are claims made by relaible third souces, like a news agency, a violation of WP:BLP? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2. contrary material such as Aaviksoo's reaction to charges of Nazism (that is, that the Finnish use of the swastika is being intentionally mischaracterized)
3. associated pertinent material explaining historical use of the swastika by Finland (swastikas were used by the Finnish air force since before Nazism, and still are--there is no swastika stigma in Finland) is OR and SYNTH.
   
   1. I explained how I identified this as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Sources must link everything in one piece to avoid this charge. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A synopsis follows. First, the article had been stable since 2008 with only minor adjustments of content. On June 5th, apparently as part of his current assault campaign, PasswordUsername begins his attack on Aaviskoo.

1. [44] - "Aaviksoo and Parliament member Trivimi Velliste appeared dressed in Nazi symbols in 2007." This quotes a JTA article by its Moscow correspondent. The file (link) is named "EstoniaSS" on the site, so it is clear that this is an author with an axe to grind. There is, of course, no mention of the historical use of the swastika, even to today, by the Finnish armed forces. The impression, sans explanation, is that Aaviskoo and Velliste are, minimally, open and unabashed Nazi glorifiers. This edit blatantly violates WP:BLP.
   1. I simply misread the ambiguous sentence. If you see the source, it alleges that Aaviksoo and a Parliament Member appeared together with a crowd of youth dressed in Nazi symbols. It goes in this fashion: "They were accompanied by dozens of young followers dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols, along with Estonian officials, including Parliament member Trivimi Velliste and Minister of Defense Jak Aaviksoo." Ask where the scope of those who were dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols is semantically broken... I did not revert to the same wording following this, as I had more time to consider the wording in the news report. It is unlikely, although Estonia recently erected a monument to an SS soldier – the Monument of Lihula, and Waffen-SS veterans still hold celebrations as heroes (just fighters "against Communism") in Estonia and the other Baltic states.

The source of the link was the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. This is a reliable third-party source.

1. [45] - PasswordUsername improves on his edit, moving the offending addition to its own dedicated section, POV-titled "Incidents", that is, now this is a Nazi glorification incident, per an encyclopedia article. Compounding of the WP:BLP violation.
   1. I improved as I considered the syntax of that sentence. "Incidents" sounds like a neutral title to me. Why is this POV? Where is the BLP violation if the source is actually cited? Where is the BLP violation when the source is a third party, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
2. [46] - PasswordUsername does some rearranging of categories (adding University of Tartu alumni)
   1. This is a terrible, terrible thing. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
3. [47] - Sander Säde correctly reverts the offending text, noting: (rm "incidents" section - a) read the source, Aaviksoo was along the followers who were alledgedly wearing Nazi symbols, not wearing symbols himself; b) Erna Retk has Finnish Winter War uniforms, not Nazi;)
   1. This is not in the source. The third party source states that youth in Estonia were wearing Nazi symbols. They wore those on T-shirts, not reenactment uniforms: "young followers dressed in T-shirts with Nazi symbols." That you are linking this to the uniforms at the military reenactment even is WP:SYNTH. You would think a case like this would get sufficient coverage to disprove assertions of this. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
4. [48] - editor H2ppyme changes birthplace from Tartu, Estonian SSR to Tartu, Estonia. (This had been the object of a much earlier campaign to denote the Estonian SSR as a legitimate governing entity, here corrected again.)
5. [49] - PasswordUsername restores the incident, correcting his "dressed in Nazi symbols" error, quoting the news article indicating Aaviksoo and Velliste were "accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols." There's also the letter of protest from Ephraim Zuroff (who denounces any Waffen SS event, as would be rightly expected given his position) and a quote from Rene van der Linden (who regularly denounces the Finns, Estonians, et al., anyone who fought the Soviets, as Nazis). That this is stated as an "incident" of a Nazi-glorification event is now, again, a gross violation of WP:BLP.
6. [50] - Sander Säde removes van der Linden's editorializing comment and adds Aaviksoo's reaction regarding mischaracterization of Finnish symbols as being Nazi. Note that PasswordUsername's text up to van der Linden is untouched, all Sander Säde has done is to add balance, per edit comment, (→Incidents: like all Russian hate-campaigns, this was misdirected as well - Finnish army symbols.)
   1. Van der Linden's comments were on the same subject. As they appear in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency article covering the same incident. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
7. [51] - PasswordUsername reverts to his version (+ van der Linden, - Aaviksoo reaction) with the edit comment: (Undid revision 295527951 by Sander Säde (talk) I cited the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. That isn't a Russian source, sorry.) This is a curious comment, as the byline for the "youth dressed in Nazi symbols" is Igor Serebryany, a Russian journalist, writing out of Moscow. While true that the JTA's home office is not in Moscow, the source for the article is Russian. This is splitting hairs at best, the result being the elimination of any balancing information from the individual themselves, allowing the image of Nazi glorification to persist unchallenged. Back to gross WP:BLP violation.
   1. See above. Note, again, that Igor Serebryany works for the JTA. He does not work for Russia. You could have filed a note at the RS noticeboard. We do not, however, make prejudiced assumptions about journalists according to their ethnic origin or what sort of name they have. Or in which city they are stationed. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
8. [52] - Sander Säde restores his version (recall, it's still ALL of PasswordUsername's addition, sans van der Linden's comments, plus balancing content) with edit summary (rv, removal of sourced content. What has Linden's comment (on which he never acted upon... I wonder why) to do with Aaviksoo? Also, the piece is by a Igor Serebryany, Moscow - and so full of misinformation that it is simply shameful.)
   1. See explanation above. You seem biased about Jewish reporters based in Moscow. Is this OK?PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
9. [53] - PassswordUsername restores to his, edit comment: (Rv Linden's statements are in the same article at the same time. I looked through your sources, there seems to be nothing about any Finnish symbols: cite directly if you see that. Looks like WP:SYNTH.) This is the grossest violation of WP:BLP. Contending "there seems to be nothing about any Finnish symbols" in the news article he left, deleting Aaviksoo's reaction to charges of Nazism, is a blatant attack, with PasswordUsername now clothing his WP:BLP violations with a completely fabricated charge of WP:SYNTH. Because the news article quoted did not supply balance, it is now WP:SYNTH to add balance to an article quoting a clearly biased source.
   1. See above explanation. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
10. [54] - Digwuren restores Sander Säde's version (recall, less van der Linden, plus AAviksoo reaction, NO other changes to PasswordUsername's original—restoring ONLY balance
    1. Note false BLP claims. Only third-party sources were made use of. Other rationale outlined above. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
11. [55] - Shotlandiya reverts to PasswordUsername's version, (Reinstated factual referenced info). Notice, no mention of deleting Aaviksoo's balancing information. WP:BLP violation.
    1. Third-party sources from the press regarding a public figure are not "BLP violations." This is ridiculous. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
12. [56] - Digwuren reverts to Sander Säde's, comment (Removed BLP violation commited through creative abuse of a reference.)
    1. Already explained here. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
13. [57] - Shotlandiya reverts to PasswordUsername's without comment
14. [58] - Shotlandiya adds a parting shot under the guise of (Used a more neutral phrase) changing "Jaak Aaviksoo, born 11 January 1954 in Tartu, Estonia (then under Soviet occupation)" to "... (then part of the Soviet Union"
15. [59] - Jacurek restores under occupation (however not reverting the prior edit)
16. [60] - Jacurek adds wikilink to Occupation of the Baltic states
17. [61] - I correct a typo ("he" to "the")
18. [62] - Jacurek retitles "Incidents" to "Allegations" and restores Sander Säde's balanced version
19. [63] - Shotlandiya deletes Aaviksoo's reaction and charges of mischaracterization regarding the swastika with the edit summary (irrelevant) (!) in an astounding display of WP:BLP violation
20. [64] - Martintg restores, (rv deletion of sourced content)
21. [65] - Martintg adds "allegedly" to the sentence regarding "accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols"
22. [66] - Shotlandiya reverts/deletes Aaviksoo's again (to PasswordUsername's)
23. [67] - Sander Säde restores balanced version including the "allegedly", (Undid revision 295772809 by Shotlandiya (talk) rv. This is BLP, not an attack page. Behave accordingly.)
24. [68] - I copyedit "allegedly accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in Nazi symbols" to a more accurate "reportedly accompanied by crowds of youth dressed in what were alleged to be Nazi symbols" (after reading the article), and added reference to military use of swastika (ref to follow)
25. [69] - Digwuren obliges with a reference on the Finnish use of the swastika
26. [70] - PasswordUsername returns to revert with lengthy edit summary: (Rv. Sources say zero about blue-on-white Finnish symbols. The third-party sources say the young crowds wore Nazi symbols, and anything else is OR / SYNTH, unless there is one source linking it. M'kay?)
27. [71] - PasswordUsername copyedits
28. [72] - Digwuren restores to mine (+ his ref added) version, (Sander is right, BLP applies.)
29. [73] - I request on talk that the BLP violation not be restored - IGNORED
    1. I did not see this talk comment, but I explained my reasoning in the edit summaries. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
30. [74] - PasswordUsername restores his WP:BLP violating version, (And which part does BLP apply to? The only part where his name crops up is sourced to a third-party news agency.) PasswordUsername's intent is clear. Smear a living person by quoting a single news article, delete any contrary information added as balance because it's not from the same article. This is a gross violation of WP:BLP.
    1. This is ridiculous and entirely bad faith. I have explained above – the point of the reversion was to avoid WP:SYNTH. Third-party sources aren't WP:BLP violations. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
31. [75] - Jacurek reverts, (Undid revision 295792344 by PasswordUsername (talk)- restoring proper wording and sourced information.)
32. [76] - PaasswordUsername reverts, (Rv: Read the sources - zero about blue-on-white Finnish symbols. The third-party sources say the young crowds wore Nazi symbols, and anything else is OR / SYNTH, unless there is one source linking it.) Note the smear tactic, invoke "third party" source, represent as factual, that is, Nazi glorification, delete any other WP article text adding balance as BOTH WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This is the grossest misapplication of Wikilawyering to defend a blatant WP:BLP violation.
33. [77] - Using the prior version as basis, I properly attribute all comments to the appropriate sources. (Please do NOT remove Aaviksoo reaction or reference for its basis; quotes from news sources NPOVed and section retitled to indicate controversy over interpretation)
34. [78] - I again request that BLP violations not be restored [16:28] and typo fix - IGNORED
35. [79] - Shotlandiya reverts, (fascinating, but Russia had nothing to do with this controversy, and this debate about Finland belongs somewhere else... "Neo-nazism in Estonia", perhaps?)
36. [80] - Jacurek restores, (- His response to the controvercy should be there for balance in my opinion.), appropriately
    1. In sum, I only insisted on using sources that did not violate WP:SYNTH. How you get violations of WP:BLP is beyond me. I apologize for not seeing your Talk page commments. However, not the lengthy explanations which were given in my edit summaries. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I requested TWICE that reverts be discussed, including after editing for better attribution and balance (and retitling instead of "Incidents" or "Allegations", as "Controversy"). That request was completely ignored by PasswordUsername and Shotlandiya.

This attempt to paint Estonians as Nazis, in this case, that the Estonian minister of defense marches with Nazi-glorifiers (this after initially MISREPRESENTING THE ARTICLE AS STATING THE ESTONIAN MINISTER OF DEFENSE WORE NAZI SYMBOLS HIMSELF) is what constitutes "appalling abuse" of Wikipedia. What is at issue here is PasswordUsername's own combative conduct, witness attempting to take a page stable for half a year and make it an attack page. This behavior: the libeling of individuals as participating in Nazi glorification, the deletion of balancing materials under false pretenses, the refusal to discuss when requested to cease, must be met with zero tolerance. PetersV       TALK 23:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments are interspersed with PetersV's above. Note also that PetersV regularly edits with Martintg and Digwuren, whereas I have only worked on a bunch of the same articles with Shotlandiya in the past week or two. He's been here since 2007, and seems to agree as far as this being a very poor representation of this as a violation of WP:BLP. Citing third-party sources is hardly an attempt to "paint Estonians as Nazis." Meanwhile, real Jewish people (such as Efraim Zuroff) and European leaders such as Rene van der Linden of the Netherlands (all quoted in my version of the article – those quotes, btw, are finally there, despite repeated insistence on their removal by PetersV and others removing them out of hand as though they were unrelated or irrelevant to the story) have testified to the real existence of far right sentiment in the country and its significance for this incident particularly. ""I don't like what the Jewish Telegraphic Agency has to say" is not a reason for WP:SYNTH. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Note I regularly edit with..." Oh please! with the innuendo. I edit mostly in the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Your comment is like condemning everyone who lives in New York for conspiracy because they all go to Central Park. Your technique for practicing guilt by innuendo and fabrication is quite good. The bottom line on WP:BLP on Aaviksoo is that what you created presented one side of an incident painted as Nazi glorification and you contended that any countering viewpoint—including Aaviksoo's—or historical context (for those unaware of pre-Nazi use of the swastika) is WP:SYNTH. That is very clever, and it is very nice you deigned to respond above. Perhaps next time you would perhaps spend some time discussing content on article talk pages when requested instead of reverting, along with the same by your new-found friends. Unlike you, I won't make accusations of meat puppetry, tag teaming, et al. on the other side of this sordid affair you started. I judge editors by how and where they spend their time. You attack editors, accuse them behind their backs, and go shopping for sympathetic admins as you disparage the editors you consider your opponents from your high horse.

   If you wish to discuss allegations of far right sentiment in Estonia, there are appropriate places to do it. But not in biographies of living persons, making them out to be Nazi glorifiers. You may argue how you like, that you insist on deleting balancing content—regardless of your rationale—speaks volumes, along with what appears to me to be a developing pattern of shopping for Baltic/Eastern European editor conspiracy theory believers. PetersV       TALK 03:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Have we just moved from the specific to the general here? How many times have I engaged in blockshopping? I love hove loosely you throw around the word: did you observe that I asked for a warning here? And that Digwuren got a short-term block on his own, without my help? PasswordUsername (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• No one will read your rant here. Please follow good advice by Sandstein, start an RfC or an arbitration case.Biophys (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No one will read your rant anywhere. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not be justified in this situation, but that sort of comment does not advance your case. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I'm simply tired of rudeness from this user, but I think my case stands on its own legs – I'm just the medium here, not the subject. PasswordUsername (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

The centralised discussion envisaged in the decision is currently initiated at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. Input will be highly welcome. Note that according to the decision, there will be a need for "a panel of three uninvolved administrators who will assess the consensus developed during the discussion". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Prehistoric religion

Resolved

 – Undeleted. Bencherlite^Talk 09:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I tagged this page earlier with {{db-move}}. I think (and I'm guessing here based on what I'm seeing) that two admins jumped on it at the same time. I'm guessing that the first admin deleted the page and performed the requested page move, and the second admin (within a few seconds of the first) deleted the new page and walked away. If that's what happened, then I'm willing to write it off as a mistake, but I need an admin to take a look at the page and see if that's what actually happened, and do some undeletion work if that is what happened. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm no crat...

Resolved

 – Just a display issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3AFuture_Perfect_at_Sunrise

Any ideas on how I managed to do that? I'm confused. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You're an administrator. Administrators can add rollback. Edit: Ah. You're talking about how he got is +sysop back, I assume. Good question. ÷seresin 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a display bug. He doesn't have administrator rights. So this is nothing urgent. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What Deskana said: Rights log and User entry. لennavecia 22:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is some odd entries, but UserRights does not show admin for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess it's just a really weird quirk then. Sorry for panicking. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a messup associated with the hack that allows stewards to manipulate enwiki user flags from meta. Probably worth a bugzilla, but I can't be bothered. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Vassyana/Difficulty

If you have knowledge of difficult areas of wikipedia, contentious topic zones that cause the burnout of good users, please help by contributing to User:Vassyana/Difficulty. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, if you know how to remove ArbCom from ruling on civility in content disputes (without resolving to break the content dispute), please offer your suggestions. While "Declare The Great Wheel War", (wherein the admin corps rises up and blocks the ArbCom membership before turning to breaking the stalemate in contentious content disputes with a hefty dose of blocks) would be the obvious, quickest, and arguably most entertaining solution... I somehow doubt that we have the resolve to maintain such an effort through the weekend.

In light of this, a discussion thread to nowhere is the best, and apparently only alternative. Key areas of focus: differentiating between good editors and admins acting badly, bad editors and admins acting badly, and bad editors and admins pretending to act good to cloud the issue. An interesting side discussion could also focus on removing the bit from admins who are not abusing the tools, but rather are "not nice" in a contentious area, while failing to add a replacement bit to that area while Admin #1 is absent. After all, a blocked or banned POV-pusher can return with a new account at will. While an admin without a bit can obviously remain in an area, they cannot return with a sock mop, and if there are no equally engaged admins working in that area, then you have effectively turned that section of Wikipedia over to the lunatics. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for review/ FYI

I just deleted this article. It didn't fit neatly into one of the CSD categories, however, I felt it was inappropriate and probably a legal threat. I'd appreciate it if other admins could take a look and let me know what you think. TNXMan 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the deletion. It was a legal threat, and WP is not a webhost. hmwithτ 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the deletion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it falls under the definition of G10 as an attack page. G10 does not make a difference between how the attack is made and a page full of negative content without any sources and threats and verbal attacks is probably covered by this definition. Regards SoWhy 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This deletion's ok, it's both a straightforward G10 soapbox attack and an A7, nothing to hint it's an encyclopedia article about a notable topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for the comments! TNXMan 13:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

We need more admins watching this category and responding to unblock requests. Only a handful of admins seem to be responding to unblock requests, creating a situation where some requests sit for a day or more. This is especially true with requests that require more review than one admin can offer or when a blocked user makes more than one request. We should be able to address most requests within a few hours at most. --auburnpilot talk 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to be more active at CAT:RFU, but recently most seem to be spam/username unblock requests that are a variant of "please rename me to Joe Schmoe and let me continue to add information about our wonderful business". I generally find it not worth the bother to find out whether these editors are interested in making non-COI edits about something else than their business, because they are generally not. If we can find some schematic way to handle these people, that would cut down on the backlog.  Sandstein  18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I do a lot of work on unblock reviewing, and I'd say the number of admins active in unblock reviewing is about 15. If anyone is interested in getting into this area but feels like they need help, please let me know, I'm happy to give advice and/or mentoring. Mangojuice^talk 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I created User:Mangojuice/COI unblocks to explain my approach to that common situation. Maybe this will help us find a united solution? Mangojuice^talk 19:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The approach you describe is ideal in the sense that it ensures that all such editors who deserve to be unblocked will be. But it involves a lot of work for admins willing to follow it, and may yield comparatively little benefit for our project, if - as I assume - relatively few of these people are interested in any useful editing at all.

Might we come up with something like {{2ndchance}} tailored to this situation? Such a template would serve as a block notification, explain the problem and invite the editor to choose a new username and to draft a useful non-COI edit of some substance. Should the editor not follow these instructions, they would not be unblocked.  Sandstein  19:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it much. But I could help develop one for others to use. I don't know why, but a lot of these users are pretty nice about wanting to get to know Wikipedia's rules and I feel like they are owed a response in my own words. (Though FWIW, I detest {{2ndchance}}). Mangojuice^talk 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and draw something up, probably as a change or alternative to {{Uw-spamublock}}.  Sandstein  21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do a bit more too. Yours, H.Ross Esq 86.153.37.232 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have rewritten {{Uw-spamublock}} in a form that should produce more immediately useful unblock requests. I suggest that we continue any discussion about this sub-aspect on Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace#Rewrite of Uw-spamublock.  Sandstein  22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the same vein, we need a few more administrators active on the unblock-l mailing list. In recent months, there has often been only one administrator active on the list at a time, and there have been gaps when no one was seemingly fielding the requests at all. We promise blocked users a prompt review, whether via unblock requests on their talkpages or via the mailing list, and this promise should be honored. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but this is after all a gratis and volunteer-run website and no actual harm is done if somebody can't edit for a few additional hours.

IMHO, the most practical way to reduce unblock wait times is to help users write better unblock requests, so as to reduce the time and effort needed for lengthy explanations and dialogues between users and administrators. That's the reason for which I wrote the original version of WP:GAB, too.  Sandstein  22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll look in on this from time to time and have subscribed to the list-serve too. I'm not around much though.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Per these motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Discussions relating to the naming of Ireland articles must occur at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration.

Moderators of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration may ban any contributor from the pages within the scope of the WikiProject for up to a month when a contributor is disrupting the collaboration process.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)'

Discuss this

Wholesale deprodding by new account

New user:Rockyview has just deprodded Persian Student Association of UC Merced‎, Royal Roads University Student Association‎, Wisconsin Student Nurses Association‎, ADVANCE Student Organization‎, Floyd Hughes‎, St. George Asian Business Association‎ and one other not prodded by me. I view this as wikistalking and disruptive. Opinions? Thanks in advance. Abductive (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly someone's sock. Might be a Biaswarrior (talk · contribs) / Biasprotector (talk · contribs) sock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Although, to be honest, i also have my doubts about a new user whose first action was to nominate for afd, Abductive (talk · contribs) [81].Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a new user; this is a new account since I regularly forget my passwords, but I'm not a sock. Abductive (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: new user knowledge -- I'd just like to point out that my wife made her first few edits the other day, with me kibbitzing. Needless to say, she didn't come across as a n00b. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for an Admin to undo these deproddings? Some or all of them were past their 7 day expiration date when deprodded. AfDing those articles will just be annoying to all concerned. And I will have to do it, those articles are seriously lame. Abductive (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You would either have to prove the user in question is a banned one or invoke IAR as current policy is perfectly clear: any user may challenge any PROD at any time (including after it is deleted). --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot the after-it-is-deleted rule. Sigh. Abductive (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale deprodding with no rationale is a hallmark of banned sockpuppeteer User:Azviz, so that's a possibility too. DreamGuy (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder a little how anyone can survive in the real world who regularly forgets their passwords and get locked out of accounts because they don't activate the email that would retrieve them. Abductive, it would be helpful to know what user names have you used in the past, if you remember all of them? DGG (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All that would reveal is my current pattern of behavior, with different account names. The whole idea of editing from accounts rather than IPs is faintly annoying to me. How would it be helpful? Abductive (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, let's wait again and see what happens and to see if there are any other signs that pop up such as any types of reverting, incivility, reports of harassment/stalking to ANI, stuff like that before we hit that button (yes, I am paying close attention, as well). MuZemike 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uploading an image

I was trying to upload an image with the name of ℃-ute - 2 Mini ~Ikiru to Iu Chikara~ but I got an error. I was trying to upload with that name because the file here is tagged for renaming. The error told me the file name I chose was blocked and to request an admin to upload the image for me. The source I used was the image here and used on this page. If an admin would please upload that image at a size of 200x200, it would be most appreciated. I'd be willing to fill out the rationale, etc. Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Try it without the tildes (~) in the name. Just a suggestion. --LiamE (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I may do that if this request doesn't go through for some reason. I'd rather keep them in there though because they seem to be a part of the "official" name of the album.--Rockfang (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the Manual of Style (Japan-related articles), the unusual characters should not be used in the title. It should be named File:Cute 2 Mini - Ikiru to Iu Chikara.jpg or something similar. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Article writers' noticeboard

Per a dicsussion at User_talk:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors#WP:Article_writers.27_noticeboard, I'm working on a draft noticeboard at User:Juliancolton/AWN. Feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I need help

Could somebody delete my userpage, please? Thx, --MARK S. (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. A summary of the case may be found at the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard.

- For the Committee, Mailer Diablo 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the above link says the case is open. XD. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? Tiptoety ^talk 06:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Was fixed by Danielηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete this file I added

Resolved

I added picture File:Cigarettes brazil.jpg, and later uploaded the same picture on to Commons. Please delete its redundant page here. thanks. Missionary (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Next time you can just tag the image with the {{nowcommons}} template. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FUC

I know WP:FUC is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Where does the 'U' come in? I may be over thinking it here, but to me, WP:FUC seems kind of, almost offensive ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There?

The answer is in the page's history -- "Fair use criteria". Warren -talk- 22:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be a WP:Helpdesk question, for future reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking comment if appropriate DR process has been followed

Most are probably aware of the long-standing issue on WP:NOT#PLOT - I am not asking for input on the policy itself, but if the recent to try to resolve it is flawed or not, hoping to use past experience to help out here.

The most recent action was a straw poll that became more like an RFC when it actually got going. [82] It ultimately asked "should NOT have a section about plot summaries" but the intro included various wordings of the policy, arguments for and against. The poll closed pretty much 50/50 (if you want to exactly by numbers, 66 in favor, 69 against, 10 abstaining). Now, a number of users tried to reconcile the results, including the user (Shoemaker's Holiday who has now left WP as I understand it) that started the straw poll as well as a failed attempt to bring in Arbcom ([83]). Because it descended from a straw poll into an RFC, there were a lot of comments in the objecting votes that we were able to pull from (not all of them, but a good number) a few issues that were common themes and came about and rewrote a suggested replacement for NOT to address those points that we'd (primarily myself, Shoemaker, Hobit and Gavin Collins) agreed was an acceptable replacement. [84]. When this was initially established, NOT was protected (from previous edit warring over PLOT), but shortly became unprotected. One of the editors involved in the rewording went ahead and substituted the new version, though I did advise that maybe a second straw poll to test that version will help knowing if that didn't work, we'd have sufficient reason to remove it from policy. Of course, there are still editors strongly against its presence, and pointing to the narrow winning margin of the straw poll as the reason to remove it. (see, for example [85]).

Again, I'm not seeking actions by administrators or the like, but I am seeking advice if the steps take to resolve this are correct (that is, taking a straw poll that provided enough rationales in the feedback to establish new wording), or if we should consider that poll binding on the numbers alone, or what another step would be to assure that there's community consensus for this? I'm hoping to figure this out before it breaks out into edit warring again. --MASEM (t) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the next step in the dispute resolution is mediation. Perhaps bringing it to WP:MEDCOM (given a pressing issue like this, not sure of the MEDCAB would suffice) would be a good way to get some closure, since the purpose of mediation is to help provide solutions that both sides can agree on. MuZemike 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the discussion above presents the dispute as one over wording of a policy. It is not; rather, it reflects the general attitude of Wikipedia towards the inclusion of detail about fictional subjects, a disagreement between those who want the coverage to resemble that of a conventional encyclopedia, and those who want a much more expansive scope. The only reason there was any agreement at all was that both sides intended to interpret the wording in their own way. I do not see what a mediator can do about this. A mediator will at best, if things go very well, be able to find a neutral policy statement--certainly I would hope a more internally consistent wording that the most recent proposal. But the disagreement about scope is not just over fiction, rather about the meaning of a contemporary comprehensive encyclopedia, and affects other subjects also. The mediator will not be able to resolve the basic issue, because I think it is not capable of a single resolution. (My own proposal is to abandon the idea of a single unified encyclopedia--an inherently pre-internet environment-- and adopt a multilayered structure--not as separate wikis not under our control as with Wikia, but a means by which a reader could choose between different sets of content, in the same way they now choose between different languages.) Short of that, the most useful thing to do would be a very broad based attempt to gather the overall view on inclusiveness of our editors and readers. Myself, I'm willing to help give the users whatever sort of encyclopedia they want to have, to the extent I can do it.

Despite my interest in the subject, I did not participate in the latest round of exchanges, essentially because I had said it all already many times over that anyone who wanted to take account of my views knew them perfectly well already, & it did not seem useful to reword it once more into a policy that had no real chance of being effective, since our system does not permit any solution to be stable, or compel any actual decision to follow article policy. DGG (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need to find a way forward and frankly I've no idea how to do it. (Thus I've left off being involved in that discussion). That said, I want to disagree with Masem on one thing. It's not the narrow winning margin that is the issue, it's that there isn't consensous for NOT#PLOT to exist (per that RfC). Even a narrow losing margin would have established that. And WP:POLICY is fairly clear that policy that isn't consensous shouldn't exist (old or new policy). We've gotten a fair improvement in the policy over the last few months, but inertia is taking its toll. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bruce01 - block request

Resolved

 – Users involved indefed for pupperty (confirmed by CheckUser), IP blocked one week. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the communities attention User:Bruce01. This user, during a recent AfD, started getting abusive towards myself and OIEnglish.

During the AfD, the user in question attacked several users in the AfD, using quotes such as "If it concerns you so much that [the Latrobe City Pacers] don't [have a article] and the 42ers do, may i suggest you write a page for them yourself." (diff) and "OK so there are some, excuse the term, wankers that exist within wikipedia who obviously have no brains (not [OIEnglish] of course), and the article was deleted." (diff). The user has also said he will continue to 'help' Wikipedia by "certainly going to redirect this effort in a number of different ways. I will actively discourage any potential editors from contributing to any articles to ensure their valuable time, unlike my own, is not wasted, and i will also give a couple of users, who looked to laugh off my attempt rather than appreciate it, many more tedious jobs and edits to do that will not stop." (diff)

If this was not enough, the user may have also resorted to meatpupperty or sockpupperty during the AfD (diff).

I am all for assuming good faith towards the user, however I believe the user has started acting in bad faith towards us, and deserves a block for personal attacks and possibly meatpupperty or sockpupperty. I am also considering starting a WP:SPI case against this user. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't want anything to do with this whole thing, I just wanna edit in peace. I don't think this user will be making any more edits anyway but if they start trolling then just block them. -- œ^™ 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take note of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bruce01. Tiptoety ^talk 06:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please moderate the Regine Velasquez page. So many false claims, there are no citations.

So many users in that page keep on putting false claims about Regine Velasquez' achievements and talent, to the point that they make up fake 'achievements' about her so-called 'reign'. Velasquez is not famous all over the world, she has not sold one million records all over Asia. They keep sensationalizing her page by writing over hyped and false claims such as having a 'palatial house', albums selling over 10X platinum, that Regine rejected the Miss Saigon role, and so much more. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.22.195 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What admin action is needed? While glancing, I don't see anyone that needs blocked, and the page doesn't seem bad enough to warrant protection, in my opinion. Try starting some discussion on the talk page, and make sure to let users who add unsourced information that WP does not allow original research and that reliable sources are needed. hmwithτ 05:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sanity Check please

Johnsy88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This guy has been inserting tendentious and poorly-sourced information into Unite Against Fascism and has been reverted and advised on several occasions. I have now blocked for 31 hours for edit-warring but I think a fresh pair of eyes would be beneficial. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The blocks looks legitimate, but I don't think those warnings that Andrewrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left Johnsy88 were appropriate. I also warned Andrewrp about participating in the edit war, and I noted that comments like "WE WILL NOT STAND TO SEE THIS DONE. STOP NOW!!!!!!" (diff) are not helpful. hmwithτ 05:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 attacks on Indian students in Australia

People are asking to close this AFD discussion per WP:SNOWBALL. I've participated in the discussion so I am unable to do it myself. Is anyone willing to provide a little assistance? Thanks. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed by User:Xavexgoem. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures

Resolved

Can somebody please close this disaster of an MFD? By my count, it's been open for ten days, and in my view there's absolutely no chance of anything even remotely resembling a consensus forming there anytime soon. I'd close it "no consensus" myself, but I've commented in it myself, so I don't believe that would be appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

concur, and have done so. Privatemusings (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thankyou! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

New Adminbot brfa

There is currently a brfa open for a bot to clean out CAT:TEMP. These bots have been rather controversial in the past due to false positives, so I suggest you take a look at it now, rather than waiting until it has been approved as sometimes happens. --Chris 13:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New noticeboard suggestion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Administrator abuse

Resolved

We all know how this would go: MFD, drama fest, ends up getting de facto redirected to my user talk. Which pretty much serves the same function anyway. Durova^Charge! 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Thoughts? –xenotalk 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I think you would get a ton of noobs complaining that an administrator deleted their article, or blocked them for vandalizing.  iMatthew :  Chat  21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC) WP/ANI will have a broader cross-section of people watching it, so responses will be more balanced -- this one will probably have either people looking to get admins in trouble, or admins looking to defend each other against accusations. I'd have to say "no" on this (especially considering the past couple of weeks I've had). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Only it keeps it off of this page. Frankly I'm pissed off WP:CIV with the number of editors who have no bloody clue WP:NPA and shout admin abuse at every opportunity. I'm also pissed off with the admins who seem to think they are above anyone, and can use their tools and ask questions later WP:NPA. I'd support an admin abuse page but only if it refers directly to use of admin only tools. All other complaints about the bastard admins stay at the main ANI page (or better yet somewhere else but I'm not that innocent as to think that will happen) Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I am also afraid that it would only be an invitation for whining. It seems to me that the vast majority of "reports of administrator abuse" that I see here (and elsewhere) is completely unfounded and downright silly. I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. Shereth 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I think that would be largely redundant to ANI, but it can't hurt to give it a try. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Against. Practically every accusation of "administrative abuse" I see is trolls abusing admins, and those that aren't usually end up requiring ArbComm. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Terrible idea. Keep the whining centralized here. The last thing this type of whining needs is decentralization. The more eyes, the better.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC) ^^^ Tan | 39 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I generally agree with I think Pedro suggested. There's a world of difference between abuse from an editor who happens to be an administrator and an abuse of the administrative tools. I guess some will object on the basis that administrators ought to be the paragons of all the virtues, and never snap at another editor, but they're (mostly) human, like the rest of us. The important stuff is the abuse of the tools, and that tends to get lost in what I see as the far less important stuff often brought up here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC) That's what I said, just you said it better :) Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I thought the places to discuss Admin behavior/actions/deportment/sanity/insanity was . . . here and WP:AN/I. I see no need for another drama board. Use of the tools is appealable on a number of boards besides this one. Leave it here. If the complaint is baseless or founded in ignorance, consensus to that affect should quickly emerge. If an admin or any other editor has erred, then that will become appearent here as well. Dlohcierekim 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC) (I suppose I've been lucky. I've had very little abuse hurled my way for being an admin-- a volunteer, unpaid, time consuming and draining yet rewarding job. What some other admins have had to put up with would try the patience of a saint.) Dlohcierekim 22:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC) We don't need a dedicated place to abuse admins.--Lenticel (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Are you sure? If you change your mind, I propose we place it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Pillory. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Keep it redlinked and I think it's a great idea. Otherwise, I agree with Pedro. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Some people here may be interested in Arritt's Second Axiom. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Mmm... Perhaps not than. But I think we need to look at how we deal with complaints of administrative abuse. ANI doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to raising concerns, it's like throwing shit into a ceiling fan: no real end result except that everyone has to take a shower afterward. Anyways, I just think that the growing discord between editors who feel admins are untouchable and admins who feel like they can't try and solve problems without getting accused of abuse is one that needs to be mended. –xenotalk 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose – encouraging cesspits of drama is not constructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC) The title is wrong. It's fine to have a place to appeal administrators' actions. These are not incidents, and I'd agree to separate the stream into two different boards. Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Appeals. It is almost always best to focus on actions rather than people. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Sure, that's a less loaded title. I'd support that. –xenotalk 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds like a new WP:CSN limited to sysops. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Bali ultimate made a good point. It shouldn't be decentralized. It would create more drama, and I tihnk things would get out of control, especially with less eyes on it. hmwithτ 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC) A place to deal with incorrect admin behaviour that sadly happens all too often is not a bad idea in itself. But to keep it the form of a noticeboard is not solving the problem, just moving it away from here. Instead, we would probably need some kind of system in place where a group of neutral editors review concerns brought up there and then issue rulings, something like a small ArbCom for every day use that just serves to issue rulings like "admin X is found to have violated Policy Y section Z when deleting page A" to see where problems really exist. Also, such a system could allow us here to direct all those people screaming "admin abuse!" to it where the complaints that merit review can be separated from those that are just whiny cries for attention where an admin just did his job, thus allowing ANI to close all such threads immediately and all those meriting review can be reviewed without needless drama. But alas, I fear I'm digressing into utopia here... Regards SoWhy 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, something like that would help as well but I doubt it would ever get off the ground. –xenotalk 18:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS - - with one restriction all administrators are banned from the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.198 (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid it will end up in a boy who called wolf syndrome. If it gets filled with non-valid complaints most people will ignore it, and then if there's a valid complaint no one will see it.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC) It would likely only further the trend lately of shrilly claiming wanton admin abuse/involvement/arrogance only as a means of wikilawyering towards breaking policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC) #REDIRECT WP:AN/I. MastCell Talk 18:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC) My first thought on reading this title was "Oh great, finally a noticeboard for people who want to be insulted by admins." On reflection, there are other interpretations of "admin abuse" and now I'm not even sure who that joke is directed at. I don't think the solution is that kind of "board"; I think what's needed is a group of people who're trusted to fairly review admin conduct. Trusted by editors in good standing, that is. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC) There was an attempt at a community driven board, to be found at User:Tony1/AdminReview, earlier this year. While it appears that the momentum has not been maintained, I don't see much point in duplicating what appears to be a sound basis for hearing cases and determining if there are grounds for the complaint. What happens after the finding was not part of the remit, so any Admin Noticeboard variant could be for the consideration of what to do with admins found to have abused their flags. In any case, I think Tony1 and his page should be included in any further discussion around this point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Statement by Tony1. Thanks to LessHeard vanU for alerting me to this section (and congrats on a successful RfA). We need to face up to the fact that there is significant discontent in the community about (i) occasional admin breaches of admin policy, and (ii) the current processes for dealing with them (mainly ANI, ArbCom). These processes are dominated by admins (and ANI is host to a fair few non-admins who would like to be admins and who wisely want to expose themselves to situations they might find themselves in as such). This leads to the perception of bias and "sticking up for colleagues", although it is hard to make a definite allegation of the extent of this phenomenon, and I won't try: the perception is enough to attract our concern. ArbCom is a big deal, is horribly logjammed, and rightly tries to head off all but the most egregious cases involving individual admins. ArbCom is not the way to resolve most instances of admin policy compliance. These are the reasons for the drafting of the User:Tony1/AdminReview process, which still faces four challenges: how to handle multiple complainant/admin parties; the mode of electing coordinators (not hard); how to locate skilled candidates for coordinatorship (maybe hard); and how to gain community acceptance and forge a productive relationship with ANI and ArbCom. Another issue, which may well be dealt with after AdminReview is up and running as a "good-faith" process without teeth, is whether to give it teeth. Responses to individual comments above.Pedro, above, says: "Frankly I'm pissed off with the number of editors who have no bloody clue and shout admin abuse at every opportunity. I'm also pissed off with the admins who seem to think they are above anyone, and can use their tools and ask questions later WP:NPA. I'd support an admin abuse page but only if it refers directly to use of admin only tools." AdminReview is designed to balance the needs and obligations of all parties, without favour or COI. It is strictly constrained to the matter of compliance with admin policies, which are codified on the page. Shereth says: "I am also afraid that [xeno's proposal] would only be an invitation for whining." AdminReview is designed to head off trivial/vexatious complainants and whiners by politely telling them to sod off (with brief reasons) at an early point. TreasuryTag says "encouraging cesspits of drama is not constructive". Taking the drama off project space and dealing with it in a respected process seems like a good idea. Xeno's original idea suggests that ANI currently does not provide a solution, but I do not believe that a dedicated page on ANI for resolving admin compliance disputes has any hope of gaining the confidence of the non-admin community. Lenticel says "We don't need a dedicated place to abuse admins". AdminReview is to improve relations between admins and non-admins in the project by providing a process that both sides generally trust. Gwen says: "... shrilly claiming wanton admin abuse/involvement/arrogance only as a means of wikilawyering towards breaking policy." I appreciate how annoying shrillness must be, and we don't want it. AdminReview parties are warned that coordinators will remove incivility from statements by parties, who will soon learn to take the emotion out of it if they don't initially understand. On "wikilawyering", wherever powerful remedies (blocking, deletions) can be used to enforce policy, and certain people are entrusted with applying such remedies, there need to be open, clear rules. Both sides can use the written rules to their benefit, and can't be stopped. If there is something wrong with the rules, they should be fixed. Bureacracy.A word about criticisms of AdminReview's "bureacratic", "bloated" appearance: well-designed rules are essential for any fair and efficient process. ArbCom is starting to realise this WRT the lack of time deadlines and evidentiary limits of its own hearings, which are gobsmackingly inefficient and seem to encourage bloated warfare among the parties rather than healing it. While AdminReview may look long and complex, by contrast the actual process is designed to be fair, prompt, and reasonably simple for the parties. There is good bureaucracy and bad bureaucracy: if anyone has suggestions on trimming or otherwise improving the page, I'll be pleased to hear them. The development of AdminReview has been held up for a while, but I would be pleased to move it forward over the next few months. And no, I don't want to be lord of the manor, or to host it live on my user space. I don't want institutional power. Tony (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account misusing my username

This new user has copied my username with only one non-capital letter difference (small "r")

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bullrangifer

and has vandalized by userpage and some of my subpages. Please block and perform a CU as this is likely a banned user taking revenge. Is there a "vandalism-only" template to use on his user and talk pages? -- Brangifer (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) (and heartily endorsed). Can't see a CU will help though, to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can name the banned user to give the CUs something for comparison, it might be worth a look, for other accounts as well. Without a name its much tougher to find socks. Thatcher 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the socks. The CU was indeed fruitful! -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC bot deleting RfC tags prematurely

The user who runs the User:RFC bot acknowledges that the bot has a flaw that sometimes deletes tags prematurely, but continues to run the flawed bot. I request it be blocked until the flaw is corrected. --Jc3s5h (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a flaw that is only triggered when there is no timestamp in the first paragraph of the description. You will have to put the timestamp in the first paragraph until I can release a working fix. —harej (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Lo and behold, problem solved. —harej (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question

Let's say I think I have interacted with another user before. I seem to recall there being a tool that shows article overlap. Can someone clue me in? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php works. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[86] is another, which lets you compare more than two accounts. Don't over-interpret the results, though; there are a lot of factors that might lead two editors to have a lot of pages in common. When only comparing two accounts, it's better used as a starting point to look for suspicious behavior than a confirmation of guilt. You and I have 50+ just in the mainspace, for example. -- Vary (Talk) 16:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Block evading sock

Resolved

 – LatinoAussie was confirmed by checkuser to be a sock of Cazique. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• TeePee-20.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LatinoAussie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LatinoAussie appears to be indef-blocked TeePee-20.7: same incivility, same concentration on Australians with Latin American heritage (see Talk:Latin Australian throughout). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

An SPI case would be the way to go here, but in order to do that you would need to be more specific. Could you provide us with a few diffs? Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, it's more of a "look and feel" thing. I think if you look at the Talk:Latin Australian page and compare the posts by TP at the beginning to the posts by LA from the middle down, you get the smell of it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize that TP was a sock of Cazique. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(out)Just want to note here that LatinoAussie has gone to User:Henrik, an admin, looking for a preventative block against me. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a sockpuppet investigation request at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Cazique. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The results:

•  Likely the following are Cazique:

1. TPTanque (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. LatinoAussie (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. VerceticarI (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. TruthTold (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. CartelCacique (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These accounts have apparently all been blocked and tagged. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat in email

What do I do with a legal threat sent to me via email? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEGAL. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Did. Doesn't mention email. Report it at AN/I? Include the email? Forward to some other address? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Depending on what the threat is against, I would suggest forwarding it to ArbCom or the Foundation/Mike Godwin - all of them if you are unsure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this legal threat funny? Many are (vanity, cod-legalese, and crap spelling are a potent mix), and if I received one of these I'd be inclined to serve the merriment of all by posting it in full on my user page, complete with every last incriminating detail of the header. Not that I'm recommending this to you or anyone else. -- Hoary (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was sent from a non-wiki account, there's not much we can do unless you can figure out what that person's wiki user name is. If you can prove who the wiki user is, they and their email capabilities can be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's from a user editing WP anonymously: User talk:75.85.5.190. (See also User talk:JHunterJ#Another opinion, [87]) -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't post his e-mail (even if funny), as this is a copyright concern (private e-mails being subject to copyright just like any letter), but by all means check with ArbCom or Mike if you're worried. I can't fathom what you might be being threatened for. Not allowing them to publish their schedule? In any event, I've dropped him a COI notice, under the circumstances. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a short time owing to the reported legal threat by email (the IP does seem to straightforwardly identify himself in one of the contribs). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the copyright of an email, like written correspondence, is invested in the recipient - however, my question to JHunterJ is if the threat is to him personally, him in his capacity as a WP editor/admin, or WP generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the UK handles things differently than the US? In the US, copyright remains with the author, while physical ownership of the copy is in the rcipient. See, for instance, [88]: "The author of letters is entitled to a copyright in the letters, as with any other work of literary authorship....The copyright owner owns the literary property rights, including the right to complain of infringing copying, while the recipient of the letter retains ownership of 'the tangible physical property of the letter itself.' Having ownership of the physical document, the recipient (or his representative) is entitled to deposit it with a library and contract for the terms of access to it." (citations omitted) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In the UK it all depends. If the author/photographer is paid to write a manuscript/photograph something then the copyright is held by the person paying the author/photographer. It all depends on the contract drawn up at the time. If the document/photo is unsolicited then the copyright remains with the author/photographer. Obviously in certain circumstances if an unsolicited document/photo is sold then dependant upon the contract the copyright could pass to the purchaser. --WebHamster 17:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Private correspondence. Daniel (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Thanks. I did contact ArbCom and Mike, and have gotten a response back from Mike. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:I Seek To Help & Repair!

Resolved

 – Nothing really wrong here. –xeno^talk

This is not yet resolved. It seems like I Seek To Help & Repair is being forced into an unnecessary name change. Kingturtle (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I've been considering name change for a while. I especially don't like the ampersand anymore. Thanks anyway Kingturtle

---

Is this chap's userpage appropriate? It doesn't exactly make communication between users easier... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

His userpage is fine. His 'feedback' system's cumbersone, but nothing requires other users to jump through his hoops. The 'new section' button's still there, so it can be used instead of his charts and graphs based triplicate TPS report style. ThuranX (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He should probably be told about the WP:UP#OWN per the statement at the top of the userpage, other than that, I don't see a problem. It's over-the-top-, yes, but you don't have to look at the userpage. –xeno^talk 17:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dear God, my eyes. You should warn people before doing that. Some of us have hangovers. //roux   17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm. His sig signs his username as 'Sought', which is actually the name of another, albeit never-active, user. My memory is hazy on this, but I was under the impression that one must sign with a username that is at least somewhat related to the account name, and definitely not with the username of somebody else. Am I wrong on this? //roux   17:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think someone suggested to him in his recent RFA that he change his name anyway, I would echo that; especially given the ampersand which can cause issues with templates and the like. Perhaps he would like to WP:USURP "Sought". –xeno^talk 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Signature forgery: "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents." There are established users who use a signature totally different from their username (like older≠wiser or the numerous people who sign with their real name which is not their username). I don't think it's a problem at all really. Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• I will change my signature (I was planning on a new signature anyway), but I currently have no desire to change my user name, also I agree with Xeno, you don't have to look at my user page, also, I keep my talk page at soft colors so it does not visually offend anyone, my talk page is necessary to all, my user page is necessary to some. My feedback system: Are you able to leave me feedback? Yes, then isn't that enough? Aren't there other Wikipedians that have far worse, more offensive user pages +? I am aware of the WP:USURP, I also am aware of the ampersand, so if my user name is changed I would like it to be something I like that doesn't contain an ampersand, and I would rather not have a user page that everyone contributes to. If you don't like my user page, then you don't have to stay on it, also, I made the main color yellow, when clearly the harshest colors are blue and red. Thank You, Please contact me if you have anymore concerns Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Feel free to check out my signature and maybe edit it for the better, remember the character count Sought | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There you go, it's changed ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 22:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fairly incomprehensible. Kind of reads like Ishtar. Have you thought of a simple "I Seek" - short, memorable, reference to the actual name. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please see my usurp notice Thank You, ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 07:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with ISTHnR as a signature. If the & is a big deal, may I suggest I Seek To Help n Repair! or I Seek To Help And Repair! ? Kingturtle (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

CAPTCHA word list

Someone may want to look through the word list used to generate the CAPTCHAs (like the ones shown to IPs who add links) and remove "inappropriate" words. The CAPTCHA I was recently served with was "headshits". I'm amused more than offended, but you may want to change things so that you avoid serving up profanity with a vandalism prevention tool. Kinda sends the wrong message. (BTW, sorry if this notice is misplaced. I tried to find the most appropriate location, and this was the best option listed at Special:CAPTCHA.) -- 128.104.112.114 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Some previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 50#Offensive word in captcha, and see also T18166. Anomie⚔ 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Its only offensive if you don't see heads...hits ;) Shell ^babelfish 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Honi soit qui mal y pense. MastCell ^Talk 03:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Faverdale

Resolved.

Faverdale has been vandalized with the same text about 10 times in two weeks from about 5 sources. The first source was warned clearly. --Ettrig (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page with a duration of one month. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Zelenoff/Vintagekits

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

A number of uninvolved admins have now reviewed and concluded no further action is merited. There is no evidence of sock-puppetry, no evidence the editors are perpetuating a hoax or spoof and no evidence of ongoing disruption. Rockpocket 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention Vintagekits (talk · contribs) edits to the Charlie Zelenoff article and subsequent behavior. It's a spoof article that was just deleted for the third time. I was not aware at the time that two other editors had already separately deleted the article before I stumbled upon "see also" links to the article on a notable MMA fighter page (Kimbo Slice). Vintagekits claims he is not the UCLA student using the alias Charlie Zelenoff in a quest to become an internet sensation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charlie_Zelenoff&action=edit&redlink=1

Charlie Zelenoff is supposedly a notable boxer, however, upon investigation I found that the he only had 1 spoof fight that went half a round before he gave up against a fighter with a losing record. Vintagekits left a note on my page making it clear that we will have to endlessly delete the Charlie Zelenoff spoof page. He seems quite eager to continue wasting editors time.

Here is what he wrote on my talk page:

"I'll take it that you actually havent got an answer as opposed to not wanting to continue the discussion. I think you are mixing up the terms "spoof" and "non-notable". In a !vote of 4:3 it has been deemed that at this moment he is not notable. However, with an upcoming fight next month there will be more material on Zelenoff and the likelihood that the article will be recreated. Personally, I look forward to it!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)"

I'm the third editor who has had to deal with vintagekits on the Charlie Zelenoff article alone. I believe he may have a second editor alias that he uses to agree with himself by the name of LiamE (talk · contribs)

I've encouraged him to move onto greener pastures, but he seems intent upon being a disruptive force on Wikipedia and reposting articles that have been deleted multiple times. I propose that he be banned from editing the Charlie Zelenoff page and that a quick search be done to see if he's using multiple editor names to create a false consensus. Lordvolton (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you want to be careful who you are accusing of what there matey. I think your lack of assumption of good faith on my part and that of Vintagekits does you no favours. A quick glance at the edit histories of myself and Vintagekits would assure any sane person that we are most certainly seperate individuals. As for your assertions that Zelenhoff's fight was a "spoof" I think you need to look a bit closer at the facts of the matter. The fight was reffed by a professional judge who has reffed fights for the likes of Bruce Seldon, Donny Lalonde and Iran Barkley and was licenced by the state board. It was, most certainly, a pro fight. Furthermore your dismissal of his notability flies in the face of the great deal of internet chatter about him. I have seen a single forum discussion thread on him with over a third of a million hits and something like 55000 replies. Now I realise most of the chatter centres around how remarkably bad he is at his chosen profession but the fact he is more infamous than famous should not be a bar to having an article on him. If it were we should go ahead and remove articles on Eric Crumble and Eddy the Eagle for starters. Now, I won't recreate the article as it was deleted but it is only a matter of time before someone else recreates it as it is exactly the sort of thing that some people will look to find here. The deleted article was factual and sourced and pretty well written. He is a current pro boxer with another fight lined up. How many fights will he have to have (and most probably lose) before you accept he warrants an article? --LiamE (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A. I am not quite sure what exactly I am being accused of here to be honest. is he saying I am Zelenoff?
• B. One point that sticks out is that Lordvolton doesnt seem to know the difference between "non notable" and "fake"/"spoof". Its something I have asked him to explain on a number of occasions without success. One thing that cannot be argued is that Zelenoff exists!.
• C. I participated in the recent AfD of Zelenoff and the closing admin made some rather interesting analysis which I dont really consider valid but hey-ho thats the way it gos sometimes. I have no problem with that and actually had a rather muture discussion with him here about it.
• D. Actually it was Lordvolton that nominated Zelenoff for deletion. Again I have no problem with that - the guy (Zelenoff) is an idiot and has had only one fight and lost that - so he is entitled to do that. However, what he also did whilst the AfD was proceeding was remove all the redirects and references to Zelenoff on other pages. He was asked to stop this and explain his actions on two occasions, here by Willking and here by me but continued and never answered. Infact I really struggle to have any kind of policy based discussion with the guy and find him pretty irrational (like I find being reported here for this a little absured!). I am not sure I could have interacted with the guy in a more patient and balanced manner.
• E. I notice that this seems to be a recurring theme with Lordvolton who seems to consider AfD as personal attacks. In the last AfD he was involved in that it followed a similar pattern and that he was blocked for incivility and warned about canvassing.
• F. It reminds me of the situation with Kimbo Slice when that article was AfD twice prior to sufficient secondary sources worked there way through to mainstream media - the difference being that Slice is pretty good and Zelenoff is embarrassingly bad. What does this LordZolton guy want? a complete ban on the article ever being created again? That isn't going to happen in my opinion - Zelenoff has a second professional fight coming up next month and hopefully there will be new sources that come forward to justify an article - if not then it will stay deleted. I would be happy if more and better sources do come forward. Until then he will just have to stay an internet forum hero.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the Charlie Zelenoff AFD, I think I'll add a few comments. I have no evidence that either Vintagekits or LiamE have behaved inappropriately here. While they disagreed with my closure of the AFD, and quite strongly, both of them were civil about it, and have abided by the decision. The deletion log does not show any recreation of that article since the AFD was closed.

The first deletion was an A7 speedy delete, and recreating an article which does assert notability is routine practice. DGG who deleted the article a second time made a selective restoration of the article upon request, so I see no edit-warring or other inappropriate behavior there either.

I gather that Vintagekits and LiamE have an interest in reposting an article when the person becomes more notable (i.e. fights more matches), which is an accepted Wikipedia practice although a draft in userspace for community review is perhaps the best approach.

There is clearly a measure of disagreement on whether "internet fame" is a sufficient grounds for calling someone notable, as well as whether boxers like Mr. Zelenoff who are officially "professional", yet have not produced results which they can build a career on. In the AFD I closed, I felt the consensus, as well as the arguments, supported deletion; but it was not a unanimous decision. The people who argued to keep the article were not being stupid in their arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sjakkalle, I will create a Zelenoff page in my user space and as and when new sources come to hand I will add them. I will then give you and the Boxing Project a heads up as to when it is in a fit state to be recreated and discuss uploading it again then. p.s. thanks for your input. --Vintagekits (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion a few thousand views on a YouTube article is not "internet fame". Simply stating there is "disagreement" doesn't answer the question of whether that disagreement is reasonable. One of the YouTube comments states that everyone has been duped and that the whole thing is a hoax, a hoax perpetuated by Vintagekits on Wikipedia. A student at UCLA working on a school project who fought half a round against a guy who with 1 win and 13 losses is not notable. The question we have to ask is why Vintagekits would work so hard to post and repost an article for this UCLA student? This is not debate about whether Vintagekits invests incredible amounts energy defending his actions after the fact -- he seems to enjoy exploring the limits of notability and the patience of other editors. The facts are far more important than the fervency of his defense.

There are scores of legitimate fighters with a single fight who lost. They're also not notable even if they have a YouTube video of that loss. To defend his actions Vintagekits references Kimbo Slice, an MMA fighter who has fought for EliteXC and appeared on CBS. Kimbo Slice now fights for the UFC. But let's assume Vintagekits had a basis for his unfair comparison, which is YouTube.

Kimbo Slice has millions of views of actual fights prior to his MMA career. Tbe UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff has 20,000 views of a media experiment for class with a lot of negative comments. That's just a blatant attempt at failed self promotion which is continued here on Wikpedia - Vintagekits even promotes this activity by creating "see also" links on the Kimbo Slice page. There are plenty of other fighters with losing records who Vintagekits is not constantly creating article for in the state of Arkansas. Why Charlie Zelenoff? The comparison itself is flawed since Kimbo Slice was not attempting to create a spoof and participated in street fights for money -- not in a boxing ring for half a round as a hoax.

Vintagekits tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an idiot, but his actions speak otherwise. A person you think is an idiot is not the person you faithfully defend and create articles to promote and link to on legitimate fighters pages. The only reasonable action is to ban Vintagekits and any other editor names he may be using from recreating the Charlie Zelenoff page and whatever other actions are deemed necessary given his past history on Wikipedia. Otherwise we end up condoning spurious articles and countless hours debating with Vintagekits about their notability. Lordvolton (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this matter WAAAAY to seriously and are throwing accusations around like confetti. Have you ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that VK is in ANYWAY related to Charlie Zelenhoff? Have you got ANY evidence that I am an alias / shill for VK? Have you got ANY evidence that either myself or VK has acted in anyway that is not entirely reasonable with regards to this matter? Have you got ANY proof that the fight was indeed a spoof as you so fervently claim? "A few thousand" hits is a bit of an understatement dont you think when a single thread at East Side Boxing about him has has upwards of a third of a million views and 55000 or more posts. That alone puts him head and shoulders above other 1 fight novices in terms of noteriety. Now dont get me wrong I am a not stupid and can clearly see that Zelenhoff's career may well be a staged stunt but that does not make his pro fight any less real nor his noteriety for ineptitude and the less. Frankly you appear to acting in bad faith on this matter and seem to have a personal grudge with VK. You have made your mind up its a spoof and wont listen to anything else and want to have bans thrown around for no oither reason that someone dares to disagree with you. Can we be clear here... why should anyone get a ban from anything over this issue? And what are you actually here to complain about? --LiamE (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's extremely safe to say that Vintagekits is neither Charlie Zelenoff not a student at UCLA, if that's what's being alleged here. I don't think there's any outing involved (given that a quick skim over his history will show it) to say that VK is from Sligo (and has uploaded numerous self-taken photos of the Sligo area). VK can be a pain in some areas, but in almost three years I've never – as in, never – known him to be wrong about anything related to boxing. – iridescent 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In the few days I've had to deal with him he's been wrong multiple times: 3 times with regard to the Charlie Zelenoff article alone. He's been unable to explain his zeal for reposting an article on a fighter who went half a round as a spoof. Worse, he tells us that he's looking forward to it being REPOSTED -- only days after it was deleted for the third time. In the next breathe he tells us he thinks Charlie Zelenoff is an "idiot". It doesn't add up.

I believe the only reasonable response is to ban him from the article. Lordvolton (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain exactly these 3 things I said that was "wrong". 1. I havent "reposted" the article. I may to in the future when the article is in a stronger position. I posted the article - once! 2. My "zeal" - I believe he is notable at the moment per WP:ATHELTE but I will wait until he actually fights again and she if the bring more sources to the article and discuss it prior to I or others colleagues posting the article. You dont seem to be able to discuss the issue in a logical manner so I probably wont be replying again. In the mean time enjoy this piece of journalism - hopefully you can add to it and make it better. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that Wikipedia is an ongoing process and that new facts or evidence can of course justify the recreation of a previously deleted article. By the way, I don't think that one must have a positive opinion of an article's subject to consider it notable - otherwise Wikipedia would surely have no articles about murderers, war criminals or dictators. Futhermore if the time someone has spent on an article would be suitable to make assumptions, then you would put up with speculations, too. Overlooking User:Vintagekits actions, I can't see anything he has done wrong, therefore I reckon this discussion redundant.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If Vintagekits hadn't reposted the article multiple times and communicated his desire to do it yet again only days after it being deleted for the third time we could have given him the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe posting and reposting and then stating this will continue should be rewarded. At a minimum, a ban from the Zelenoff spoof article should be enforced. If you think you're dealing with someone who is reasonable, this is what he had to say to another editor named BastunnutsaB regarding some of his other edits:

"A request for Arbcom enforcement concerning you has been made here. BastunnutsaB 11:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

   You are an absolute dick! Talk about trying to cause hassle and drama where there isnt any.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)"

Is this the voice of a reasonable editor? Lordvolton (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the words I would have chosen but the sentiment is pretty representative of a reasonable editor on the receiving end of your accusations and ramblings on this matter. You are continuing to make a drama where none exists. You have continued to throw around baseless accusations and you continue to push an OR POV that the fight was a spoof. I've asked if you have evidence to back up your claims and accusations. Where is it?? --LiamE (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And while you are at it please let us know why VK being involved in an entirely seperate Arbcom discussion has any bearing on this matter. --LiamE (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They're not baseless accusations - they're fact. Did you watch the single Zelenoff fight on YouTube? He went half a round before his corner waved off the fight against an opponent who had 1 win and 13 losses. Have you read the comments? It was a hoax. It's time for you and the other editor named Vintagekits to stop promoting Charlie Zelenoff and wasting our time. The joke, of course, is on us since we continue to give you and the other editor named Vintagekits our undivided attention. If the UCLA student posing as Zelenoff cannot become an "internet sensation" maybe he can become notorious on Wikipedia for frustrating editors. You're the same editor who was has repeatedly supported Vintagekits in his efforts to promote Zelenoff stating it's "definitely a keep".

Vintagekits has little respect for other editors as evidenced by his harsh words for BastunnatsaB. And his edits reflect that of a editor that is not mindful of other editors time. I'm the third editor forced to take this issue up and absent a ban on Vintagekits and whatever other editor names he may be using on this article we'll be back here again. And I expect we'll see fervent defenses by Vintagekits with consensus from LiamE, as has been the case in the past.

We will eventually see another "see also" link on Kimbo Slice to Charlie Zelenoff. Vintagekits will no doubt play other Wikipedia editors for fools prefacing his comments with things "sadly, he is for real". It's a spoof and we need not waste any other editors time playing nanny for Vintagekits and whatever other editor names he may be using on this topic. Again, I believe at a bare minimum a ban is appropriate given his unwillingness to stop reposting the article and creating "see also" links on legitimate fighter pages such as Kimbo Slice. He's also gone through the trouble of listing Charlie Zelenoff as a notable person from California and Los Angeles -- quite a bit of energy for someone that he claims he holds in low regard? Lordvolton (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Your assertion that the fight was a spoof despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary is a comment on a youtube video? And because some editors dont agree with your stance bans should be handed out to editors that have acted reasonably in this matter? VK's behaviour in other matters has no bearing here. I've asked for you evidence to back up your claim and accusations. So far all I can is see a comment abut a youtube video. Seems to me like you reaching a bit. Again I ask you where is your evidence I am an alias or shill for VK? If you want to drag my name through the mud man up and back up yoru accusation with something. Where is you evidence that the fight was a spoof? Where is your evidence taht VK has repeatedly reposted the page? Where is your evidence that VK or myself intend to submit the page again without more information being available? In fact where is the evidence for ANY of your claims taht have any bearing on this matter?? --LiamE (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So, three days after accusing me of being a sock / shill for VK in what I can only assume is an effort to get me banned from wikipedia for simply disagreeing with you in a reasonable manner you still have produced exactly nothing to back up your claim. I want to hear why you made that assertion or I want you to acknowledge you made an error of judgement and retract your accusation against me. Do you seriously think that VK had the foresight to make an alias a year before his main account and despite being involved in several heated discussions only decides to use that alias to back himself up on the matter of a dreadful boxer? A matter that had been resolved without any drama whatsoever as far as I can see until you started throwing baseless accusations around.

For the record, despite your repeated claims, the fight certainly was not a spoof and the article was deleted not on the basis of it being a spoof but not meeting notability standards. I disagree with that, but I accept that and I have gone about noting my disagreement in a reasonable manner. It is standard wiki practice for these matters to be revisited if and when more evidence of notability arises. It is not for you to crystal ball and say it can't happen and therefore those looking for more evidence of notability should be banned from the article. This, however, is a very minor point in comparison to the accusation of sockpuppetry / shilling made against me which could potentially lead to me being banned for wikipedia entirely if it had any substance or an admin made an error on the matter. Time to put up or shut up. Where is the evidence I am an alias for an account created a year after my own, edited from different locations, with very divergent editing histories? If you have none be a man about it and retract your accusation.

If you want to make accusations against editors such as myself I think perhaps you should keep your own house in order. I notice some of your recent edits could be construed as canvassing, you have previously been blocked for incivility and have used your own blog as a cite to push your own POV in articles. --LiamE (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not that it's non-notable -- it's his stated desire to see it reposted. Charlie Zelenoff was a hoax. Do you vehemently defend every fighter who has gone half a round and lost against a fighter with a record of 1 win and 13 losses? Is that your standard for notability?

If he had not gone through the trouble of linking and re-linking to a famous MMA fighter Kimbo Slice perhaps nobody would have noticed the failed media experiment and been the wiser.

The fact that you both act in unanimity on spurious articles makes one wonder. Why is LiamE so eager to defend an article that has been deleted three times? I know you claim you're not VintageKits, but a quick review of the records will determine it one way or the other. If you're not the same editor, then you need to review the guidelines and stop assisting VintageKits in his efforts to waste other editors time.

Perhaps the UCLA student posing as Charlie Zelenoff can bring this hoax to a conclusion? I wonder if he gets extra credit for wasting editors time into the summer session? And then VintageKits can go back to editing articles in a non-disruptive manner. A much easier solution is to simply ban VintageKits and whatever other editor name he may be using. Otherwise we'll be reading reams of point, counter point by VintageKits and LiamE, which has become a familiar patten. Lordvolton (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this is ridiculous, Lordvolton. First of all, Vintagekits is not a UCLA student. I lives and edits many thousands of miles from there. Secondly, he is not editing from multiple accounts. Why? Because that could easily be shown by a check-user and, if he would found to be sockpuppeteering again, he would be perma-banned. Do you really think he would risk that for this stupid little article? Finally, although he didn't exactly state it in the nicest way, what he said is correct. There is every likelihood that this person will eventually become notable enough for an article. This is done, let it go please. Rockpocket 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You really are incredible. "I know you claim you're not VintageKits, but a quick review of the records will determine it one way or the other." How about having a quick look yourself before posting baseless and very serious accusations? I will ask you one last time before I take this matter further. Post your evidence that I am an alias of Vinatgekits or retract your accusation. Your behaviour towrds me to my mind has now crossed the line from an honest mistake to a personal attack. To repeatedly assert that I am an alias is a serious matter on wikipedia with serious consequences and should not be done lightly.

Perhaps you don't realise that Kimbo Slice fame started off as internet chatter. Now whereas Slice has some ability Zelenhoff appears to have none and has a significant ammount of notability because of that in boxing circles. Has it not occurred to you that both I and Vintagekits might know a little more about the subject matter than you? Has it not occurred to you that we might just happen to agree on this subject because of our knowledge of the matter at hand?

Your repeated assertions that he is a hoax is pure WP:OR and is nearly as baseless as your accusations against myself of sockpuppetry. Where is your cite to say he is a hoax? A comment on youtube video? Ah come off it. If you want I can link a dozen youtube comments saying Joe Calzaghe is a fraud. Shall we assume he is a hoax based on that?

I noted my disagreement to the original ruling based on the level of discussion about him in boxing circles. The two most popular threads about zelenoff at one major boxing site have had 420,000 plus views and about 65,000 posts. In comparison the 2 most popular threads about boxers other than zelenoff have had half the views and a fraction of the posts. But if you knew a little more about the subject, you'd already know that.

As for timewasting, please dont make me laugh. You seem to be the one causing all the fuss over this matter. Your assertion that VK should be banned from the article because he would like to see it reposted is beyond banal. IT IS STANDARD WIKI PRACTICE TO REVISIT SUCH ARTICLES AS AND WHEN MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

Now, retract your accusation of sockpuppetry against me please or I will have to take the matter forward. Feel free to take the time to investigate my edit history, something you should have taken the time to do before making the accusation. --LiamE (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Lest there be any doubt, here is a link to the fight. Charlie Zelenoff (aka UCLA acting student) with a professional record of NO WINS and NO LOSSES versus Andrew Hartley with a professional record of 1 win and 13 losses at the time of the fight – Mr. Hartley has lost two more times since this fight.

The UCLA student lasts for half a round before you see his corner wave off the fight. He ends up with a record of 0 wins and 1 loss. Clearly this is not a notable fighter but if he were then anyone who gets into a shoving match on YouTube could have a Wikipedia page dedicated to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxtDLPKnDA

Here is my favorite comment found on page 2:

“Just to let you guys know, you have been scammed for the last year. charlie zelenoff was a student at UCLA doing comedy for a class he was taking. i would say he was pretty successful after the first 3 months with the height of his popularity. now he does it to make a name for himself and to make money on the side. his goal is satire and to become an internet legend. charlie planned to quit before the fight started. his real name aint even charlie zelenoff. folks he is acting.”-uzkoglazieyCharlieZ

The hoax worked fantastically! We’ve got two editors who are “punch drunk” writing articles about it. The truth came out two months ago and they won’t let it go.

My hope is it’s actually the UCLA student trying to plug himself in a failed attempted to become an “internet legend”, otherwise we have one (or possibly two) editors with no regard for Wikipedia guidelines. I find it hard to imagine someone plugging the UCLA student posing as Zelenoff for no reason, but stranger things have happened.

On a random aside, how do you become an internet legend by losing to a guy with 1 win and 13 losses?

The “see also” links on the Kimbo Slice page, who is a legitimate internet legend and MMA fighter, led me to believe there may be some nefarious activity. Perhaps I over estimate the research skills of Vintagekits who others have said is well versed in boxing – I’m taking them at their word.

And that is why we must ban Vintagekits from this article and determine if LiamE is the same editor. It’s time for this disruptive media experiment to finally end with the swift hand of Wikipedia justice. Lordvolton (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's time for this disruptive media experiment to end. This thread is achieving nothing. Vintagekits isn't about to be banned from any boxing-related article (barring a serious meltdown). There doesn't seem to be any ongoing disruption that needs admin attention. Editors are encouraged to work on draft articles in user space. If, after a reasonable period, you feel that an article page in user space is no longer being worked on, then nominate it at WP:MfD. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether VintageKits should be banned from legitimate boxing articles is a separate issue, however, with regard to this hoax article I believe the only reasonable course of action is to ban VintageKits and whatever other editorial names he may be using. Otherwise we'll be forced to repeatedly watch Charlie Zelenoff's opponent with 1 win and 13 losses (now 15 losses) have a CHAMPIONSHIP BELT placed around his waist after defeating an aspiring comedian in a spoof fight. Was that the Arkansas Middle School Championship?

Clearly, this doesn't reflect well on VintageKits or LiamE's research. The article has been deleted three times so they've had several opportunities to correct their mistakes, instead they've repeatedly reposted the article and vigorously defended it and linked it to other legitimate fighters. This results in other editors eventually being introduced to VintageKits and by default LiamE.

A lot of professors question the reliability of Wikipedia and its this process that protects the integrity of the articles.

If VintageKits and others are allowed to recklessly post articles, even after they've been given every opportunity to behave in a manner that is respectful of others, then we've not only failed in our duties but we've proven those skeptics of Wikipedia to be correct. This isn't just about VintageKits, it's about the standards set down by Wikipedia and whether we have the courage to stop abuse. If this were the first time VintageKits had posted the article and there was reasonable disagreement then these harsh measures may not be required, but VintageKits has proven time and again that simply asking him nicely to stop doesn't work.

The repeated offenses merit a stronger response. At a bare minimum he should be banned from this hoax article. Whether his recent actions on other articles are deserving of more extreme measures is something I will leave up to others as I haven't bothered to review his edits.

Although Wikipedia may have its critics when it comes to the reliability and notability of articles, I am confident justice will prevail. Thank you. Lordvolton (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aradic-es

Aradic-es continues to edit war with me on various articles while falsely referring to my edits as vandalism [89][90][91]. He responds at the talk page or edit summary in an uncivil tone with one his bogus arguments such as "well , people use English- not language itself!" or "bla bla bla... Until there appear to be symbols accepted on both sides. .. these ones will stay. Wikipedia does not obey not any constituition!!" or "officially is Croats from BiH-end of discussion!". Due to this I get a third opinion (as I know this will head down hill) which he responds to by ignoring and continuing to edit war and bait despite the discussion. Sometimes he goes so far as to copy & paste text trying to redo a move he created without a consensus [92] or blatantly removes information he does not like such as [93] [94]. I lack the patience to deal with this user’s stubbornness and realize that I could have handled the situation better. I wish for admin intervention as I hope to spend the time in more productive ways. PRODUCER (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm OK let me here present some of the PRODUCER' modus operandi:

• every my edit he reverts, calling my edit "nationalist nonsense" [95] "POV pushing" [96]
• at these articles [97][98] he started the edit war although I have shown the symbols are used.
• he ignores all my sources and simply reverts . See history of Bosniak language article [99]
• even in obvoius cases like this witht reliable acceptable source he keeps his POV pushing [100]
• hardly ever uses talk page-usually after couple reverts

(to be continued)...--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

A lot of the articles I've seen so far have comments about how something is "too long" or that some data is "trivial". Am I to understand that articles are supposed to only have that information about the subject that are useful to understanding that subject? Like, if it doesn't do that, it doesn't need to be in, which I think keeps the article concise, brief and tight. I cannot seem to find any Wikipedia rule about that, though. - Contributions/24.12.64.34 (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Try WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT for a start. –xeno^talk 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Inside WP:NOT you should look specifically at WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

And if you want to get serious on improving your writing, try Wikipedia:How to write great articles and go to WP:FA, pick an article about a topic that interest you, and read with attention to see how the information is distributed, how much space is dedicated to each aspect and fact, and how the information from the sources is summarized --Enric Naval (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done some of that. I'm on a public terminal most of the time, and have added things here and there. Once, when I was arguing about some bit of information that seemed unecessary (it didn't seem to have any instrinsic value), the other editrs said 'show me the policy about how we keep stuff out if it doesn't have instrinsic value to the article'. As I don't know everything, I let it go. What should I have done? - 24.12.64.34 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

...is backlogged. --Folantin (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Mostly better - could use a few eyes on some of the more complex cases. Shell ^babelfish 21:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed to close two discussions

Wikipedia:VPR#The .5Bedit.5D link for sections and Wikipedia talk:Upload#Free images and Commons should be closed. Thanks. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

William S. Saturn

A year ago, while I was away, my previous account, User:Southern Texas was blocked for sockpuppetry. The user talk page was protected after another member of my household used the account in an attempt to get me unblocked out of guilt for her actions as a sockpuppet. She was asked to create a new account by User:Sam Korn. After I returned from my trip, I found that my account had been blocked and the talk page protected. I had my sister log in as "Uga Man," (her main account) and I gave an explanation of what had occurred. This explanation can still be viewed at User talk:Uga Man. Administrators did not believe the explanation and declined to unblock the account. So I decided to start over and took Sam Korn's advise. That is when I created this account. If one looks at the edits of User:Uga Man and compares them to my edits under Southern Texas and William S. Saturn, they will see that the accounts belong to two different people. This month, I decided to return as an active editor, and I explained the situation to the admin User:Happyme22. He advised me to post the situation here. My request is for the Southern Texas account to have the sockpuppet label removed and for it to be redirected to my page. If possible, I would like for the edits of Southern Texas to be merged to this account. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Texas (now William S. Saturn) and I interacted with one another on pages including Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Chris Dodd presidential campaign, 2008. That is why I was shocked to see that he had been blocked for sockpuppetry. He recently came to me as William S. Saturn seeking a copyedit on Tommy Thompson presidential campaign, 2008, revealing that he was Southern Texas and explaining the situation to me with his request.[101] I suggested taking it to WP:AN to gather other opinions. He was relunctant at first, fearing that admins would misundestand his quandry and promptly block his new account.[102] Thus here I am, informing all parties that I have had a history with Southern Texas/William Saturn and believe him to be telling the truth. The edits of Uga Man (his sister) and Southern Texas are starkly different and does give some credence to Saturn's claim that the two truly are different people; Uga Man edited a wide range of articles while Southern Texas' edits were usually contrained to presidential campaigns and political figures. I am unaware, however, if merging the edits of the two accounts and redirecting the old Southern Texas information and user space to the new William S. Saturn page is even possible -- I'm not an extremely experienced admin. Happyme22 (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever the background on the claims of the actual human using the cited accounts, there is a constellation of sockpuppet accounts that were banned from use, and the history of the banning should not be obfuscated, nor should the fact of their banning be made confusing or obscure by merger of the account's history into other accounts. As such I oppose the request of William S. Saturn, whose accounts in the past, apparently more than a few times have broken past promises on the topic of intention to behave according to Wikipedia standards. This history should not be hidden. The constellation of sockpuppet accounts participated in editing, among other things, high profile political biographies and political article templates during the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaign. I urge reviewing administrators to look at the the background made visible in this posting on the Administrators noticeboard:

Incident Archive: Case of good hand/bad hand sockpuppetry Reported at 19:24, May 13, 2008 -- Action by admin: User: east718

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Given the length of time elapsed, I have no problem in having the user page for the old user redirect to the new user page, but I oppose merging histories or anything like that, for the reasons that User:Yellowdesk has articulated above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

• Technical note: From Wikipedia:Changing username#General notes, "It is not possible for bureaucrats to merge [editing histories of] two accounts".--64.85.217.144 (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I also worked with Southern Texas on political articles at the time. The user had a rocky beginning with some edit warring, then stabilized to become a better and useful editor who did a lot of positive work in the less visible parts of the 2008 presidential candidates set. I was surprised to see the sockpuppet-running come out, but after looking over talk pages and based on my WP instinct, I believed then, and still do, that Southern Texas really was engaged in some good hand/bad hand activity. I have no quarrel with the new William S. Saturn account, but I would oppose the obscuring or merging of the Southern Texas account or history. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: William S. Saturn is asking me to explain myself beyond saying it's my 'instinct'. I didn't do then, and don't want to do now, the detailed histories analysis and time-period studies and diff-level work and IP address comparisons and motivational understanding and whatnot that goes into a sockpuppet investigation. (I've done enough of that to flush out some socks on other sets of articles.) I don't see the "different posting style" fact as necessarily clearing; any smart sockpuppeteer will adopt a different voice for the socks (although surprisingly, many don't). It's certainly true that if someone does masquerade as you on WP and act badly and you're innocent, then you're really screwed here and no one is likely to believe you. But at the time my sockdar didn't buy Southern Texas' story. If I'm wrong, then perhaps it's unfair that I'm saying this now. If an admin wants to strike my comments off, she can, but a topic like this at AN invites people to respond and so I did. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

THE COMBOFIX ARTICLE IS IN TROUBLE

WE GOTS TO SAVEZ IT. SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 Additional information needed If you'd like us to help you, you need to elaborate on the problem. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I made this account to SAVE DA ARTIVLE!!!!!!!! SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's at AfD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ComboFix (2nd nomination). Let the discussion proceed in the normal way. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I blocked this user as a sock of PSPbothmanlol. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This user created a new page CooomboFix, c&p the content of ComboFix to it and was editwarring with others who had turned it into a redirect to keep the c&p version. This was clearly disruptive behaviour and I've protected the redirect too for two weeks by which time the AfD ought be over. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

CooomboFix now deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

120+ edits within the last day

Resolved

I have a question, which is unclear. I have been wondering if there's actually a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time.

One editor, SpectrumDT (talk · contribs) has made more than 120 edits within the last day. These edits occurred within less than five hours of editing. According to the edit summaries, all of these edits are category edits, although that's not really important though.

Here's a question. Is there a limit on how many edits you can make in a period of time? If there is a more appropriate forum, please feel free to take this somewhere else. I am pointing out who raised the question in case it is AN worthy. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not notified the editor of this thread. Can somebody drop a note on the editors talk page? Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

heh... well you probably should have, myth! - I've done so, but must let you know that your request for someone else to drop in a note could come across as a little bit rude, although probably well intentioned :-) - I think the correct response to this thread is 'lurk moar' anyways (or is that 'rtfm'?) - your question isn't a great fit for this board (answer - 120 edits in a day is no problem, no technical limit to edits per day, folk who work with bots will prick their ears up if you start to do 120+ per minute) - there's nothing wrong with using talk pages for such questions, so feel free to drop me a line directly (or someone you know, or someone friendly) if you'd like to chat more... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In future you can use the help desk, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

On 14 January, I made more than 5600 edits. No one complained, so it's probably okay to make as many as you want, even as a human. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Were those "5600 edits" all in one day or was that a milestone? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats just a day for J.delanoy. His edit count is in the hundred thousands, I believe. ~fl 03:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's not unusual to have hundreds of edits in one day's time if you're using AWB or Huggle (even for a brief vandal-hunting session) for instance. MuZemike 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What about how many of which are allowed? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh? How many of which what, hmmm? (edit #156 for this date). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How many edits are allowed to be made in a period of time. For example, is it okay to make more than 100 edits in a minute? Is it okay to make 2500 edits in one day? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just did a batch of 10 edits in less then a minute. I think there is a rate limit but it's higher than 10 edits per minute, so with that math, you could theoretically perform 14,400 edits a day (10*60*24) without rate limiting. ~fl 02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've made at least 200 edits per day for about a year now, with the exception of a couple holidays. It's not a problem. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I used to pile up 100+ edits in the days I got started on vandal fighting. I guess there's no problem with high edit counts within a limited time unless the editing rate is too high for a human :) Anyway I hope there's not going to be a limit, because J.delanoy has already confessed to a rather scary number of edits in a single day, and he can't get away from us now if we decide to go hunting :P Chamal ^talk 03:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I once got 1337 edits in one day. (No, seriously 1337...). I've also gotten over 400 edits in 45 minutes when the vandalism was particularly heavy. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember young grasshopper. Its not the quantity of your edits but its quality that counts.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. A low quantity with a good quality is better than a high quantity with a low quality. But, you should also know that quantity also counts in many aspects. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may advise - we are all, supposedly, here to build an encyclopedia, so one should strive to edit in the mainspace as much as possible. Your contribution count, for instance, show 5,204 edits overall, but only 2,076 to articlespace -- which is 39.89% I'd say that's not a particularly good ratio. You need to work a little more and talk a little less (and start frivolous threads on AN nevermore). Wikipedia isn't about having rollback, it's about editing the articles and writing new ones. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"If your EPD is lower than 50, then you are a failure at Wikipedia." (WP:Edits Per Day). hmwithτ 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My EPD is 56.36 (on average), I'm just barely not a failure! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a darn about "edits per day", but I do care that some people seem to think that Wikipedia is some kind of gigantic multi-user role-playing game, or that it exists for the pleasure of these ruminations. It does no harm, on occasion, to remind folks of why we're here, and what we're supposed to be doing. It's bad enough that admins, are forced to spend more time outside of articlespace than they should, but an ordinary editor who isn't actively contributing to the encyclopedia and spends most of their time on talk pages, noticeboards and other frippery ought to be reminded: that's not what we're about. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 03:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Resolved.

WP:AIV is now backlogged, thanks to me reporting a bunch of IP's from a guy possibly using an open proxy to vandalize AN/I. Sorry in advance for flooding the place... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 06:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No longer backlogged. Cirt (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

This arbitration case has now closed. The final decision may be reviewed on the case page. A synopsis of the final decision is provided below.

• All mass date delinking is restricted for six months
• Date delinking bots will perform in a manner approved by the Bot Approvals Group.
• Lightmouse (talk · contribs) is: banned for 1 year; topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation, from using any account but "Lightmouse"
• Tony1 (talk · contribs) indefinitely banned from editing any policy or guideline page related to article or editing style, as well as any related template page; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Greg L (talk · contribs) indefinitely topic banned, placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) is: topic banned indefinitely; prohibited indefinitely from using automation; prohibited indefinitely from using any account but "Ohconfucius"; placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) admonished for not pursuing appropriate dispute resolution methods.
• Kotniski (talk · contribs) reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, topic banned for 3 months
• Placed on a 12 month editing restriction: Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), 2008Olympian (talk · contribs), Colonies Chris (talk · contribs), SkyWalker (talk · contribs), HJensen (talk · contribs), Dudesleeper (talk · contribs), John (talk · contribs), Tennis expert (talk · contribs), and G-Man (talk · contribs)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months.
• Locke Cole (talk · contribs) is topic banned indefinitely, banned for 6 months, and placed on a 12 month editing restriction
• Kendrick7 (talk · contribs) is topic banned for 12 months
• Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) admonished for threatening to use his administrator tools to advance his position in a dispute.

Notes: (1) for "topic banned", read "banned from style and editing guidelines, and any related discussions"; (2) an "editing restriction" is a prohibition from reverting any changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 19:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

• While I'll refrain from comment here on the actual decision, I'd like to thank the committee for their attention to this long-standing heated dispute. –xeno^talk 20:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'll second that. It's refreshing to see ArbCom issue decisions and remedies in a timely manner. KrakatoaKatie 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Grilled with dill and lemon?

• • Timely?Thanks to the hardworking arbitrators, actually. Good job. Durova^Charge! 02:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Case Opened on 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Case Closed on 21:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unenviable job, and hard on the heels of Ayn Rand and Scientology Ohconfucius (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Plus Macedonia, and Obama soon to follow. Keegan (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• To be blunt, I wouldn't call it timely, but I am surely not complaining. I think the minor disruptions in between led to delays, such as the RfC, the introduction of new evidence near the end and the petty bickering even during the case. ArbCom had a lot to deal with, and this case involved intricacies, including just about every type of "bad behavior" that is possible on Wikipedia. Arbcom is to be commended for their persistence and effort dedicated the case. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• The time taken relative to the difficulty of the case is far less for the 2009 Committee than it was for the 2008 Committee, and for that they deserve credit. Daniel (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd also like to give a shout out to Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), one of the clerks for the case. He went above and beyond the call of duty in designing and managing the latest RfC on dates so that the stalemate could be broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Awaiting corrections. Tony (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I hope that ArbCom doesn't burn out. With so much work done, no matter the time frame, a break might be in order. Even the Supreme Court breaks from session. I honestly recommend a break for all of them even if it's only a couple weeks. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Seriously. Keegan (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Still awaiting the correction of an important mistake concerning Remedy 7, which has been notified as Proposed Remedy 9.4, rather than the 9.3 that superseded it (see implementation notes and Final decision Remedy 7. An easy enough error to make in such a huge case, but ... is it going to be fixed with separate wording for me in the notification? Tony (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now done. You were free to simply fix it yourself, y'know! ;) AGK 12:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of that; I wouldn't have dared to alter a case synopsis posted by a clerk, actually—it's not my right. I'll do so on my own talk page, now that you've given the OK. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Immediate Deletion Needed!

Resolved

 – By Bencherlite, Thank You! ISTHnR Knock Knock | Who's There? 11:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I accidentally created an incorrect portal. I was testing and I didn't realized it had saved, please see my contributions and look for the deletion notices. Thank You and Sorry! I may have used incorrect tags for deletion. Please delete any subpages for the portal also, again sorry! ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unusual block request

This request at the Help Desk might merit admin investigation. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That account only has one edit. I don't think it's terribly important.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I couldn't tell whether it had other deleted edits, so thought I'd punt it to you guys just in case. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be checking this with others.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've figured out what it means by compromised. I've logged into the account and changed the password. Not that it really matters because no one's used the account in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I see the account's now been blocked anyway. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Janos BOROS

Could someone please move, and if needed protect, this article and AfD. The AfD is on the fence a bit but if the article survives it would be helpful to have the AfD under the correct name when we ever may look for it. It's under Janos BOROS with the AfD to match and I think both should be moved to the Janos Boros naming convention. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange. Special:MovePage/Janos BOROS shows that it was already moved to the proper capitalization back on June 10, tho I agree that Janos BOROS is still the extant page (Janos Boros is atm a redir to the BOROS version. Am I misreading something? Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that it was moved then reverted. I wasn't able to moved it when I tried and didn't want to muck anything further. -- Banjeboi 12:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well I moved it to Boros and changed all the other bits (I think) in the AFD. Since I had to copy it out to a text editor to do the global find and replace, I may have screwed up some of the accented characters so my apologies to people in advance (tho I didn't see any faults). Syrthiss (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Likely this user will co-opt Janos BOROS again, could you protect that with a link to the AFD by way of explanation? -- Banjeboi 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have BOROS watched, I'll see if they do it again and nuke accordingly at that time. Syrthiss (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! -- Banjeboi 13:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Self reversion of edits by topic-banned editors

Resolved

 – Current policy dictates that topic- or page-banned editors should make no edits at those pages. No need for further discussion on this Fritzpoll (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreate and AFD.

Resolved.

Hello,

Just looking for somebody to follow up on this. The plan is to reinstate the article and then send it directly to AFD. The article is salted so I can't do it without an admin. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop forum-shopping, please. You made the same request yesterday at WP:RFPP, which I declined on the basis that you should wait for the DRV to close first and see whether the closing admin agrees with you. Nothing's changed, and there's still no rush. Bencherlite^Talk 10:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is the only DRV left on the page, and we are waiting for it to be closed. I left an {{adminhelp}} tag on my talk page and the admin told me to come here. I really don't see why any of our admins can't follow WP:BOLD and just close the DRV for us.--gordonrox24 (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please close that DRV? It's now 10 days old. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion backlog

CAT:CSD has a backlog of nearly 160 items currently, and it looks like it hasn't been touched in about 18 hours. --L. Pistachio (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I seem to be having trouble deleting anything at the moment. Just tried to delete Ronald Malík three times without any luck. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that. Just appears to have been a little server lag. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Appeal from Wikiproject User Rehab

"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success." Ernest Shackleton

Well, okay, it's not quite that bad ;-)

Current needs:

• Mentors who are experienced at dealing with difficult cases.
• Admins who are willing to give advice and help.
• ArbCom members.....ditto

We would very much appreciate the participation of more mentors, admins, and ArbCom members, especially since this project intends to be dealing with banned editors. This may often require extra careful forms of mentoring. We aren't interested in being gamed, as has been attempted by some banned users and socks. So far it's been relatively easy stuff to deal with, but we could risk that sneaky banned users will attempt to get back into Wikipedia through this process. We would like to AGF with everyone, but we know that AGF can only be stretched so far, and that editors with these types of serious problems may include those who will pretend anything in order to "get back in". Are you interested in getting involved, even just as observers who can give occasional advice, in a new project that is working in uncharted territory? Your help, experience and wisdom will be appreciated. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Just looking at project title in the header, I thought this was going to be for users who spend way too much time editing and are in denial, á la "Rehab". Bummer! I was going to sign up for help ;-) Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User Rehab was proposed at WikiProject Council/Proposals, where there were 14 editors opposing with only 9 supporters, see here. I fail to understand why this project went ahead. In the words of Computerjoe on 2 June: "Wikipedia operates on consensus. For a project like this to be created without consensus is quite amazing. The community's opinions should have been gathered." --Kleinzach 01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The MfD ended with no consensus, and since projects are started by a consensus of those who wish to start them, it went ahead. It was even approved to change the wording of the Wikiproject text to make it clear that anyone may start a project when they wish. Opposers who WP:IDON'TLIKEIT have no right to stop a project that isn't violating any policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See: Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab. (I personally wasn't aware of the MfD). --Kleinzach 02:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Opposers have no right, eh? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't get tied up too much wrt WP Council discussion, or bicker and argue about who killed who. Running an idea past the WP Council isn't a requirement. –xeno^talk 20:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocking/delete forms

Why have they been changed? They used to be left-justified, and now they are right-justified. I think the change happened about two days ago. Just curious. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:VPT#Central buttons; it's the same issue, presumably from the MediaWiki upgrade. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Doppelganger

Im a doppelganer of CalcbikeUSBPriapPs2. Actually, im the same person. I need the Doppelganer template. please User:CBU's pages and put doppelganer template. im havin a doppel ganr cos my sig is so big it needs to be ridirected to my page from another user :) thanks! CBU (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Problem with unauthorized bot-use, requesting mass rollback if possible

It looks like someone somehow hijacked Anybot and generated a few thousand articles with it (overwriting many existing articles). These articles are very problematic and basically unwanted by the community (see discussion here). The owner of the bot has asked if there is any technical way to roll back all the articles (although I would suggest only those that have not been edited since). Unfortunately, I don't have the time or knowledge to deal with this issue, so I'm bringing it here for some brave soul to tackle. Good luck. Also see discussion here. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Schutz's tool

May I please have some help here? I need to head off for the evening, but there is still a medium-sized backlog over at Schutz's tool. Could an admin or two please clean out the backlog in my stead? Thank you very much! → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 00:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Need to find the name of a WP tool...

Can anyone help me with the name and location of the tool I described here? I saw it used a couple of weeks ago in the case of someone with a long history of uploading copyvio content and I believe that it may be useful in dealing with the current AnyBot situation. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe ask at WP:VPT or Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Banjeboi 04:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do, thanks. The reason I ask here is that someone recently linked to a page generated by said tool here (or was it ANI?)... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this it ? Abecedare (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I'll download it and take a look. Thanks very much. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for outside opinion

Resolved

 – Article restored and AfD reopened

I just speedy deleted Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion which had been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion as it was almost word for word identical to Michelle Obama's arms, which was deleted about a month ago through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms (the article had been started by the same editor and only a couple of paragraphs were different - all the other wording and the photo was the same). However, I'd appreciate it if another admin would review this decision on the following grounds:

• User:Jclemens had rejected a speedy deletion request on the grounds that the articles were sufficiently different - I had no intention to wheel war and hadn't noticed this at the time I deleted the article. However, I think that this was a clear CSD G4 case.
• I just noticed that I voted to delete the 'Michelle Obama's arms' article (though there was a very strong consensus that the article should be deleted and, again, the G4 case is very strong)

Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The speedy was incorrect insofar that you have have ignored a previous admin's decision to decline it. The fact that you !voted in the previous AFD does not mean you cannot G4 a recreation (which this was imho) but I think you shouldn't do so unless you have to. I suggest you reinstate the article and let Jclemens decide about it. After all, admins are allowed to decline even valid speedy taggings and if he decides to decline it, it's his right to do and ignoring it would effectively be wheel-warring. Regards SoWhy 10:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's good enough for me. I've just restored the article and reopened the AfD. I didn't notice the decline rather than ignored it, by the way. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

During the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, it was suggested that the material from that article be incorporated into a broader article on her influence on style and fashion. So I created Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion for that purposed. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anna Anderson

Talk page of the article refreshed in an attempt to restart discussion of content only. DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Short version - Major content dispute, disruptive editing and at times personal attacks by various editors at Anna Anderson and Talk:Anna Anderson; I need some help.

Long version:

A whole herd of teal deer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Main article involved: Anna Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Main editors involved lately: ChatNoir24 (talk · contribs) Aggiebean (talk · contribs) Finneganw (talk · contribs) An IP range (75.21...) who has claimed to be a "Rev. Antonio", among other names, and claims to have invoked WP:RTV in the past, but has an odd understanding of "vanish", as they continue to be quite active. Admins involved: Trusilver (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (had tried to serve as a neutral mediator, but appears to have become inactive in the last few weeks, probably due largely to being sick of dealing with this) AlexiusHoratius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (had tried serving as a neutral mediator, but is sick of dealing with this) A little over a week ago, an editor came to my talk page asking for admin attention about an edit war that had been going on at the Anna Anderson article. I checked out the article, found a fairly serious content dispute + edit war going on, and fully protected the article for a week, telling the various parties involved to use the talk page to come to a consensus and not to edit war. I took on the role of an informal mediator, attempting to get the various parties to come to compromises on various issues before full protection lapsed, thinking that whatever had happened in the past, (and the article has quite a history) if some compromise could be reached then further disruption and thus further full protection could be avoided. These attempts at informal dispute resolution bore little fruit, as most of the editors involved seem rather entrenched in their views and unwilling to compromise. Additionally, my knowledge of the article's topic and its related issues (including the validity of DNA testing) is very limited. As the period of full protection was about to expire, I asked the editors involved to continue discussing things on the talk page, and to consider any major edit to already be disputed and thus in need of talk page consensus. I also informed them of the various venues for dispute resolution, sock investigations and so on, and told them to go there to report further incidents. Since page protection lapsed a few days ago, the article itself has been fairly quiet, save for one event when ChatNoir24 (talk · contribs) started making major edits without discussing them again, which were reverted and for which I gave them a final warning in the hopes of another edit war not breaking out. While the article itself has been quiet, the article's talk page (and mine) have not, with various parties continuing to call for the others to be blocked/banned, etc. I fear that another edit war and more general disruption is right around the corner. The center of much of this seems to involve specific evidence on the identity of the article's subject. Not unlike the dreaded FYROM/Macedonia issue, this subject, while lacking a great amount of interest from the general population, is a complex one and has small circles of diehard believers split into various camps. Thus, the chances of simple dispute resolution having much of an effect are small. In addition to the main content dispute, there is also peripheral disruption by an IP range starting with 75.21... (the specific IPs used can be found at the history of Talk:Anna Anderson) who I believe claimed at one point to be one "RevAntonio", who may or may not have been blocked/banned at some point, and also claims to have invoked a right to vanish, (see Trusilver's logs) yet hasn't vanished. Basically, I'm not sure what else to do here, and I'm looking for wider community input. The article itself is a mess, so something should be done with it, but as you can see from Talk:Anna Anderson and my talk page, trying to come to a compromise is like pulling teeth. I think at this point an RfC is certainly in order on the content dispute, but I am inexperienced with these and could use some help. The peripheral disruption should also be dealt with, but I'm no longer comfortable using the tools, given the rather low threshold for "involved admin" lately (I also don't know how to do range blocks). I'm thinking at minimum, a range block and/or topic ban for 75.21..., and some sort of parole for the others (Aggiebean, Finneganw, and ChatNoir24). At the very least, I guess I just need some more people looking into this. AlexiusHoratius 04:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) This is in re the above by Alexius: I am Most Reverend Antonio Hernandez, who used the username RevAntonio (and am now the villainous IP address). I did invoke the Right to Vanish, which was immediately used to blacken my identity here. Trusilver himself had posted a warning that much of my personal information had been revealed at Wikipedia; of course Trusilver did much to damage my identity here, as did aggiebean. I did return after invoking RTV; it was a gross error in judgment. I will not deny it. My concern is that those other editors are setting me up, as a sock puppet, vandal and threat-monger. I have warned them that I would report them, but now I can do nothing because I am not a regtistered user. I now answer Alexius' charges against me specifically herein, and plan never to return to Wikipedia. I see Alexius has done some biased homework, but I am no saint, I have been a pain. I grant you all, that is a fact. What I beg of you is to be fair, be thorough, watch for the true sock puppetry (involving username ChatNoir24 and possibly aggiebean/finneganw), and please, don't lay 20% discipline on one editor and 80% on another just because you don't like that other. My final word of advice is that you pay heed to Trusilver's reluctance to put a permanent range block on my IP range. If that seems fair and balanced, then you will do it--perhaps you will do it no matter what. I have tried to better the pageAnna Anderson, and Alexius has explained to you that those other editors will not allow consensus. You'll see for yourselves. That is all I have to say.75.21.124.148 (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I do not know if it's appropriate that involved editors post here, but since it's been started, I will add my commentary. If I am wrong to post here, please tell me and I won't do it again.First of all, contrary to the claims above, Finneganw and I are not the same person, he was an editor here about 2 years before I even came here, other people know him AA and other articles. Everyone involved in the Romanov online community knows me, though I may use different names on different websites, I never deny I am me, and the creator of the "Anna Anderson Exposed" website. I am a woman from the east coast of the US. Finnegan is a man and lives in a different part of the world than I, and as you will see from the posting and talk logs, a very different time zone. Rev, 75.whatever, etc. is not a victim and is alone responsible for the view others have of him, and his long history on Anna Anderson and Noahidism bears this out. I know going through the past histories of these pages, and the talk pages of those involved is an unpleasant and monumental task for someone, but if it is done, I have no doubt what Finneganw and I have been trying to say will be proven. As far as him being ChatNoir, I realize that IPs will never show this because he uses different ones, Chat uses IPs the LA area(I know this from my own forum) and Rev from Rockville, IL.(as I have traced the ones he uses here) As a mod on other forums, I know that different IPs do not necessarily exhonorate a person from sockpuppetry due to there now being ways to use IP programs that show a false location. However I can't get over the similarities in their rhetoric, devoted defense of Peter Kurth, the way one appears when the other is blocked or gone, and the general over the top attitude and behavior displayed by both being very much alike. ChatNoir (whether or not he and Rev/75.IP are the same person or not) has been an issue on many message boards over the years on the AA topic and has gotten many discussions locked up for his repetitious and unmoving pro AA rhetoric that is oblivious to now proven reality. His outright refusal to accept the now proven scientific and historical fact that Anderson was not Anastasia have caused much disruption in the article and the talk pages here on wikipedia. He firmly holds to the belief that she was Anastasia anyway, people who were against her were paid off and that even today there is major though unspecified conspiracy to cover up her 'true' identity, and that those of us who want to say she wasn't Anastasia are 'afraid' of the 'facts.' Yes, I have called his position delusional, I don't deny that, because it is exactly the right word to describe it. Due to his unwavering support for a disproven claimant, he is the wrong person to be editing the article. It needs to be accurate and truth based, free of fantasy and allusions to possibilities that she 'may' have been Anastasia after all, which he tries to add. We have an obligation to readers who come here looking for information. They deserve the truth, not games and the hangups of a small group of people who cannot let go. Finneganw and I have repeatedly tried to write a factual article but he continues to change things to his POV using now discredited sources and has even vandalized our writings by adding POV quotes in the middle of our sourced sentences trying to pass them off as being the same source when they are not. His POV vandalism and inaccurate information are what is ruining this article, and what needs to be stopped. I am fully prepared to due whatever I need to do to help resolve this, however I will never consent to appeasing editors and their POV that is completely proven wrong. The editor Finneganw, who has worked on this article long before I got here, and I have facts and sources to back up everything we are trying to do and reality is on our side. This should be enough, and it is the best thing for the article.Aggiebean (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Some sort of conflict resolution is needed with this article, preferably by an administrator who is at least somewhat familiar with the subject matter. The discussion has occasionally lapsed into insults and accusations flung furiously back and forth. I disagree with Aggiebean on whether the book by Peter Kurth about Anna Anderson should be included in the article and have outlined my position on the article's talk page and on editors' talk pages. I'm tired and exasperated by the ongoing conflict, but I'm also interested in the outcome. I'd like to see this article eventually sourced line by line, using a standardized citation method, and become a starred article. I think the subject matter deserves it. But it needs a fresh pair of eyes. Aggiebean and Finnegan are two separate people as far as I know. ChatNoir has been accused of being Peter Kurth himself, but Kurth posted under his own name a few years ago on that site, so I'd guess they're two separate people. I don't think identity of the posters matters provided they cite whatever goes into the article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Bookworm has been a very prolific editor here, and I do not have any issues with his/her behavior and he/she has caused no irrational disruption like the others. However I personally feel from what I have seen that Bookworm feels sorry for Kurth and would like to include some of his POV in the article as an appeasement or a 'small victory' because he lost the big one on the identity issue (though he does not accept those results) I don't feel this is the best thing for the article. I don't believe that making Kurth and a few of his diehard supporters happy is worth sacrificing the integrity or accuracy of the article. Much of his book is based on discredited writings of supporters now proven wrong, and none of those things should be used in the article or stated as a fact. This is not about who 'wins' or 'loses', who does or doesn't like whom, as some claim, this is about real facts and truth being presented in an article meant to be informational for large numbers of people, including children and students. Concern for someone feeling sad about the realities presented in the article should not take precedence over truth, fact and accuracy. I also disagree that we should present both sides and 'let the reader make up his mind.' You wouldn't do this with any other historical or scientific article, would you? That may have been okay while it was still a mystery, but now that the mystery is solved and we have a right and a wrong answer, the article needs to reflect that information. There should be no obligation to the other viewpoint now that it is officially disproven, and for this reason, the article should not have to be 'balanced' with a 'side' that no longer has a case. As far as Kurth being Chat, I was told by several people as soon as the name 'Chat' started to become active in AA circles that he was Kurth, but I didn't know for sure until I found out the hard way for myself. After speaking on discussion forums and in private messages numerous times with both over several years, and reading the old wiki and old online chat and talk pages I had nothing to do with from years ago on which Kurth posted under his own name, I am thoroughly convinced Chat is indeed Kurth. I am not alone in this view. Reviewing the posts made here by Kurth in the past(Before my arrival), and how when he was gone "Chat" immediately arrived and took up the identical banner, rhetoric and attitude, and the way Chat endlessly defends Kurth and his 'eminent' book, and removes sources in the article by other authors and replaces them with "Kurth" only make me more inclined to believe Chat is Kurth. Whether or not Chat is Rev I do not know, but I am convinced Chat is Kurth. I doubt his identity will ever be resolved due to lack of mathching IPs, but it doesn't even matter. Regardless of who he is, his disruputive editing is the issue here.Aggiebean (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I don't know Kurth or feel sorry for him. Feelings don't have any bearing on whether to include a work in the article or not. I simply disagree with Aggiebean and Finnegan about the proper use of his work in the article. It's a biography of Anna Anderson, probably the most complete biography thus far, and the article is about Anderson. I've explained how I feel it should be used in other postings and why I think it should be one of the books referenced in the article. I see that another post on the talk page of the article from a disinterested editor notes the unprofessional tone of the article and use of words such as "ludicrous" and "of course." This is also one of my major problems with the article as it stands. The language used in the article must be entirely neutral. Pejorative terms cannot be used to describe Anderson, her supporters, her opponents, or others referenced. It must be objective and well-referenced and give a "just the facts" accounting of Anderson's life and times. Right now it does not. For any administrators viewing these postings, I'm sure it's evident that it's a complex and acrimonious dispute and it has degenerated into name-calling, accusations and occasionally hysteria. I'm not sure how to resolve it, but we could use some help here. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I want to write very little here. My main concern is there have been a small group of fanatical Anderson supporters who have been trying to push over a number of years proven historical and scientific misinformation on the page. They always use the same discredited source by Peter Kurth. That piece of work has been proven to be grossly inaccurate and based on discredited references. It is not neutral to use such a text. It is not a biography at all. That is a fallacy invented by Bookworm who has sadly, for whatever reason, constantly supported its use when editing in spite of many other credible sources which have been authenticated as being highly accurate. In fact Bookworm has been engaged in removing sources which disprove Kurth. Kurth's work is in fact a very unsubtle attempt to push a POV agenda that Anderson was Anastasia. That view has been totally discredited. In fact any information that displays any criticism of Anderson is either deliberately left out in Kurth's book or those who worked her out and actually knew the real Anastasia have their views incorrectly represented or their characters totally attacked. The only 'biography' or 'autobiography' of Anderson is one written not by her but her supporters entitled, 'I, Anastasia'. Bookworm refuses to accept this and blindly pushes Kurth. I have only ever been interested in accuracy in this article. Sadly Anderson supporters choose to derail the process constantly. Bookworm has never played a neutral role in editing. In fact the constant defence is that readers can work out the situation themselves. It is difficult to imagine how that is possible when inaccurate information is presented pretending to be fact. Another recent Anderson supporter 'editor' went by the name of Ferrymansdaughter. Like ChatNoir24, this editor has created massive problems elsewhere distorting factual information. Sadly the role of RevAntonio is all too well documented. Consensus is not able to be reached with editors who refuse to accept proven historical and scientific fact. I hope that administrators can see that it is not difficult to sort this situation out as wikipedia has always prided itself on presenting accurate verifiable articles. Sadly Anderson supporters are incapable of providing such information. I believe the article should be considerably shortened. In fact I believe all the information below the 'contents' page should be removed. The article is of little interest to wikipedia readers apart from Anderson supporters who wish to deliberately present an extreme POV inaccurate article. Finneganw 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) First, I am NOT Peter Kurth. But I do admire his meticulously researched book about Anna Anderson. It simply cannot be ignored in this article. It chronicles the life of Anna Anderson from the Landwehr Kanal to Charlottesville. It tells about people who rejected her and acknowledged her. It gives us reports from doctors and scientists, and it quotes personal letters and testimonies from supporters and opponents. No matter what the outcome was, the information remains the same. Nothing has been discredited or is no longer valid. I have several times asked the contributers here to point out exactly what is discredited, and so far, they have been unable to come up with a single thing. Only accusations like "it could not have happened" etc. Some have mentioned "I, Anastasia" as her "biography". This book draws heavily from Frau Rathlef and Gleb Botkin, the two people who are being vilified as "discredited" sources for Kurth's book. I have difficulties understanding why they suddenly are acceptable in this book. For this article to succeed, all hearsay should be erased. The meeting at the Mommsen clinic should be Frau Rathlef's version which also agrees with Grand Duchess Olga's own letters to the invalid after the visit. Olga's later denial must then be presented as well. Unprofessional comments like "the dubious Botkin" etc should not be allowed. Telling the story about Anna Anderson the way it happened, has nothing to do with supporting her or opposing her. It simply describes her life as it took place. ChatNoir24 (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Chat, nobody is saying "I, Anastasia" is a better book than Kurth's. Finnegan just brought it up to say it was supposedly her autobiography, though it is fiction. It is not acceptable.It borrows shamelessly from available sources for 'memories' and parts of it are paraphrased directly from the 1920 book "The Last Days of the Romanovs" which features depositions of people who were with the family in their last months and had a lot of information. The book and others, such as Anna Vryubova's, became gold mines of info that AA and her supporters passed off as 'memories.' No one is advocating using "I, Anastasia" in the article, and if you'll remember, when you used it as a source once we deleted it. Speaking of biographies, don't forget that AA herself considered Lovell to be her officially chosen biographer, though his book is even more biased and full of fictional episodes than Kurth's. The issue is, AA can't have a 'biography' because her 'life story' in those books is on the premise she was Anastasia, and she wasn't. I totally disagree with you, Chat, that presenting her 'side'is not the same as supporting her, and anyone who's read your edits and commentary will have no doubt where you stand. The reason I say some things 'could not have happened' is because we now have the fact that she wasn't Anastasia to prove this. Things like Rathlef helping her 'remember' are not true, because she could not have remembered a life that was not really hers. It was all faked, either by AA's acting or Rathlef's writing, or both. No, Rathlef's version of Olga's meeting was not what happened, and there is proof in the Vorres book, Olga's letter to Irene and interview in the Danish paper. She did not accept AA but Rathlef claimed she did and that was the beginning of her rep being attacked by AA supporters. So in telling the 'story' we cannot and should not tell such things as having actually occurred when they did not. So you see the information does NOT remain the same, because knowing she wasn't really Anastasia proves that much of the story did not really happen as told, and that they should not be presented as fact in the article.Aggiebean (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) As for "I, Anastasia", I think Finneganw should answer for her/himself. And since you have not read the book, I think you should refrain from reviewing it. And I also think you should refrain from telling people where I stand. I know that much better myself, thank you! And please stop this nonsense with "it is not true". Either prove that the presented story is incorrect, or stop your inane comments. As for Olga, I will answer that in her own words, written to the patient in Berlin: "You are not alone anymore, and we shall not abandon you." "I am thinking of you and remember the times we were together and you stuffed me with coffee, tea and cocoa." And that nobody can deny. It proves that Frau Rathlef's version is the correct one. Here is also a snippet of Bella Cohen's interview with Olga and Shura: The girl asked if the Grand Duchess and Sascha remembered the circular staircase that led up to the quarters of the Grand Duchesses from the room of their mother. Do you remember how we used to stand on that staircase and say good morning to her?” she asked. “And on Monday mornings mother would let us come down to her room and watch the hairdresser do her hair. We children used to sit on little stools at her feet.” She turned to the Grand Duchess Olga: “I remember an old invalid lady-in-waiting – Bal – Bal,” the hand went up to her head, “oh, if I could only remember – Balyanova!” There was such an invalid lady-in-waiting, but very few outside the intimate court circle knew of her presence. “A woman used to come to my mother and solicit funds for an orphan asylum. Did you know her?” “What was her name?” The Grand Duchess asked. “Belgard,” the girl answered. The Grand Duchess Olga has said that a woman by that name did come to the Czarina for such funds, but that the fact was little known. “So you remember, Zhura, I had two parrots?” the girl asked, and Zhura nodded, for that was true, too, though the outside world can hardly have known of it. And finally we have Olga's written confirmation that Frau Rathlef's depiction of the conversations at the Mommsen clinic were "quite correct." ChatNoir24 (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC) ChatNoir24 you have had everything explained in detail a great many times previously and still you continue giving grossly inaccurate information from highly discredited sources. It is high time it all stopped. It is so blatantly obvious from your last entry that you still believe Anderson was Anastasia even though it has all been completely disproven. None of what you write is verifiable as required by wikipedia for any article. Finneganw 06:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I think it is more than time that all of the above stopped as the administrators can work it all out. Finneganw 06:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, if the admins don't step in soon, Chat will rant on forever and continue to list the extraneous details and quotes of his disproven version of the story as he has done so many times. He will turn this page into yet another long winded tirade of repetition that ruined the talk page and has gotten many, many a message board thread locked by admins and mods who got fed up with its circular and never changing nature. This is an example of why we never get anywhere on this topic.Aggiebean (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I am afraid that the reason we don't get anywhere, is that the two of you are much more interested in attacking other posters than contributing something useful. ChatNoir24 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC) It isn't the posters we are 'attacking' it's their very, very wrong position and how it hurts the article. We have contributed much that was useful, until it was deleted, vandalized and/or hidden under a bunch of pro AA propaganda now discredited, example of which being your above post. I await the intervention of the mods/admins/mediators.Aggiebean (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC) So we are not attacking the posters, are we now. What about spreading the rumors that I am Peter Kurth, that I have several aliases, that I have sock puppets, and other lies? And don't you talk about wrong positions with your hearsay and unproven information, just because it suits you. Anna Anderson's life was duly chronicled in Kurth's, Frau Rathlef's and Gleb Botkin's books, and just because the DNA from a putative sample of her intestines showed no relations to the Romanovs, is no reason to sweep it all under the carpet. Now go clean up your language. ChatNoir24 (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Which editor added terms like "ludicrous" and "of course" and other POV terminology? To get this ball moving, can we agree that someone should go in and remove pejorative or POV terms like that which have absolutely no place in an article? We can hash out the content as we go. This whole back and forth, tittle-tattle battle has GOT to stop. What a spectacle this has turned into. I wouldn't blame an administrator deciding he/she wants no part of straightening it out, though I hope someone will be brave enough because it badly needs doing. Everyone needs to chill out here. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I didn't write ludicrous and don't know where it is in the article. I think I saw an 'of course' where Chat wrote about Gilliard burning his papers. The first thing we need to do is to stop Rev75 from filling in everything with rants, as he has just done again on the AA page. Then someone needs to get through to Chat that there is some information that cannot be told as fact anymore, such as her 'r-r-remembering' things as claimed by Rathlef. I really feel you, Finneganw and I can eventually produce a good article, but as long as it's open for free editing the vandalism and edit wars will NEVER be over. Since it's the policy of wikipedia to allow anyone to edit, I don't know if this topic will survive here as they may get so fed up they delete and forbid it. I also support Finneganw's idea of eliminating most of the article, especially the gory details and tit for tat quote matching. I am surprised no one here at the admin board has done anything yet, I expected the axe to fall on us immediately, but the action here seems to have moved onto other things. I beg one of the admins to do something about this now or just put us all out of our misery by deleting the whole topic. It can't go on like this.Aggiebean (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Of course the topic can go on. All needed, is to block you and Finneganw from editing and putting in your hearsay and incorrect information. The memories written down by Rathlef do not have to play a big role in this article, most of them were improvable, and some were corroborated by Olga and Gilliard before their change of position. What should be included, is her being found in 1920 and sent to Dalldorf. Spoke Russian to the nurses. Came out as Anastasia in 1921. Rejected as a fraud by Buxhoeveden. Stayed with various Russian monarchists. Taken in by Grünberg, and gave an outline of her "story". Rejected by aunt Irene. In and out of hospitals with tuberculosis. Visited by Volkov, tacidly accepted as AN. Answered his questions and gave him a few of her own. Visited by Gilliard. Recognized as AN. Visited by Olga, Shura and Gilliard. None of them could say she was not Anastasia. Letters from Olga. Then they rejected her 3 months later. Appealed to Ernest von Hesse, but rejected without him seeing her. Alleged trip to Russia supposedly a sore point. Stay at Oberstdorf. Meeting with Tatiana Botkin, who identified her as Anastasia. Stay at Seeon. Visited by Felix Yussupov who rejected her, and Gleb Botkin, who accepted her as AN. Visit by Captain Dassel, again accepted as AN. Schanzkowska story breaks. Identified by Doris Wingender, paid witness, working in tandem with a paid newspaper editor and a bank detective. Confrontation with Felix, rejected as FS. Visit with Andrew in Paris, again accepted as AN. Trip to New York, acceptance by Xenia Leeds. Spoke fluent English upon arrival. Nervous breakdown, sent to Four Winds Sanatorium. Sent back to Germany. New confrontation with Schankowskis, still no confirmation as being FS. Court case in Germany. Scientists confirming likeness with AN, not with FS. 3 graphologists confirming handwriting identical with AN's. Schankowska witness presented doctored photo and ended up running away from courtroom. Lost court case and all appeals. Moved to America and married Manahan. Furtmayr found new evidence with PIK method and claimed ears to be the same. Later confirmed by Vanezis. Died in Charlottesville, cremated and buried at Seeon. DNA test on intestines did not match Prince Philip. DNA test on Franzisca's grand nephew close match. This is a very, very short outline, but I don't think we have to embroider it with endless quotes from this one and that one. Just get the facts straight, the end will always be the same.ChatNoir24 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Chat much of what you list there is either disproven or should not be in the article. What you call 'facts' are now very questionable. Nothing should be put in the article as a fact when there is every chance it didn't really happen and if you do I'm going to have to add the real story and we'll be right back where we started from. I am not going to lengthen this page like the others by playing your tit for tat game here. This is not what it is for and it's not a place for you to drag out details and go on and on and in circles like you do on message boards. This is a place for moderation from admins and hopefully we will hear from them soon.Aggiebean (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC) And as usual, you cannot dispute anything, just harp on your mantra "there is every chance it didn't really happen". Do your cherrypicking over on your own website, not here. And if you want to dispute something, give us some valid proof for your dispute, not the same old "it did not happen." As for you "adding the real story", that is the joke du jour. We certainly have enough examples of that in the current article. ChatNoir24 (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Chat, I am going to say one more time- the reason I have every confidence and every right to say things 'didn't happen' is because AA was proven without any doubt not to be Anastasia- this means all those emotional scenes produced by Rathlef of her rubbing her head and having her 'memories' come back, (usually at first in stuttering letters) COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED END OF STORY. This is not my 'opinion' or me getting rid of things I 'don't like' as you claim. There are several things we don't have space for here that fit the category of 'could not have happened' that you call 'facts' and the 'real story' and this is why you are the wrong person to edit this article.Aggiebean (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC) See, admins, these folk aggiebean/finneganw... and it seems all others... cannot follow your directions even for a simple thing like placing a proper heading for a post here. 1st, I'd like to ask AGAIN that finneganw stop insisting on some sort of smart-bomb attack on me. I know finn and aggie have a huge problem with my critiques, but not with any actual thing that I've posted, since we have already agreed on the remedial measures for the article. I have agreed with aggiebean about basic content, but not her lopsided POV and terrible writing style. I have agreed with finneganw about the length etc., but not the total and blind exclusion of Kurth's fraudulent book. Bookworm it seems has been turned against me, and that is what aggie and finn love to do more than anything. To conclude my RANT [can't write anything that isn't a rant according to finn]: I AGREE WITH 'EM ALL FUNDAMENTALLY.75.21.124.148 (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Should you see fit to range-ban my IPs, because finneganw is so charming and persuasive about me in particular, well, that is your Pandora's Box to open or not. I don't care about this. I do care about the lack of integrity, courage, honesty and transparency at Wikipedia. Lord Knows why, it is an out-house, not an encyclopedia. Lying bullies like users Lisa, aggiebean and finneganw make it that way. Pity.75.21.124.148 (talk) 07:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Comments like "lying bullies" are not helpful. Try to de-escalate by sticking to discussing only the content, and not the editors. DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for action on Anna Anderson page

I would like to request that urgent action be taken to resolve the Anna Anderson debacle.

I would agree with both Bookworm and Aggiebean that all of this has to most definitely stop. I have come to the conclusion that everything should be removed on the page from the Contents section down with the exception of references and links to other sites. Only the current summary should remain. Anderson is a very insignificant page for wikipedia. Wikipedia is certainly not the place for unverifiable garbage to be openly touted.

If admin believe it necessary, I would support the removal of the entire page from wikipedia if this is seen to be the only solution to the current debacle. I will put in a request for speedy deletion soon. Finneganw 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point, yeah, I guess I'd agree to go ahead and delete everything except the lead paragraphs, with some tweaking of the language to insure neutrality, and to protect the page so only established users can edit it. Any additions should not be made without achieving consensus on the talk page. I still favor a good accounting of Anderson's life, with her time in Germany, America, marriage to Manahan, etc., but for the time being it's probably best to go back to bare bones and discuss how to rebuild the article on the talk page. I don't think deleting it entirely is necessary. Anderson is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, but it's true that she's of interest to a pretty rarified crowd. We appear to be the four or five in the world who have the most interest. In any event, the bad behavior (insults, accusations, etc.) MUST stop. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anna_Anderson above. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also agree to deleting everything but the lead paragraphs. It would be nice to tell some of the story, but I'm afraid the details will never be agreed upon and only lead to the same lengthy mess we have now as everyone feels obligated to add their 'side' and add opposing material to what someone else posted that they find objectionable. From past history, way before I even got here, this seems to be what any AA article is destined for and this is why I don't think we can get too far into specifics without arguing. One thing I hope we can at least get out of the way is that anything that is conclusively proven wrong by the fact that AA wasn't Anastasia should not be included, especially the writings of Harriet Rathlef. If we have to start from scratch, that might be the best thing, but we should retain all the info from the current article for reference in case we need some of it. So can we all agree to scrap the current edition?Aggiebean (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And why are you so adamant in wanting to scrap the writings of Harriet Rathlef when you have not even read her book?ChatNoir24 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read Kurth's book, which is heavily based on Rathlef's notes. I have already posted passages that completely prove that things could not have transpired as she described because Anna Anderson wasn't Anastasia. She is now totally discredited and thus are the parts of Kurth's book which use her writings as a source. I challenge anyone to read "Shadows of the Past", a chapter in Kurth's book, and come back here and disagree with me. You can't. It's quite an emotional piece of writing and would make a great novel, but that's all it is- a fictional story. Remember AA was not Anastasia, therefore she couldn't have remembered. Therefore the stories by Rathlef are bogus. Look at the current article, everything you've added that is sourced to Rathlef is pro AA and opposite from the people who turned out to be right.Aggiebean (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A mod has spoken over at the AA page and I think this means we are to take this back there?Aggiebean (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kydrivs Lipof

Hello, I would like notify you that this is article about fiction person. This person was created in 2007 by group people around Town Gallery in Vysoké Mýto [106]. Paintings of Kydrivs Lipof was painted by Filip Dvorský (name Kydrivs Lipof is anagram of name Filip Dvorský). It is the same case like Henryk Batuta. For details see this: "Articles for deletion" page on czech wiki about Kydrivs Lipof.--Slfi (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest an AfD. You'll make more headway there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed standstill agreement on Bilateral Relations articles

The standstill Stifle and DGG suggest below has large community support, and is enacted in order to give participants in these discussions some time to cool off. It is in effect until 00:00 July 1, 2009 (UTC). Users should be warned apropriately before being sanctioned, as necessary. Collapsed to take up less space on the page. lifebaka++ 09:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There has been a huge amount of heat lately, and very little light, about articles named in the form "Foo-Bar relations" (hereinafter "FBR articles"), Foo and Bar being countries or adjectives derived from country names. This has led to divisive disputes at AFDs, DRVs, and across an assortment of talk pages. A discussion was formed at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force, but this has had limited success to date. In summary, the same sets of people tend to show up at all the discussions, and some of them tend to !vote the same way on all discussions. This has the effect that the decision on any given FBR article, once nominated for AFD, depends on how many of each side show up to the discussion. If additional references are found in time, the discussion focuses on whether they are substantial, but because of the many ongoing discussions, views have hardened to the point that very little either side does convinces the other. DGG and I want to jointly suggest that it would be a good idea to freeze all AfDs and related actions on these articles, and defer creating new ones. This is not meant to inhibit adding information to articles, working on deleted articles in userspace, discussing existing articles on their talk page, and discussing policy at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. This would be enforceable as a community sanction. This standstill, if agreed by consensus here, will apply up to and including the end of the month (UTC). During the standstill: New AFDs and DRVs created on FBR articles are eligible for speedy closure with no action New FBR articles created after the standstill is commenced are eligible for speedy deletion Persons disruptively violating #1 or #2 are liable to be blocked for a short period Existing AFDs and DRVs will be allowed to run off Nothing in this inhibits improving existing articles or working on deleted articles or new articles in userspace The principal objection to #1 above in the past has been that it would give free reign for non-notable content to remain in the encyclopedia. This may very well be true. However, the damage that the AFDs, DRVs, and other discussions are doing outweighs any potential damage caused by leaving potentially non-notable articles to exist for a month or two. Having seen the result of several such polarized topics in the past (Macedonia, Sathya Sai Baba, Ireland, route names, etc.), I am very keen to avoid this matter going down the same path. Should it appear necessary to extend the standstill, this can be considered here shortly before the expiry. Please consider not immediately going into support and oppose mode, in favour of a discussion as to the merits of this standstill. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) what exactly is the point of this standstill, what happens at the end of the month? Loosmark (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Hopefully people will discuss the issues and come to some sort of consensus on the notability of FBR articles and/or an alternative structure for them. I am going to be away for the next two or three hours but in the meantime I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC) This is essentially a dispute over notability and sourcing guidelines, writ large. The best place to determine which of these should be retained is AFD. It is a mistake that wikipedia allow the creation of unsourced stubs of, in most cases, not even claimed notability, but that is the system at the moment. To both allow for the creation of unsourced stubs that quite frequently are not suitable for inclusion and not allow for an afd process on them (a process, i might add that skews in favor of retention since there are 3 possible outcomes, 2 of which yield the articles continued inclusion) is a rather radical departure from proven systems here, and for no clear need. To call something "disruptive" does not make it so. That people have strong feelings, one way or another, on this issue is not a good reason to shut down a process (and in service of nothing since all efforts to get consensus on this matter have failed). That there is a group of people who are more interested in this topic than average also does not seem a problem -- that's always the way wikipedia works. People work in the areas that interest them. There really is no problem here, and i don't see what the "damage" is. The various systems here should be robust enough to deal with issues of both individual editor conduct as well as determining what is, or is not, considered notable by the community. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I support this proposed standstill. To get a sense of how intense these disputes are getting, please note Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists and to see the problems with how some are "voting" in these discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting. And we also had this recent incident. AfDs are being flooded by these nominations, renominations, and subsequent DRVs that are needlessly overwhelming our ability to focus on improving those that can be improved by forcing us to have to go back and forth in one AfD only to have them faced almost immediate renomination or DRVs. Why we would rather be a collection of AfDs and DRVs rather than articles that are relevant to someone always baffles me. Moreover, in these discussions, in loosely related MfDs and on user and article talk pages, the animosity among those saying to keep versus those saying to delete is escalating with little sign of decreasing. If Wikipedia does not have a deadline then there is no urgent need to rid us of all of these now, just as there is no urgent need to have to hurry up and create as many new articles as possible. Thus, I for one will not create any new bilateral relations articles during this proposed standstill, nor will I nominate any for deletion. If we do not take a time out from these disputes across multiple threads, I do not see how the participants will come to any understanding and how we will avoid an RfC and eventual ArbCom on bilateral relations. We should be here to build an encyclopedia. Let us stop the arguing and get back to improving our existing content in a mature and collegial manner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Support - allowing the situation to cool down is certainly a worthwhile idea. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I propose immediate deletion of all unsourced stubs on this topic (no information is "lost" when it amounts to "x y relations are relations between x and y. Y has an embassy in z.") with no prejudice to recreation by any editor in good standing who sources and writes a proper start class article. In exchange, a one moratorium on the sourced x-y stubs can be declared, so that those who think these articles have merit can seek to improve them. I have no idea why any of this would ever end up at Arbcom or anywhere else. Again, when we have a system that allow sockpuppetss to serially and abusively create stubs, derailing the process by which the mess the sockpuppet created can be evaluated and dealt with (and an open, transparent process at that) is very much against the encyclopedia's best interests.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I do not see why we would want to force editors to start over when they already have a framework or foundation from which to expand. We should try to expand first per WP:BEFORE and then remove what we cannot. And yes, even if that takes years, that is no big deal as we hope to be around for years anyway. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I don't necessarily oppose it but I think that this standstill would only "move" the problem 1 month forward and then we would have exactly the same situation with the same "players" with the same attitude. Actually Bali ultimate hit the nail with his comment that the system should be robust enough to deal with these situations. At the moment it doesn't seems so maybe some modifications would be in order. Loosmark (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Comment I would support this 100% if all the articles created by the banned user who cranked these out are removed from the main space first. Most of the discussions are between those of us who believe the subject of an article has to meet notability requirements and editors who think a collection of verifiable factoids constitutes an acceptable article. There are other complications but that's the primary issue. I don't think a moratorium on creating articles on a certain topic is appropriate nor do I believe it is appropriate to stop deletion of inappropriate articles, especially since no one has worked towards a solution on the real issue. I have a lot of respect for you, Stifle, but I can predict who will line up to support this or not. Drawn Some (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I think some of the above commenters are missing the point of this standstill. This standstill has nothing to do with the suitablity of these articles for Wikipedia. The point is the escalating acrimony among the editors who are involved in this issue. The standstill would allow everyone to take a month and discuss the larger issue, gathering as much of a consensus as possible. Once a rough guideline has been formed on how to determine notability on these, then things can go back into motion, with individual AFDs determining how these articles meet the new guideline. While I hate instruction creep as much as anyone, new guidelines are written for exactly this reason: to provide a consensus document that people can refer back to in future discussions, whether they be WP:XFDs, move requests, or anything else. I think a standstill would be a good idea, so that the same identical issues aren't argued over and over in little discussions, but instead are addressed in a larger discussion where all interested parties can have input. That's my two cents, anyway. I like the idea of a standstill. I just hope a month is enough time to calm the raging waters. :)--Aervanath (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I am generally no fan of the "sit still and wait" method of dealing with problems, but this is a special case. Given the vast number of articles, discussions, disputes and arguments covering the issue it is nearly impossible to centralize our efforts; there is little use in trying to tackle this issue piecemeal. Therefore I support the proposal of a cooldown period, so long as efforts to tackle this issue in a more centralized fashion are not stifled by the lockdown. Shereth 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC) It's wider than just one user creating these. Too much effort has been expended on AfDs and all (as noted, often along party lines, and whichever side shows up in more numbers wins). It would be useful to let these all rest for a month or two. If they develop to include what editors (not all) consider notable content, then they live on. If they remain a stub, then they get AfD'ed for quick delete. All too often something is created and editors rush in to nominate for deletion, sometimes because they believe it deserves to be deleted, sometimes because they want to harass the editors they know don't think it deserves to be deleted. Support see comments further below PetersV       TALK 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Well, there's the problem in a nutshell, it's not enough for an article to have verifiable content, even notable content, the subject of the article itself has to be notable. That's the problem and a moratorium won't solve it. Drawn Some (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure you're hearing everything I said. The month is useful for an opportunity for notable content to be created—if there are notable items in a relationship then those should bubble up to the article/topic being notable. If content of a notable nature is not created, then after a month the AfDs come out again. The problem right now is that articles are being nominated because editors maintain the topic of a particular A-B relationship in and of itself is not notable. That is a personal, not editorial opinion. Only after content is created can a judgement of notability be made. There the moratorium will be a tremendous help. see comments below PetersV       TALK 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Actually I understand exactly what your saying and it reinforces my point. Every day at AfD something like 100 articles are evaluated not on the basis of the content but on the basis of whether or not the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines in some way, most often through significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Frequently they are stubs and rarely are they big articles. The content is almost irrelevant. You can add 500 verifiable facts to an article and the subject still isn't notable. All of the bilateral relations articles are either notable or not, right now, today, regardless of content. AfD discussion determines which is the case. Waiting a month won't make any of them notable that aren't already. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I think the standstill is a good idea, but suggest that instead of speedy deleting any new entries, they be speedily userfied / projectified instead, so as to preserve the work of any editors who are unaware of the standstill. Part of the problem here is that there has not been enough consideration by the community before now about whether we should restrict ourselves to particularly noteworthy bilateral relations topics, or whether all such subjects are potentially worthy. The standstill would give a time for that discussion to take place, centralized, and publicized so that it draws in more than just the two active factions. Mangojuicetalk 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (after ec) Vecrumba, I'm not sure you've really looked into this matter. Take a look at the article creation log for the indef-blocked sockpuppet Groubani (talk · contribs) here [107]. Also look at the total failure of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations which started sometime in the middle of April. Most of the articles have been around for a long time and there has been no "bubbling." In many cases where there has been bubbling, some of us feel that they are "puff-bubbles." (i.e. i once saw a reference that noted a passing similarity between costa rica and swiss banking laws that made "costa rica look like the switzerland of latin america" used in an effort to establish they had a notable bilateral relationship). There is no need for separate notability criteria for this class of article. The only reason this class has become "special" is because we tolerated serial, unsourced stub creation (it's amazing to me that we allow the creation of unsourced articles -- even BLPS -- every day by irresponsible editors) by a user making some kind of weird point. At any rate, an effort to create a special set of guidelines for these articles failed rather spectacularly, as any effort at the moment (not much time has passed since that resounding failure) will likewise fail. The answer is for users interested in the topic, to evaulate these articles on a case by case basis, with the outcome in some cases being deletin and others retention, just like every other article on wikipedia. I'm sorry people are upset that, well, that editors here might hold strong and opposing viewpoints. But wishing that away, or dismissing the real questions at play here about content guidelines as "disruptive" is not healthy for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC) My response was based on my personal experiences in my neck of the "A-B relations". I did look through Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations since and I have to agree that as a whole it has been a spectacular failure. In all honesty, I did the math myself some time ago on the minimum number of articles (all combinations of U.N. members taken 2 at a time). I do have to observe that a more manageable solution might be—as has been suggested—"Foreign relations of A". Any significant relationship can be denoted with a "A-xyz relations" category being defined and noted for the article. That way one can answer "does Chile have any interesting relationship with Estonia?" without a Chile-Estonia relations article. "A-B relations" would revert to being reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Yes i agree that "a-b relations" articles should be "reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study." But you will never get consensus for this proposal at the moment. A number of people will even call you mean names for requiring that the topic of an article in and of itself be the subject of in depth coverage.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I also think a standstill is a great idea, since I believe (as do, I think, DGG, A Nobody, and others) that it is easier, more inviting, for editors to fill in the blanks, so to speak, than to start from scratch. That's how it works for me. The flood of AfDs prompted a bunch of people to get to work on the stubs with some decent results, but that initial enthusiasm to save them seems to have waned a little--certainly in my case. That these things were created en masse is unfortunate, of course, but these many, many nominations only antagonize editors. Let's leave them be. They're here, many of them are not great articles, many might be deleted later on. But let's leave it for now. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Some editors feel atagonized by the existence of non-notable "topics" unsupported by any reliable sources. Some other editors feel that any combination of x-y is, ipso facto, notable. Why should the AFD process be suspended to spare the annoyance of some, while adding to the annoyance of others? Is there some better community way for sorting out what should be included than afd? No one has proposed anything remotely workable in the months that this has been going on.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Cutting in here--Bali, you and I have butted heads on a couple of those, and have agreed on a few others. I personally take offense at unsupported articles, and I don't believe that every combination is notable. But it's a given that we have these stubs, and that apparently AfD is the only way to get rid of them (by deletion or by improvement--and I know that AfD is not for article improvement, but we all know that's how it often goes anyway). An AfD discussion should take some time, and I have not voted on a lot of them simply because I didn't have time to look into them. You may have noted that I did not copy and paste my answers, and have voted delete on quite a few of them. Oddly enough, I do agree with you that there probably is no better way than AfD--but if our interest is improving the encyclopedia, and if we agree that (at least some of) articles that were kept are now indeed worth keeping, and that improvement has come about precisely because stubborn editors (I won't name names, but I have been stubborn on occasion) have fought tooth and nail and have found and added sources and significantly rewritten articles *deep breath* well, if all that is true, then a slow trickle of those articles at AfD rather than a flood can only improve the project as a whole. Some will get deleted, some will be (improved and) kept. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I think if anyone had stopped to do the math before thinking "A-B relations" were a good article to have, we wouldn't be in this mess. When articles are generated based on mathematical combinations and not topics explored in secondary source materials, nothing good is bound to come of it.   In all of this I "voted" for Chile-Estonia as significant for my editorial reasons; that, based on "as long as we're going to have A-B relations articles, then there are items here of significance that merit being in such an article." If, on the other hand, that were a category (at best) and the normal thing to do was to document Chile-related items in a "Foreign relations of Estonia" article, that would have been just as fine.    The mere existence of this type of article is what has led to the intractability of the morass.    This issue can only be solved by appropriately combining the articles into the appropriate "Foreign relations of..." articles and then delete all A-B relations articles except, as mentioned, those involving areas of significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Drmies, you illuminate another problem: Wikipedia is created by volunteers and articles are created and improved because people want to do it, not because one user matches every object in a set to every other object in the set. 95% of the non-notable ones wouldn't have been created in the first place because they aren't notable and no one would have wanted to create them. The normal flow of article creation was interrupted by this one user in a cataclysmic event. Now we have all the articles to deal with. Why not move them out of the main space into user space and then let people work on them when and if they choose to do so? I don't have a problem with that at all. But some people don't want to let even one of these articles be deleted. Let's remember that they shouldn't exist in the first place and restore the status quo ante bellum by moving them out of the user space. Also, let's not forget that articles can be undeleted. Drawn Some (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I know, Drawn Some. But I'll say what I said before: a bad article is for many editors a reason to work on it. I would NEVER consider making something up out of whole cloth on, say, relations between Mexico and Belgium. (Never mind that I'm Dutch and am not supposed to care for the Belgians.) Yet AfD alerted me to the article, and it's really kind of interesting (the Belgians bringing beer to Mexico?), and I found a book (De Belgen en Mexico), and then Richard Arthur Norton, like a terrier, bit into the article and is not letting go... As I mentioned above, AfD is fine with me--I think it's fair, usually anyway, and for better or worse it's a forum of sorts. Yes, again, they probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, and maybe the majority of them might end up getting deleted, but they do exist, and my interest here is to make something good come out of it. Thanks, and I'll see you at the next one, I guess! ;)Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose Full steam ahead on all fronts!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Why? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Time stands still for no one, not even a nobody. I don't think a work stoppage is enforceable. We're not a union. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC) What happened that made ChildofMidnight come out and speak up on a real topic? Ran out of bacon topics, did you? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC) At the same time, I do not see why we should allow a handful of accounts to act as self-appointed policemen with regards to a certain type of article. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) My opposition to a break in the dispute is not adamant, only ardent. Consensus seems to be generally in favor of an informal peace. This will provide time to get started on the much needed multilateral relations articles. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Arbitrary break If anyone has read this far, then it will be obvious just what kind of deadlock this dispute is in: both sides are talking at or past each other, & not at all listening to one another. This is why, after a month, I walked away from this mess. I tried to propose that some articles in this genre were notable, yet had my efforts rebuffed. I would rather spend my time working on content than arguing endlessly in AfD. Maybe if we subject all of this to a 12-month moratorium, the less reasonable people in this dispute will get themselves banned from Wikipedia for their habitual misbehavior & the rest of us then can come to a consensus on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I cuncur with Llywrch that a 12 month stop would be better. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth, "A-B relations" is unworkable because it is simply an unusable framework. To read about the "Foreign relations of X" one has to sift through a 100+ collection of stubs and articles? Think about it. I struck my earlier comments supporting the moratorium (which were based on my earlier more parochial experiences). We need an elimination, not a moratorium. PetersV       TALK 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC) No one has suggested that they all need to be deleted or that none of them are notable. There are hundreds or maybe even thousands of them that are notable but that leaves thousands of A-B intersections that aren't. No one has said Colombia-Venezuela or Israel-Egypt or US-Mexico relations should be deleted. In investigating certain stubs I have been surprised at what I have learned. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Actually a few accounts have said to delete Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations when the countries in question actually border each other, have been the subject or reliable, independent sources due to their border conflict issues. It is from such discussions as this example that some indeed are indiscriminately saying to delete pretty much all of them rather than working to improve them. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations is not a good example, it was originally created in good faith as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and referring to the combined land mass [108]. Many in the AfD said this was a misdirected create and that they would not support Indonesia and PNG but rather Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations including me and I have since changed my vote to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC) How much better would it have been instead of saying to delete initially to have just proactively moved it as I did and started the article that everyone seems to think is now an acceptable start instead? I never get why anyone would say someone should do something instead of just doing it his or herself when he or she is indeed capable and able to do so. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) of course that is possible, but if the AfD was originally listed as Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations it would have got a lot more keep even if it was a stub. In fact, that's the first X and Y article I've seen nominated, and it's not in the same class as X-Y relations. so let's forget this example. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, but we are urged to be WP:BOLD and what I did to improve this content I am confident my colleagues in the discussion are also capable of doing as well. Please remember that deletion is supposed to be a last resort per WP:BEFORE and as such, editors should try renames, merges, etc. first and then when all else fails take it to AfD. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC) That's why we have a discussion at AfD, to share ideas and come to the right decision. Also, just because two countries share a border does not mean that their bilateral relations are notable. The relations probably are notable but we use Wikipedia guidelines on notability to make a determination. Once again your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Fortunately, my way of thinking about these things is consistent with the majority of our editors and readers, which is why we have no need to kowtow to a minority viewpoint that is inconsistent with established consensus, which overwhelmingly suggests these notable articles are worth including here. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Knock off the cheap shots at other editors. Your reply above is strong evidence of Llywrch's comment that too many editors are stuck on the rightness of their position. Also, cowtow, not cowtail. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I agree that Drawn Some should not make cheap shots at other editors. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Har-har. I was talking to you. Stop baiting him. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) An editor should not bait another by saying that "your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia," which any reasonable editor would respond to in at least the manner that I did, although many might respond much more harshly. I can only take seriously any comments that first takes issue with that initial post. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC) For a guy who spends an awful lot of time monitoring others, you sure seem unable to be the bigger man when you are involved in something yourself. Be the bigger man, and move on. Besides, DS is bringing up issues as he goes, and it doesn't look like you're in a vast majority. learn to move on, or stop commenting so often on the behavior of others. Hypocrisy's a poor color for anyone to wear. ThuranX (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, his post probably should not have been dignified by a reply in the first place and it is exactly hypocrisy that concerns me, i.e. saying something to me while ignoring the initial less than civil comment I replied to in the first place. Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC) It's really "kowtow". Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Well, I agree with you on that one per Kowtow. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Support All of these articles have possible value. Until we've established how useful we think that is, there's no reason to get rid of them one by one. Shii (tock) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC) That really doesn't make much sense. Some of the articles have value and some do not. How do you propose we sort out which is which if not "one by one?" I have seen no one with a proposal for a new method yet that would have any chance of adoption. Does anyone have one? Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC) That's the whole point of the standstill: to remove everyone from the immediate "must rescue/must delete this article RIGHT NOW" attitude and give everyone some breathing room to calmly work on a consensus guideline for this.--Aervanath (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC) The obvious solution is not a standstill or moratorium but removing the articles from the main space. That eliminates all time pressure. People who want to work on them may do so as they are interested and at their leisure. If a non-notable article is introduced into the main space it can be brought to AfD as all articles are. The problem is we have hundreds of non-notable articles in the main space that were dumped there by a rogue editor now banned. Undo that damage that he caused. No one is hurt, everyone is happy. Drawn Some (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC) About two months was spent on developing this white whale of a special conesensus guideline. And that conversation was an epic fail. Why would it be any different in anothe month? Special notability guidelines (which will never get consensus) aren't what's needed. What's needed is case by case evaluation, which is ongoing. Some hopeless articles have been deleted, some have been demonstrated to be notable (i.e. PNG-Indo, which will rightfully sail through afd with hardly any opposition) and some have muddled through as no consensus and will need to looked at again in six months or a year. This is all a good thing. Ostriching over the issue (and the meta issue of unsourced content more generally, and the way we're allowing original research to proliferate) will not help matters. Awright, i've said my piece enough on this thread.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Why does the United States have a full set of bilateral stubs based on the US State Department website, and the same rational is used to delete other smaller countries stubs? Wikipedia "contains elements of an almanac" according to Pillar I. What good is an almanac if it only contains information on the United States? We are supposed to be eliminating regional bias, not increasing it. An almanac just has to be verifiable, we accept all townships as notable on the same concept and use a dump of census data from the United States Census Bureau as the sole source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I actually support deleting many of those US-very small country stubs as most of them can be merged into Foreign relations of Smaller country X. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I agree with LibStar, every article on a topic not notable by Wikipedia guidelines should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. Wikipedia incorporates elements of almanacs but see WP:NOT#ALMANAC. Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC) WP:NOT#ALMANAC points to raw statistics. You do know what a statistic is right? It is some numerical value. I don't see this at all in any of the articles under discussion. This is another red herring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC) That shortcut should be speedily deleted as it is inconsistent with our First pillar. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC) In reference to the above comment, I would like administrators to note that A Nobody has already proceeded to change wikipedia policies in order to suit his own interpretations, by simply deleting the section reference to WP:NOT#ALMANAC Drawn Some cited above: here and again here. Is it clear by now that some users are pushing a marginal interpretation instead of consensus by any means necessary? Dahn (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Who added that minority and consensus lacking viewpoint to Not in the first place as it clearly contradicts our much older and consensus backed Wikipedia:Five pillars. In any event, we cannot have contradictory policies and guidelines. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, everybody is wrong but you. I know the drill. Dahn (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC) The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was created on 4 May 2005. Now looking at WP:NOT from the same time, I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 1. No guideline has ever said "we are an almanac". 2. The claim about time precedence is ignoratio elenchi and special pleading, misconstruing the mechanisms driving wikipedia. I shall ignore it as such. 3. The entire text accompanying that caption, which is the result of consensus, still evidently contradicts your claim about the "almanac" importance of factoids. 4. Not seeking every possible input at the exact same moment is not the same as lacking consensus, but time can verify that consensus. As it has. 5. My part in this discussion ends here, because I sense it won't be long before A Nobody will start over again with the same arguments (as has happened in the past), and following that trail will leads nowhere. I posted this here for other users, preferably admins, to assess what's going on. If anyone needs further comments from me, let them contact me on my talk page. Dahn (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC) What consensus backed discussion has ever said we are not an almanac? Also, the disputed addition only appeared on 5 May 2009, i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9#Not_an_Almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_1#Is_Wikipedia_an_almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25#Wikipedia:_Almanac_or_not.3F hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC) A Nobody, the First Pillar of Wikipedia itself contradicts you. It says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of... almanacs.... Elements of is important. If you're going to refer to text make sure it actually supports what your are saying, people are familiar with things and some even check on sources. Drawn Some (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC) It also says we incorportae "elements" of encyclopedias, so by your logic, we would "not" be an encyclopedia either. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC) WP:NOT#ALMANAC was a redirect using the wrong synonym to point to Wikipedia is not raw statistics. No almanac I know of is comprised of raw statistics, all info is in tables and comes with explanatory information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Strongly oppose: 12 months? That is absurd on its face. A year of leaving non-notable articles in place? No thank you. A shorter date might be agreeable, but 12 months? Come on. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Another arbitrary break Support my own proposal. Stifle approached me about this early yesterday on my talk page, and I was delighted to agree; I suggested some modifications in wording, not in principle, which he accepted. He and I tend to disagree about standards of notability and quite a number of other things, but from any reasonable point of view the situation was becoming intolerable. I can accept if necessary an encyclopedia with most of these deleted; I hope Stifle can accept one with most of them kept; what neither of us can accept is an encyclopedia with a random selection of them. Nor do we want to devote the bulk of our energies on WP to arguing about this particular group of articles. At present the settlement of these depends mostly on how much pressure the various sides exert, on on the very varied personal view of whoever chooses to close, and neither of these is sensible. The only people who would oppose finding some means of accommodation here are those who would rather get their own way on some articles, however few, than accept a consistent compromise, and that does not help build a good encyclopedia. In practice the arguments at present depend on whether particular sources found are important enough, but the views expressed on that depend not on the facts of the actual case, but the general idea of keeping or deleting the articles. As I see it, whether the sources are significant depends upon the intended scope of these articles--whether to accept relations in the broad sense or interpret it as formal diplomatic relations only, and if we approach it this way, we may yet agree. We must have a rational procedure for resolving stalemates other than mutual exhaustion. That is what we have used in the past, and I hope nobody will support continuing that way, because it decision essentially by trial by ordeal, more specifically ordeal of the cross. I'd rather lose arguments than have them decided that way. Civilized people rejected that method of decision in more important matters many centuries ago. It's time we followed suite. DGG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC) What you're saying is not untrue but it misses the essence of the situation, that a bunch of articles were created without consensus and contrary to our normal flow of article creation and they were dumped into the article space and many of them are on non-notable topics and shouldn't be in main space. It would be better to remove them all from the main space to eliminate the time pressure and work on them at our leisure and on the ones we are interested in as we normally do. All of our processes and guidelines support that normal process and the problem is not with the process but with the dumptruck full of ill-conceived articles dumped into it. Remove that mess. Drawn Some (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I am inclined to view this proposal favorably. The AfD process is perfectly suited to deal with articles on an ad hoc basis. This is fine for the normal random mix, but it can break down under the weight of sheer numbers. There is no good reason to burden that system with constantly re-deciding what is essentially one issue. As the proposers of this respite point out, the outcome of the AfD discussions currently is not a function of which articles truly are notable, but instead a function of who shows up to argue on a particular case. The repetitive nature of these discussions has the effect of self-selecting for the editors who feel most strongly about the subject, to the exclusion of those who have not become so firmly entrenched. I think it is worth a break to try to engage some of this latter class of editors into the process, and hope for a new perspective. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC) A comment from a completely non-involved editor: I haven't commented on a single A-B relations AfD, nor do I have any real opinion on whether these articles are generally good or generally bad. I have read some, but by no means all, of the discussion on this topic and would like to offer a neutral observation. First of all, some sort of calming of the situation is needed. There is no way anyone can cognitively evaluate dozens of relations a day (as has often sent to AfD). Not surprisingly, given the volume of AfDs, people on both sides will fall back on standard arguments and not truly evaluate the case at hand. Further, both sides are so entrenched in their view that any attempts to provide evidence in a particular case will mostly just be dismissed by the other side. The community is definitely not served by rehashing the same basic argument hundreds of times. At the current pace, good editors are bound to burn out and leave the project entirely. Second, this thread is strong evidence of how deeply the conflict runs. People on the "delete most" will largely argue that a moratorium is bad unless the "junk stubs" are deleted first. People on the "keep most" side will argue against any attempts to move "junk stubs" outside of article space. As someone who doesn't really care if these stay or go in the end, I would say there is very little harm leaving things the way they are until people have had a chance to cool down. Wikipedia's default policy normally is to keep things the way they are when there is a dispute. Third, a break from the daily AfDs might not resolve the problem, but it couldn't hurt. When a page is being edit warred over, we protect the page to force discussion. While not an identical situation, of course, I feel it would be a good idea to force discussion into one location, rather than hundreds of AfDs, for now. Without the pressure of "saving" or "removing" A-B "right now", there is at least some chance that the situation will calm itself and the sides can start working towards a reasonable compromise. Now, some will say the stubs harm Wikipedia, or stopping the normal process harm Wikipedia. They may be right, but I feel far greater harm will come if the situation is continues on its current path. Wikipedia has no deadline and waiting a little bit to give the situation a chance to calm itself down is highly advisable, In my opinion. Thus I support the proposal as written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (aUTC) You're greatly overestimating the number of bilateral relations AfDs daily. 6/10 - 2 6/9 - 4, one of which was shut down procedurally even though the relations are non-notable [109] 6/8 - 3 6/7 - 2 6/6 - 1 6/5 - 3 6/4 - 2 etc. So the problem is not fatigue caused by evaluating "dozens" daily. Neither is the conflict over bilateral relations articles, it's over whether or not Wikipedia guidelines for notability should be followed or whether anything verifiable should be in the encyclopedia. If the default is to keep things the way they are, it should be the state prior to the dumping of hundreds or thousands of articles on non-notable subjects into the main space by a now-banned editor. When vandalism is committed the default isn't the state of vandalization, it's the state prior to the act. Same principle should apply here. Move the articles out of main space if you want to stop action on them but don't interrupt Wikipedia's processes in an attempt to "fix" an interruption of Wikipedia's processes, that's only compounding the damage. Drawn Some (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Support with the proviso that someone get to work on developing Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) during the month-long freeze. I am normally adamant against the creation of new notability sub-guidelines, but even I have my breaking point. We need community driven guidance, and while WP:N should be enough, it clearly is not else we would not be here right now. What the community needs is a clear set of guidelines as to which sets of articles are likely notable and which are likely not, or else this will all just start up again when the editing freeze ends in a month. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose This appears to be an attempt to do an end-run around the results (or, to be precise, lack thereof) at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. There is no consensus at all that a notability guideline is needed (see, for example, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations#What's the matter with WP:N? and no clear views on what such a guideline should include. By definition, guidelines have no hope of being completed or adopted if editors don't think that they're needed and can't agree on their content. As such, there's no reason to suspend AfDs to facilitate something which isn't going to happen. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Support—Provided that the freeze is time-limited, the moratorium on creating new X-Y relations stubs/articles is vigorously enforced, and AfDs that already in progress when the freeze comes into effect are allowed to run their course. These are all element of current/original Stifle-DGG proposal, and losing any of them would be a deal breaker for me. I would add that for AfDs already running if & when the freeze is affected, the existence of the freeze should not be considered a valid reason to !vote keep, and closing admins should disregard any !votes using this logic. Also, I do not support a freeze solely for the sake of a freeze. Let's use this time to draft some binding notability guidelines or at least try. I realize there is currently a large chasm between two camps, but I think that if we can come to some agreement around the edges, it will still be better than the current situation even if we still leave a large gray area in the middle . So a suggestion: rather than formulate competing sets guidelines, none of which are likely to stand much of chance of gainng consensus, perhaps we could come up with an array of elements of a guideline, and !vote on each one seperately. At the end of the freeze, which ever elements have consensus would become the guideline. That guideline would probably still have a huge gray area, and there would always be a need to deal with some, maybe most, pairings on a case by case basis, but I believe it would be better than what we've got now, which is just the WP:N. (WP:N would still apply, but the emergent guideline for X-Y relations would hopefully help apply WP:N to these specific cases.) Some examples elements of a guideline that I hope would gain immediate consensus include: In general, X-Y relations are not inherently notable. Relations between any two countries that share a land border are alway notable. Relations between states that, in modern history (20th century), were formerly part of the same country are always notable, i.e. relations among former Soviet states with one another, or relations between states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia. Websites of X & Y's governments can generally be used verify facts in an X-Y relations article, but coverage of the topic of X-Y relations in these sites does not, by itself, establish notability of the topic. Relations between countries having fought a war are generally notable, with the exception of fighting as part of a multination coalition. For example, the Falklands war is enough to establish that British-Argentine relations are notable, but that the fact Polish troops were part of the coalition in Iraq does not, by itself, establish that Poland-Iraq relations are notable. Etc. So I think getting consensus on as many little points like these as possible would be useful. There's a lot a gray area in WP:N and disagreements about how to interpret it. Even if the exercise only narrows that gray area a little and/or clarifies it only slightly, I still think we'd be better off for it. Yilloslime TC 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose There was already a lengthy discussion on what to do with the information in these pitiful stub articles without actually keeping pitiful stub articles on Wikipedia. Most of this work of merging was spearheaded by User:Ikip, but unfortunately he seems to be on an enforced wikibreak for several weeks, so I don't know the status of it or who's taken up the task in the interim. In any case, even then, bringing up articles with valid concerns against them to AfD was never decided to be suspended by concensus, and I see no reason to do so here, given the ability of these articles to be userfied or the ability of users to merge the (scant) information to another article within the week provided. I see no compelling reason not to continue to bring up these articles at AfD, only to end their creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose. The wikiphilosophical drama surrounding these articles is a waste of time only for those who choose to participate in it. Individual AfDs are a perfectly suitable forum in which to address the issue of their inclusion. Closing admins can give proper weight to the arguments expressed, so bloc voting should in principle not be a problem. We will probably end up with an encyclopedia with a random selection of them, as DGG fears, but these will tend to be the more notable or otherwise interesting ones, so I'm inclined to see this as a feature rather than a bug.  Sandstein  17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC) We need to do something. Editors concerned with this matter are dividing into mutually-opposing camps, and it's having an unnecessarily divisive effect. Normally I would agree with Sandstein, but the trouble is that the results of the AfDs are not being accepted by either side. Instead, we have significant numbers of them ending up at DRV or being inappropriately relisted at AfD (in one recent case, less than a month after closure as "keep"!) because there's a determination among some parties to see these articles destroyed or killed with fire, and a determination among other parties to retain them, at any cost. What I'm saying is that this content issue is in danger of becoming a very messy conduct issue and inaction will not do. Also, inaction leaves us open to future editors repeating a similar exercise for purely disruptive purposes. So if you don't like the Stifle/DGG proposal, come up with a better one that doesn't involve trying to cope with the whole morass of articles via one of the usual routes.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose (as if it wasn't clear, but since we're in "It's not a "vote" it's a "!vote" mode...). Sandstein i think puts it very well. There is no better system for hashing out these kinds of disputes than the one in place. The insistence that i come up with some better system to replace this one because it's "messy" seems to misunderstand the fundamental messyness of people when they disagree. These disputes need to be aired and debated. And not airing and debating them in well-established (albiet creaky and imperfect) forums is a terrible idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Warn and then topic ban disruptive editors Continually ignoring Wikipedia consensus as expressed in notablility guidelines is disruptive and shouldn't be tolerated. Editors are free to disagree with guidelines and to try to change them but to continually disregard them at AfD in order to interrupt the process of deleting articles on non-notable topics should be grounds for a topic ban from the AfD board. WP:NOTE is very clear about the need for article topics to be notable. Let's stop pretending that a break or process change will solve the problem. We have a bunch of articles that are on non-notable topics and they need to be removed from the article space. If an editor tries to interfere with that process by ignoring consensus, warn and then ban. Drawn Some (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Support Because the problem really isn't an intractable one over nationalistic or ethnic feelings, but that two groups have gotten themselves stuck together like two mountain goats who have locked horns. Both sides simply need to walk away from this for a while, work on something else, then return refreshed & with a clean slate. I offer proof of this with one example: a while ago I created Ethiopia-Qatar relations because I found I honestly could not create it. (Unrelated to this dispute, I have been trying hard not to create any new articles; for the most part, I have succeeded.) Then someone I exchanged heated words with, LibStar, saw the article, and improved it. I left a note thanking him for it, & we've been able to collaborate more or less successfully on the article since then -- which is the ideal of Wikipedia. (The irony of this instance is that much of the content of the article is duplicated in 2007–2008 Ethiopian crackdown in Ogaden, where it could be argued it makes more sense -- or Ogaden -- & in a less hostile environment we could have an amenable discussion about a possible merge.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC) The purpose of our suggestion is to not change the general rules for resolving disputes over article notability, or changing the deletion procedure. Normally, I;d tend to agree with Sandstein's overall position: the WP concept of deciding article by article has merit--it prevents a small cadre from trying at some obscure policy decision to foreclose debate on a general matter. Small groups may be best for deciding technical matters, but then whatever they do needs to be exposed by the community and supported by it. Similarly in the opposite situation, in cases where the need for a supermajority prevents making formal policy, as for schools, the practical consistent decisions at individual article discussions can be effectively broadly supported policy. This suits me fine personally, because normally I am much more willing to do immediate time-limited advocacy than trying to fine-tune rules in interminable policy discussions which come to no stable conclusion. But this is an exceptional situation. The sheer number of these articles prevents rational action. The quantity that are likely to be nominated for deletion and come to AfD greatly exceeds those we have already dealt with. The creation of these articles in this manner was wrong from the start, but given their presence , we must deal somehow with them. A method of sorting that gives 10% error is tolerable--actually I doubt AfD routinely does much better than that. sa method that gets 40% of them wrong is not much better than random, and not worth the detailed and extensive effort this is taking from dozens of people. In much simpler cases, this could perhaps be dealt with by batch nominations, but it has turned out in every batch proposed that some of two of them were much differently notable than the others & it can't really be decided without detailed work on sourcing each of them--sometimes discouragingly without success. This is not a fundamental dispute over the level of notability, but a question about a new type of article for which the old ways don't seem to work very well. The obvious thing to do would seem to be devise new ones. Not that I expect to like the new ones 100%, and neither would Stifle, but we can agree on something better. One cannot reach a compromise while the matters subject to compromise are unreasonably vanishing or unreasonably being kept, and where each decision reasonable or not is appealed individually. There are 3 rational things to do: throw them all out & wait till someone does them right, keep them all in and hope that someone does them right, or figure out how to sort them into those capable of rapid improvement and those incapable. This is not a topic I really care to work on personally, and I'd be glad of almost any stable compromise. The point of this is to free up AfD for the things we need to do there individually. DGG (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Support I only support this till June 30 and a review thereafter if issues resurface again. I do not agree that somehow during this time (or longer), a new bilateral notability guideline will be magically developed given that 2 months ago people tried to and it got nowhere. I think it would be really difficult to get any consensus on a guideline. So I support this solely for people to calm down and get over it. I do not support attempts by stop nominations from any other process except gaining consensus here or WP:SANCTIONS. I do not support any admins taking matters into their own hands and unilaterally starting to block people for nominating AfDs without community consensus. So on that token, if this proposal fails, people should feel free to nominate for deletion or create as per usual. I will however abide by any decision reached by clear consensus here. LibStar (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Support I agree with everything Drawn Some has written, but I still would be happy to have a break to see if some better strategy can be determined. I would like some forum to be established where DGG and Stifle could moderate a discussion (please). There is no point in having a long is so vs is not hands-over-ears argument. Instead, I suggest a page with a Reasons to keep section that is edited by those in favor of keeping (no signatures; just edit to achieve the best argument), and another Reasons to delete section to be edited by those opposing. I would pick just one or two examples to discuss, say User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations. Perhaps something could grow from that? I suppose those who want to keep many of the X–Y relations articles are frustrated with people like me who repeatedly say that a particular relation fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. But I am more frustrated because I don't see any response from the keepers other than to add a few more sourced factoids, then say that the source is notable, so the factoid and the relation must be notable also. There is no attempt by those supporting the articles to engage in what "notable" actually means, or to say what their favored outcome is (18,000 X-Y articles?). For example, there are no "keep" arguments at User_talk:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg_relations. So I want one page where one set of arguments can be tuned, and we'll what is the best from each side, and whether some compromise is possible. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Support We need a wikipedia wide vote on the rules. As it is now, the policies and guidelines are determined by whatever small group of people can camp out there arguing the longest and get their way across. What you end up with, is the same arguments being made at the same types of AFD, this time national relationship articles. Sometimes they are kept, sometimes not, depending on whoever is around at the time to form a consensus, and the opinions of the closing administrator. Some wish to delete things outright, while others say leave them be, and others may expand on them over time. Some claim government websites shouldn't be used as references, because they don't trust governments, even when its just an announcement of a treaty which isn't something any nation would actually ever possibly have a reason to lie about. Some believe one nation once being a colony of another, and strongly influenced by them culturally is a notable relationship, while others do not. Same for economic treaties, one nation's troops inside another nation for peacekeeping or other reasons, and etc. Different opinions. We need to decide on what is acceptable, and what is not, before moving forward. Dream Focus 09:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Support We're having the same argument at WP:Afd every time. Then re-arguing it at WP:DRV. The policy obviously needs to be clarified. I think we should try to resolve what the words "significant" and "trivial" with regard to sources in the notability policy really mean because that's where I see most of the problems arising. Is a visit by a head of state significant? Is the creation of an embassy? A big football game? Organizationally speaking, would this information fit best on a foreign relations article, a state to state relations article, or a specific article about that visit or embassy or football match? Is it against policy to have all three or is it just an aesthetic judgment? These things should have been clarified months ago but were not. In the interim, the Afd discussions have continued, resulting in a large amount of well sourced information being deleted (when it could have been merged but was not) and the acrimony between editors has increased. The pressure, on both sides, to just add votes instead facts to the Afd discussions has increased with the tidal wave of deletion nominations. This flood also prevents adequate research from being conducted to save worthy articles by the Article rescue Squad.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC) There is no flood of articles. I listed the numbers for the last week above and it is less than three a day, usually one or two. This perception that there is some huge number or that our process is flawed is not based in reality. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC) tidal wave? how about the super mega mega tidal wave of Groubani in producing 100s if not 1000s of stubs that has soaked up weeks of editors' time in cleaning it up? Groubani was only stopped after being banned for excessive stub creation. If Groubani actually researched which were notable or not, we wouldn't have this problem. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Support: the crux of the problem here is insoluable without wider concensus on if these topics are notable or not. The issue here is that one group of editors is convinced they are inherently not, and therefore can accept no outcome but delte, while another group of editors is convinced they are, and can accept no outcome but keep. This has devolved into a drive to nominate all such articles to be deleted and vote them up/down as quickly as possible so the otherside can't "win". The utter failure of the two group's attempts at compromise shows this issue must be taken out of their hands entirely, and a wider community concensus developed on these articles as a class. Note, that if this pause is not used by uninvolved editors to develop such a concensus (and the willingness to enforce it thereafter) this silly battle will just start up again. T L Miles (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Support for one month. Beyond 30 days I would oppose. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Support...kinda I opposed a blanket moratorium when it was proposed on WT:AFD (or someplace like that), because it seemed to me to be a tactical tool against opposition and a demand for inclusion masked by a call for consistency. I'm still worried that a similar freeze will result in the same outcome, but I don't really like the alternative. I will say that freezing these AfDs/articles and getting some centralized discussion will not resolve the dispute. I hate to shatter expectations here but the dispute isn't so much about the articles as it is about a philosophical stance regarding wikipedia. The articles themselves (like E&C articles before them and pokemon before them) are the impetus. we will not, at the end of 30 days, be any closer to agreement on where a line should be drawn demarcating the encyclopedia. At worst, we will sanction people who ignore this freeze and consider ourselves better off (the traditional DR result). At best we will come to some local agreement which respects BOTH sides as bringing points to the table. This "full speed ahead" crap or this "I think that nothing should be deleted" crap needs to be left out if any progress is to be made. I'm not optimistic, given that BOTH sides of the inclusion debate merrily torpedoed our last attempt at an amicable compromise over notability. But me being optimistic is not a necessary condition for action. Protonk (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Support suspending this ongoing battle I'm not bothered if this is for twelve or two-hundred months but this ongoing battling at AfD, DrV et al is draining on the community and forcing them to civilly engage or desist seems the best option. There are hundreds of articles in these groupings and by the looks of things at leats a few editors won't be happy until they can remove everyone they don't approve. I have little doubt we'll soon see a merging war as well so please consider a moritorium on that as well. Staying just within community standards is actually still violating the spirit of why we have standards including guidelines and policies. -- Banjeboi 20:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Support I propose that we form a committee of 2, DGG and Stifle, and let them come up with a way forward during those 30 days. (Oh, wait, they have lives elsewhere, damn). Seriously though, I do think the two of them could come up with something reasonable in a few hours. I personally think WP:N is the right way to go here. But the block voting is killer. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Oppose we don't have a consensus on why relationships are notable, and we will keep not having it if we can't test it at AfD and see how articles are saved. Also, this would artificially prevent the removal of any relation that totally fails to pass WP:N because of utter lack of any source talking about the relationship. And if it doesn't pass WP:N, then it won't pass any future guidelines interpreting WP:N, so why should it be kept. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Alternative Proposal How about a mass-removal of all these articles from the mainspace into a special userspace where those who like these articles can work on them in the meantime? They can be moved into the mainspace when some reasonable criteria are agreed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC) You want to move all of them? That sounds like it'll complicate matters. I don't think anyone could realistically think that Russia-United States relations should be temporarily erased from a main article space and it will never happen. There would just be a fruitless discussion about which articles should be moved that would mirror the current discussion about which articles should be deleted. I oppose this proposal.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Support I offered the same proposal and support it. It completely eliminates the problem and everyone is happy. The non-notable articles are out of the main space and none are deleted so if anyone wants to work on them they can. We don't even need a special userspace, I volunteer mine and I'll be glad to help move the articles. I should be able to do about two a minute or over 100 an hour so it is doable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Question some of them are perfectly OK by anyone's conceivable standpoint with respect to notability, eg Iraq – United States relations, so I suppose you mean that this be done instead of deletion in all cases? Or just that closers consider this more frequently? DGG (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's articles should remain in one place, one namespace. There are no special cases to be made for certain classes of articles; forking is not a solution. (You could create a bilateral relations wiki if you'd like, though.) Cenarium (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Many articles are drafted in userspace or project space. If the subject is notable the article should be in the mainspace, if the subject is not notable the article should be deleted, if the notability is unclear but there is a reasonable possibility it could be established through further editing, the article should be in user space or project space. In this case it would seem that project space would make the most sense. In fact we have WikiProjects with this in their scope, viz WikiProject International relations. Maybe a subpage or even a subproject of that project would be a good place to move these. Instead of a moratorium, we could continue with the current process but when an AFD consensus is unclear or particularly contentious move the article to project space for further work. When enough sources are available it could be moved back to the mainspace.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, but in those cases, project space or user space is used as a sandbox for creating articles, or a workplace for improvements. There are a few wikiprojects doing that, but they plan to move the content in mainspace eventually. Doing so couldn't address the issue of notability for those 41 209 potential articles, anyway, which is the main problem. Cenarium (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC) You are correct in your assessment of the problem. You need to divide by two for the potential number to account for Greece-Italy and Italy-Greece not being separate articles. The actual number is much lower. You may not realize that these articles were created by a now-banned user. Removing the articles from the main space would restore the status quo before that vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, actually it makes 20 503 articles by excluding relations with oneself (with 203 states, based on List of sovereign states). But that would be much work to move them somewhere else. And I don't see how it would address the main problem, their notability and the ensuing disputes, and there's the problem of which ones should be moved, I'm sure people would disagree and we may have arguments and maybe even move wars over this. Limiting the number of AFDs to give time to improve or merge those articles would be a better solution, in my opinion. Cenarium (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) As Cenarium says. Removing all is overkill and will cause lots of complaints. And I'm not sure that this makes a good predecende, with a whole class of articles being downgraded to a second-grade tier. And specially since some have managed to pass AFD with flying colors after being improved, so we would be degrading those too. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Proposed closing of consensus on June 17 Dear all, as Stifle started this ANI on June 10, I am proposing a non-involved admin to close this on June 17 and make a decision regarding on consensus of this proposal. If it is passed, I think the actual time of the proposal standstill is not clear as many editors differ on the timeframe. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I concur with this proposal. If there is a consensus to enact it, I intend to begin work on notability criteria for FBR articles (along the lines of "topics with features A, B, and C are presumed to be notable, topics with no features other than X, Y, and Z are presumed not to be notable, and anything in between is a matter for discussion in each individual case"). Stifle (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC) And just signing here to stop the bot archiving. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)