Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive250

More WP:BLP drama involving DRV

Two incidents tonight throw a little more fire on the ongoing war between DRV and BLP. First, User:David Gerard deleted and protected an article that DRV closed as restore history and redirect. Discussion here and here reveals the same arguments both sides have been using in this debate up till this point. The pro-DRV people are saying "we are following consensus and you are wheel warring" while the BLP-ists are saying "DRV is invalid plus respect for people's personal lives trumps everything else."

The second incident involves User:Tony Sidaway [closing] a DRV he voted in, and called the nomination "trollish" and "stupid" and subsequent revert warring over whether he should be allowed to close it after making such comments. The DRV itself also has other BLPists weighing in, with users such as (once again) David Gerard insisting BLP can be a speedy deletion criteria even in excess of CSD:A10 [1] and BLP being the ultimate end-all answer to keep an article deleted no matter how bad the deletion was. See also [[2]]. -N 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The issues concerning how BLP and related concerns should be addressed in connection with this general type of articles are extremely significant. I would prefer to see them discussed in the context of the relevant policy pages and as appropriate in specific cases, with an eye toward gathering experience and building consensus, rather than in the crucible of a multi-pronged and bitter arbitration case, but the latter is becoming more and more unavoidable if this keeps up. The excessive name-calling that continues to pour in from lots of experienced Wikipedians who should know better is not helping matters one bit. Newyorkbrad 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to see it discussed that way too, especially since I refuse to participate in arbitration cases. But Arbcom was unavoidable the first time someone said "No, you can't contest my BLP deletion!", because our dysfunctional dispute resolution process has absolutely no other way to impose sanctions on long-standing contributors who at least can make a believable claim that they are acting in good faith. -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, the problem is it's not being fought in appropriate cases. People on both sides are fighting battles over EVERY ARTICLE where the subject wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion without the one bad incident, even in cases where reliable sources are available ad infinitum and the articles are carefully written to avoid making disparaging comments beyond mere recitation of the facts. -N 01:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, the whole point is that the mere naming of the article after the subject of the one-off incident is a problem, because it's certain to be the number one hit on the search engines for their name. Wikipedia happens to be ridiculousy powerful on the net, and the BLP policy was put into place pretty much as an "or else" by Jimbo and the Foundation for damn good reason. That's why policy and practice ever since the introduction of WP:BLP was to shoot such articles on sight and shoot them again every time they rise again. I'm at a loss to understand how anyone ever got the idea it was otherwise, or that a DRV straw poll could override it - David Gerard 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(And by the way, WP:BLP came this close to mandating sympathetic point of view, in direct contradiction of the fundamental content policies, rather than being an expression of them. Check its early history - David Gerard 01:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

The way it's currently being interpreted, it pretty much does mandate sympathetic point of view. That's one of the fundamental problems with it. *** Crotalus *** 02:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what it mandates is that we don't allow our encyclopedia to be converted into an attack vector by way of "biographies" which use reams of wikitext to list every single possibly bad thing a person ever did, right down to the time they listed that $20 donation to the Salvation Army twice on their tax return. Minorly notable people who have only been in the public eye because of a single incident in their lives cannot possibly have balanced, encyclopedic biographies written about them and thus Wikipedia becomes a permanent Internet record of that single incident masquerading at their entire life. FCYTravis 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"BLP being the ultimate end-all answer to keep an article deleted no matter how bad the deletion was." You've stated it absolutely succinctly: product is more important than process. BLP is a content policy formed of fundamental content policies turned up to 11; DRV is a process aiming to work around problems of another process, AFD, to deal with maintenance - David Gerard 01:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I just want to see the cases not decided by those who would interpret the principle in the most restrictive possible way, which is the way things are being done now. The admin community, I believe, understands, agrees with, and believes in the principle, and should decide these in a consensus manner. The way things are being done now leads to not only incorrect decisions but also a REALLY LARGE amount of Wikidrama. Mangojuice^talk 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have to accurately demonstrate the BLP concerns. You don't get to say "BLP" and get your way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not agonise over these fripperies. This was my close and it will stand, proceduralism and wikilawyering notwithstanding. My only contribution was to give the community a chance to end the silliness now.

This isn't a hard discussion to close. There are living people involved here who have had no part in what happened to them--they were days old at the time. The arguments that say essentially "this subject should be covered" are valid. But we also have a policy on Biographies of living persons and its guiding principle is that of the hippocratic oath: first, do no harm.

This subject, that of the terrible damage caused by hospital mishaps, can be covered adequately without creating articles about individuals who have been the subject of such mistakes and must live with them. Wikipedia is a top ten website, and such entries would follow these blameless people wherever they might go.

Numerically there is already a clear consensus to endorse the deletion. Morally, and I do not use that word lightly, there are unimpeachable reasons to endorse without prejudice to the information being used, sensitively and with due attention to balance and privacy, in other article. But we do not have the material to write a biography. These are private individuals.

In the name of Wikipedia and in the spirit of the Biographies of living persons policy, this deletion stands. --Tony Sidaway 01:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If policy and consensus rule here, your decision will remain overturned. Who's side are you on? and why do you continue to cite a policy you've never read? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh a little bird told me to close it, and dictated the wording. I'm on your side, Jeff. --Tony Sidaway 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Could have fooled me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your closure and I would do it again. It is clearly inappropriate for you to close speedily, just as it would be for me to do it. The way, the truth, and the light 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was David Gerard's edit that you reverted. --Tony Sidaway 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not write an article on the hospital mishap itself, and make the two names as redirects to that article? *** Crotalus *** 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That might work. We could conceivably produce an article on the incident that did not unduly reveal personal identities, but cited reliable sources that may do (and in most cases necessarily so otherwise they wouldn't be much use). But then why would we keep the redirects? The individual identifies are not relevant to the case. --Tony Sidaway 02:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral deletion is not the way to make such a change. That's the whole point. The way, the truth, and the light 02:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What he said. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The close was not a deletion. The article has been deleted and there is a clear consensus to keep it deleted. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Now you're simply making things up. No legitimate deletion rationales have been given. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There quite clearly isn' If you would stop vote counting for a second you would notice that DRV is about deletion policy. The cited reason for deletion is quite clearly invalid - there was assertion of notability irrespective of wether you think it was notable or not. The second issue of BLP is clearly under attack as well - apart from the fact that that was not the reason given for the articles deletion in the first place. Viridae^Talk 02:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rightful aim is to be a respectable and freely-available academic resource and, as such, a force for global intellectual enlightenment. To become a theatre for gawking at the mishaps and misfortune of private citizens, or worse still a platform for their communal ridicule as with QZ, would be a gross and intolerable perversion of that goal.Proabivouac 02:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, none of us disagree with that goal. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't make the news, it only records it. We didn't cause QZ to become an internet meme. We didn't cause Crystal Gail Mangum to make a false accusation of rape and thus become notable. For us to fail to record those facts because they may be unpleasant is, in my opinion, a breach of that aim. The way, the truth, and the light 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Were we a news outlet, you'd have a very good point. To state a principle which should be obvious, merely appearing in the news does not make one notable enough to merit mention in a serious encyclopedia. Sources are a prerequisite, not the justification, for an article.Proabivouac 02:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty in this encyclopedia that is far too trivial for a normal encyclopaedia, but wikipedia is not govered by matters of space so ther si room here for an article on anything the community judge notable and can write about in an encyclopedic manner (NPOV, referenced). Similarly some of the community may find some topics to be too much fluff/too trivial so they are quite welcome to take the article to afd for disussion - but not delete it out of process citing bogus reasons. Viridae^Talk 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As an observation, the bio on Gail seems to meet WP:BIO on several points; WP:BIO is longstanding and has broad consensus. If people want WP:BLP to trump WP:BIO's generally-accepted guidelines on inclusion, they should bring up the issue there, as well. --Aquillion 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Biographies of living persons (BLP) is far more important, and has much stronger teeth, than Wikipedia:Notability (people) (BIO). This isn't an issue. BLP is, however, far more controversial than BIO. Obviously not having ever read BLP or BIO I cannot undertake the task of education. I can however predict the result of this struggle: BLP will win hands down, every time. Skimming the top of BIO, which is the most I ever do, I see this statement: "if the subject is living, we must follow our policy for biographies of living people." Being the brainless gadfly that I am, I assume that this ends the argument. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, WP:BIO doesn't really have much going for it against BLP; policies generally beat guidelines. What does is that Wikipedia is not censored. There is a difficult line to draw between the two. Mangojuice^talk 04:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but "not censored" has never meant "not edited." We exercise responsible editorial policies and selectivity in the subjects that we cover and how we cover those subjects. The fact that "Wikipedia is not censored" does not now and has never been interpreted as issuing a free pass to write anything on Wikipedia. FCYTravis 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) There are a number of things that concern me about this entire situation. Wikipedia is run by consensus. Not only the utter disregard for consensus, but the (seemingly) sheer contempt for the masses that some editors have shown, is deeply and utterly disturbing to me. While libel guidelines are important, they do not excuse unilateral action. While policy permits, and demands, that material failing the three core policies be removed from BLP articles, the actions under discussion here are of another scale and scope. The admin forum and biography noticeboard both provide appropriate places to discuss potentially controversial, disruptive or counter-consensus actions. No individual sysop has the ability to lay down office action-like demands. If after discussion on AN or BLP/N, there is a lack of clear support for the action, it should not be undertaken. The Foundation can be contacted if there is truly a BLP concern that both consensus and further on-wiki discussion have not addressed. There are plenty of appropriate avenues to take regarding these issues and they should be used. Of course, that's my own view and you're welcome to some salt with it. Vassyana 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the actions in question demonstrate that Wikipedia is maturing into a responsibly : written and edited encyclopedia. If there ever was a time when it was OK to write fundamentally and permanently unbalanced "biographies" of people on Wikipedia simply because "they're bad people" - well, that time is over. The article on Crystal was the account of her creation of an unfortunate and scandalous newsworthy incident, along with whatever other tidbits that reporters dug up could be found to insert. That is patently not a biography. A true biography would involve multiple interviews, lengthy research and repeated trips through editorial review, and would be written so as to place that incident in context within her entire life. There is no published biography of her to provide such a source, and we can't do it ourselves - thus, we cannot have a biography of her. It's just that simple. FCYTravis 04:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please. If that is the new requirement for biographies in Wikipedia, you will need to delete over 90% of the biographies, because most of them don't have bloody books written on them. That's not realistic. Horologium talk - contrib 05:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what? Maybe we should. We cannot create entire biographies for people based on news reporting surrounding a single incident in their lives. That's not how biographies are written in the real world, and Wikipedia exists in the real world. FCYTravis 05:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are establishing a standard that does not exist in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Articles about people are biographical, but there is no standard that says they must be proper literary biographies. The standards say that outside sources must have treated them as worthy of notice, that the information included in verifiable in reliable sources and that the presentation is a neutral reporting of the available facts. Additionally, I hardly find it to be a sign of maturity when people take it upon themselves against the rules and principles of Wikipedia to enforce their view of a rule. WP:AN allows sysops to confer openly with other sysops. WP:BLP/N allows an admin to seek consultation on BLP issues. The Wikimedia Foundation has a process for reporting and resolving BLP concerns that cannot be resolved through consensus and discussion. What requires the need to short circuit these available avenues? Vassyana 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"A neutral reporting of the available facts" is no longer enough. Articles about people which focus entirely on a single negative incident and fail to place that person's actions into context are fundamentally unbalanced and place undue weight on negative aspects of their lives. If we cannot create an article which encyclopedically and biographically explains a person's entire life, not a single incident in their life, we should not pretend to have article on them. "Good enough for now" is no longer acceptable when it comes to living people. FCYTravis 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

None of this explains why existing avenues of discussion and appeals to the Foundation need to be short-circuited. Our policies and guidelines additionally do not reflect a position as strict as you espouse. Again, what creates the need to ignore consensus and available avenues of recourse? Vassyana 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation is MIA. In an ideal world, they would be combing through all this cruft and removing all potentially libelous or otherwise damaging material about living people. Here in the real world, if we won't do it, it will, in the best case scenario, ultimately be done for us by some combination of lawyers, legislators and journalists. In the worst case scenario, it won't be, and we'll wind up hurting a lot of innocent people.Proabivouac 06:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Foundation is still replying to legitimate BLP concerns sent to them. Removing all potentially damaging material is hardly ideal. Should the articles of convicted murderers (as a clear example) have all mention of their wrongdoing removed because it is damaging to their reputation? BLP already allows, and has allowed, the immediate removal of poorly-sourced negative information to protect people from unfair accusations and false statements. There is no good reason, outside of clear speedy deletion or BLP violation, for well-sourced articles to be deleted against consensus without open discussion and other available options. Vassyana 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "As far as I'm aware, the Foundation is still replying to legitimate BLP concerns sent to them."

Just because someone isn't currently aware of a Wikipedia article about them or hasn't yet complained to the Foundation doesn't mean we're not responsible for what we publish from now until they are/do.Proabivouac 07:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I never said we were not responsible for it. On the contrary, I have repeatedly said that there are avenues that already address this. Again, what requires a need for unilateral action outside of policy against consensus, without using the other avenues of resolution available? Vassyana 07:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus takes time to obtain under the best circumstances, and this conversation is proof that the community's decisions - especially when hobbled by a view of "consensus" which asks for considerably more than a simple majority - don't reliably produce the appropriately responsible answer. Most cruft has a constituency which can produce a local bloc large enough to thwart a "consensus," if not a majority. This is bad enough when the material is merely flippant and irrelevant, but unacceptable when the well-being of innocent people is concerned. At the end of the day, and in the real world, "but there was consensus on Wikipedia!" isn't really much of an argument compared to "I lost my job due to false rumors," "my son committed suicide due to constant ridicule," etc., anymore than is, "but it was ultimately deleted after our elaborate processes had taken their due course!"Proabivouac 07:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If it were false rumours, the material could be immediately removed for being poorly-sourced negative claims. That would be well within policy. If something has multiple non-trivial reliable sources, to be a bit cold, it doesn't really matter how the subject feels about it, provided we properly report what sources say about the person. I am sure a lot of people would like that kind of information to go away. I'm sure Michael Jackson doesn't want the coverage of child abuse allegations, for example. You can argue all you like that M Jackson is somehow different because he is famous. Notability is not fame. He is still a human being with the same feelings as other human beings. However, it is a subject covered in multiple non-trivial sources, so there's little to no question that it fits out inclusion criteria. I will again ask: What requires these issues to be handled outside of policy, outside of process, outside of on-wiki discussion and outside of the available appeal to the Foundation, when these avenues are available? Vassyana 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What? I think you're linking to the wrong page: the relevant page for libel is Wikipedia:Libel. --bainer (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that page. I apologize for being less than clear. The strict guidelines found in BLP are founded on concerns of libel, hence my allusion. Vassyana 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to take this time to point out these recent edits by Tony, one of which is in my userspace. He blanked userboxes in userspace protesting out-of-process deletions: diff on User:Disavian/Userboxes/Out of Process; diff on User:CharonX/Userboxes/User admins ignoring policy. Both of the edits had the edit summary, "This user is against inflammatory userboxes." Now, these userboxes had nothing to do with the ongoing BLP "fight" (for lack of a better word); they refer to the mass userbox deletions on anything that was remotely inflammatory around the time WP:TGS was invented and implemented. Now, I know there's no policy that says someone can't edit another person's userspace, and that inflammatory content may be deleted, but I think these edits violate WP:DICK and that the boxes are hardly inflammatory. Silencing someone else's respectfully stated viewpoint is no way to argue your point. In summary, I'd prefer it if all of this BLP drama stayed out of my userspace... but I fear that is too much to ask. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... that's not BLP drama, that's idiocy. I'm quite frankly at a loss to why someone won't just block him for disruption (but I do know it won't happen). -Amarkov moo! 05:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure, i'm thinking about making that block right now. DES ^(talk) 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now I'm really annoyed that I've sworn never to begin an RfC. The problem is, I know I have a good reason for it, and it's not worth violating to get disruptive things stopped faster. -Amarkov moo! 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Though I personally feel nearly all userboxes useless at best, at least those are related to Wikipedia, and, though I utterly disagree with their editorial statements, I do not find them particularly inflammatory.

However, I cannot see neither how these edits would merit a block, or what they have to do with this discussion. Restore and ignore.Proabivouac 05:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

After I copied a bunch of userboxes to my userspace oh so long ago, I've put them aside and focused on real editing. Sometimes I wish I'd never gotten involved in TGS, but while I've got 'em, I might as well do a little to maintain them, ya know? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, these ubx's are stupider then most. Thank him next time. -M^ask? 05:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read through two DRV's this whole thing, all the links in here that weren't to policies i'd read before, some policy, and at the end, as a regular editor and as a regular observer here, I see Tony Sidway getting away with BLP = IAR, consensus be damned, with a big fat side of 'And if you don't like it, I'll delete your obvious sign of opposition, so PH3AR me'. This is a very disappointign showing to a regular editor. Sure looks unethical that Tony got into the DRV with a clear intent, and ignored the massive discussion and, as I saw it, reasonably balanced number of people on each side, to get his way. the fact that those on his side were eventually resorting to 'sod off' instead of discussion hardly does anything to make me more sympathetic to their side. Like another editor above, I know Tony won't even have a handprint on his own hand for this, much less serious review, but there's one more editor who sees less and less good every day when it comes to admins policing each other. The blue wall's building here. ThuranX 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still have to accurately demonstrate the BLP concerns. You don't get to say "BLP" and get your way. I couldn't agree more. It worries me that so many experienced Wikipedians are using BLP as an excuse to ignore others and do as they want. Unless the material is libellous, then this kind of decision should be open for discussion and debate. We shouldn't have biographies on some people, sure, but we do have to draw a line somewhere, and this line is not clear-cut. And the debates should be conducted fairly, which includes not being closed by people involved. There seems to be a belief with the BLPers that their actions can (and even should) completely circumvent any normal procedure - speedying sourced articles, early closing any debate involving DRV, closing debates they're involved in, etc. Even if their POV is right (which it often is), the way they're going about it seems designed to piss off everyone who disagrees with them. Would it hurt so much to follow process occasionally (particularly when the article itself has been deleted, so there's no immediate BLP concerns)? Would it not save time in the long run by avoiding tiresome meta-discussions on the validity of previous discussions? Just because you're convinced you're right, doesn't mean you're not sometimes wrong (in the eyes of the rest of the community). Trebor 08:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You suggest "There seems to be a belief with the BLPers that their actions can (and even should) completely circumvent any normal procedure." This is the case if the situation is grave enough. You can take them to arbitration if you think they're getting it wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• In one of these cases, the one I submitted for review, I don't think the situation qualified as "grave" enough to bypass the AFD process. I find it troubling that administrators are apparently so highhanded and feel they have a right to bypass the usual procedure that would allow for discussion and a consensus vote. I think speedy deletion is appropriate in cases where there is clear libel of the subject or where no sources are provided. I've nominated articles for speedy deletion in those cases or where notability was in question. None of those criteria were met here, in my opinion. I am glad that Tony Sidaway or someone else decided to overturn his original decision to close that review and allowed the discussion to continue. I also appreciated Tony Sidaway's apology for calling my nomination of the speedy deletion for review as "trollish" and "stupid." --Bookworm857158367 22:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  It was certainly incredibly stupid. I apologise for implying that any malice might have been involved in this instance. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but the situation isn't grave once it's at DRV. The article is no longer there, so there's no immediate problem. There should then be an opportunity to review the decision. The problem is when you decide that you can also force through the review by closing it yourself. Discussion is good (unless you're suggesting you're infallible at this). Since when were we encouraged to go straight to arbitration? Trebor 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I echo that. I think David Gerard should be commended for a one hundred percent correct decision. Whether BLP was invoked for a good enough reason certainly can be debated further, but DRV is not a supreme court of deletion, and the decision can still be appealed to and overruled by the Arbitration Committee. El_C 20:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The right to appeal BLP decisions to ArbCom (if that were the only way, which it isn't) would seem a bit vacuous these days, considering that even when Doc & Tony (representing one extreme) and Jeff (representing the other) want them to accept a case, they teeter on the edge of refusing it. Fortunately we still have DRV, which can't override BLP policy, but is fully empowered to decide what things have BLP implications and what things don't, just like any other place where editors seek consensus. Vadder 22:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is not competent, nor is it empowered, to determine what does and does not fall under the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I understand that you don't think it's competent, but then you don't think anything which disagrees with you is, making that description fairly useless. But since when was deletion review not empowered to review deletions? Show me anywhere where it says BLP deletions can't be appealed except to ArbCom (who don't do content disputes anyway, so I'm not sure why we'd be supposed to take it there). Trebor 11:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not explaining myself more clearly. Deletion review may review deletions. However my statement did not say that it could not. I said that "Deletion review is not competent, nor is it empowered, to determine what does and does not fall under the Biographies of living persons policy." I hope that makes things clearer. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Any admin may hit an emergency BLP button, and if/when they invoke it, then it's up to the AC to approve or disapprove (including desysoping). El_C 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the arbcom hasn't spoken yet, let alone said this. It seems as though you're asserting that no other admin has the right to reverse such an action even if consensus backs them up. That's rather disturbing as we know that even if arbcom takes this case, it surely won't be willing to review every such. The way, the truth, and the light 00:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And another

The DRV closed improperly last night (here) was closed again properly as 'undelete and list'. 30 minutes later, this was reversed and the articles deleted again. The way, the truth, and the light 01:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reported my actions to arbcom, and am willing to defend them there.--Doc^g 01:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As per your talk page, that re-close was quite ridiculous. There is nothing in BLP that stops these articles. Viridae^Talk 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is consensus to overturn, may I add?--Wizardman 01:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See my closing reason. I was not being the judge of consensus, the close was procedural upon consultation with the deleting admin who had admitted her (honest) mistake in deleting something as an A7 when it is not. Viridae^Talk 03:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even Badlydrawnjeff is now saying your closure was out of process. So, I guess it was right of me to undelete.--Doc^g 03:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, if the DRV closes again with the same result, undeletion would be in order. And we know how you feel about that. The way, the truth, and the light 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is there consensus to delete? Not a single worthwhile delete argument has been made. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc did the right thing. He will not be sanctioned for this. Viridae, please carefully consider your responsibilities as an administrator on a top ten website. Treating such obviously problematic articles as routine "procedural" cases is not the right path. --Tony Sidaway 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop already, Tony. Unless you have evidence that the articles were problematic, of course, which ahsn't been forthcoming. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The problematic nature of these articles is not in question. It has been very widely discussed and is fundamental to the Biographies of living persons policy. --Tony Sidaway 04:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is patently false. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no. Do you want the brief explanation or the full one? The brief explanation is "Wikipedia is not Jeffopedia", the full explanation is that the subjects of the articles are private individuals who were only newsworthy because they were switched at birth. This isn't a tabloid newspaper and we don't do human interest stories, and we most certainly are not about to invade these people's privacy by putting an imprimatur on articles in their name. The material can be used, with due respect for their privacy, in appropriate articles in the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is why it's patently false - your policy analysis is akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat in this case. We are incapable of invading their privacy, as we write from sources. If it were unsourced, you wouldn't see me complaining as much, if at all depending. You must read the policy for anyone other than disruptive people to take you seriously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, you forgot about the part where these news stories, such as they are, were forgotten along with all the rest of yesterday's news - or they would have been, except for the fact that Wikipedia had articles on the two people purporting to be "biographies," meaning that anyone browsing one of the world's top-10 Web sites could stumble over their whole sordid history with a few mouse-clicks for all of eternity. FCYTravis 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an overly-detailed article on Terri Schiavo, an article for Michael Schiavo. Should these not be deleted also? Gtrevize 04:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the above is deceased and both became involved in a major public debate over the right to die which involved everyone up to and including the United States Supreme Court. These two boys... were not. Next? FCYTravis 04:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Bartman, Juanita Broaddrick, Brian Chase, Dog poop girl (photo), Trisha Meili, Shazia Khalid, Earl Washington Jr.? 24.118.58.205 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From a quick glance, Broaddrick and Meili are clearly encyclopedic biography subjects - Broaddrick publicly accused the president of the United States of rape, while Meili is a rape victim who has written a memoir and speaks publicly about overcoming sexual assaults. Washington, Jr. is probably a candidate to be merged into an article on overturned capital murder cases. The article on Bartman is probably far too detailed, and should either be ruthlessly cut down or merged. FCYTravis 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The incident is notable... the people aren't. Their "biographies" are basically only about the incident... another one (from the same article) William Hammesfahr. Gtrevize 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite debatable as to whether we should have a separate article on Mr. Hammesfahr. That article, we should take a look at merging. Maybe there's enough to merit a full bio, maybe not. FCYTravis 05:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that sometimes notability overrides privacy. In that case, what level of notability is sufficient is a legitimate question. The way, the truth, and the light 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We also consider the fact that Mr. Schiavo made repeated public statements on his own behalf, and has now written a book about his experiences. He is in no way an unwilling participant. These two boys have not done anything to place themselves in the public eye - the only reason they are known is that their mothers filed lawsuits. FCYTravis 05:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And Schiavo differs from QZ...how? He may have not been originally willing, but he certainly is attempting to capitalize upon it now, as an adult. Horologium talk - contrib 06:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything about QZ? FCYTravis 07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is of course the same issue as with QZ and Mangum, both of whom are clearly more notable than this. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) :Some questions. When does notability overcome privacy? When there notability for only one event, or a very limited set of circumstances, where is the line between the event being notable and people being notable for the event? What is the line between unflattering sourced information and harmful sourced information? On merging as a solution to claimed harm, won't the name and incident still rank high in search engines if the data is there, regardless of the name of the article? How does merging minimize and/or prevent harm? Thanks for you time and consideration. Vassyana 11:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't think any simple policy will suffice for all cases. I don't see the problem in reaching consensus on a case-by-case basis. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The DRV has been closed again, by uninvolved admin Kurykh. This is probably the most reasonable outcome at this point, though it does not justify the disruptive out-of-process deletions. The way, the truth, and the light 16:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in a discussion at the Virginia Tech massacre pages about the appropriate way to write articles like that. It seems that what happens is that in the initial news frenzy, the articles gets extremely bloated, and people write minute-by-minute accounts of what happens, including trying to find lists of all the injured (ie. still living) people. I'm ambivalent enough enough about the inclusion of gory details of how the individuals in question died (that should be toned right down, in my opinion), but including details of how the injured got injured was way too much. It seems that eventually such articles get revisited and cut down to size again, but there should be a way to control such editing frenzies. Otherwise Wikipedia just looks like a sensationalist tabloid news site. Carcharoth 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:77.176.245.163 alleges that Merkey's edit warring again

Despite having been warned, having appeared here twice for exactly this behaviour, Having an Communit Sanction proposed, and an RfC... [3] and surrounding edits.77.176.245.163 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagging sections and asking for citations is not edit warring. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, but deleting content, as in the diff linked above, when that content makes it perfectly clear that the Southern Cherokee Nation is not federally recognised, purely because that content contains the words "Southern Cherokee Nation", and despite it being in perfect context with the relevant part of the article, is. You have repeatedly stated that you will delete any references to the Southern Cherokee Nation on sight. And there you are, doing it.

If they are referred to as "Southern Cherokee Group" its ok. "Nation", "Tribe", or "Band" implies Federal Recognition. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 18:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The text in the diff above that you removed even states there was an attempt to get recognition for a "Southern Cherokee Nation" (with quotes!), so even if "Nation" implies recognition, it is understood in that context that it is not recognized. BTW, anyone can call themselves a "Nation", whether recognized or not. What something is called is what it's called, and if that conflicts with the federal government's idea, so be it. Lexicon (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See the article on Micronation for some interesting examples. *Dan T.* 12:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this belongs here or elsewhere, but I'd like to submit a couple diffs, and as what is the next step for the dispute between Mr. Merkey and I (and others?). Mr. Merkey has a viewpoint of WP:V which says that in matters related to the Cherokee, only the US government and representatives of the three Cherokee tribes recognized by the US government can be used as reliable sources, while my interpretation is more broad (I wish to include academic and reputable news sources (using these as examples so as to be clear that I am not wishing to include websites and self published sources)). He and I discussed this issue on Talk:Cherokee, as well as on his talk page (relevant diffs of our discussion here and here, although more can be read at Cherokee's talk page). In the end, He decided that he did not wish to enter into one of the wikipedia based dispute resolution channels, and recommended that I edit freely. Having done so (much to his ire), he has reverted a number of edits, with a focus on his concept of WP:V, a particular example being this. This conflict makes it very hard to edit Cherokee, although it must be said that Mr. Merkey has a record of very strong edits. Given his refusal to go through dispute resolution, I am not sure what my next course of action is, and I bring this here mostly for dispute resolution advice. However, the nature of the dispute is relevant to the incident at issue, and perhaps understanding the dispute as a difference of opinion on WP:V will better help the community deal with the situation. Thank you, Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's pretty extensive discussion of these issues on Talk:Cherokee, which I haven't read fully, but it looks like Merkey has an odd interpretation of WP:V and some WP:OWN issues. Peer-reviewed academic material is almost always a good source for an article. Mediation could be helpful here, if we can persuade Merkey to participate. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and we were very close to agreeing on mediation with this comment. But then he archived his talk page, and further discussions on potential mediation were rebuffed. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) has been actively participating in our normal dispute resolution processes, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2. Please do likewise. Uncle G 00:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't sure if that RfC wasn't a separate enough issue that I shouldn't get involved there. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Uncle G's advice, I have placed my comment at the RfC discussion page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking only at this discussion, and taking for now no opinion on the substance of the dispute, I see User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey civilly and rationally discussing his area of expertise as would a serious academic. and I am at a loss to see why he has been demonized on this noticeboard.Proabivouac 07:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He's up and down when it comes to civility towards me (see edit summary "remove non-indian wannabee author and false misleading materials about how "I wannabee and indian" story - no evidence author is Native or knows the culture. Spam ref." regarding author Louis Owens), but he is rightfully indigent when being harassed. This is a difficult case because Mr. Merkey is being very patient and as polite as he can with respect to the harassment he relieves, but then some of his ideas and edits make it difficult for other polite editors to work. I'm not sure his ideas about verification are ones that would be associated with a serious academic, but they are very sensible when one looks at him as a sort of activist. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if I looked further into the matter, I would arrive at the same conclusion. Some of his diffs, as presented in the RfC, are clearly problematic. However - and I think we both agree on this - I cannot see what here should require the immediate attention of an administrator, beside the appearance of anonymous attacks against him on this noticeboard; these should be removed on sight.Proabivouac 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these "incidents" haven't been very substantial (and, as SqueakBox suggested, the RfC seems spurious as well). I've been in discussion with him about his interpretation of policy, and have tried not to get involved with the harassment type stuff, and I only brought my earlier statement here as a request that someone who knows more than I give me/us some advice how we can get through our dispute, especially as he's stubborn to enter mediation (perhaps understandably so, given his experience in mediation has been mostly through bad faith accusations against him). Plus, if I am completely wrong, perhaps it would be easiest just to have an experienced admin let me know. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mycroft.Holmes block

Per [4] User:Mycroft.Holmes was improperly blocked by admin User:BrendelSignature. The case lists four reverts, but the four reverts were outside of a 24 hour time period, and therefore, there is no violation of WP:3RR, which is what the user was blocked for, as proved [5]. I am suggesting the Mycroft.Holmes should be unblocked as this was an unwarranted blocking for no violation. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the spirit of 3rr is to discourage blocks. It isn't a license allowing 3 reverts/day. -- Cat ^chi? 20:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

the reverts are near enough to a 24hr period that I would suggest that clearly falls under Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. . At worst, this is going to make that editor more inclined to talk things out - let it stand I say. --Fredrick day 20:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Mycroft has been a revert warrior at Parma, Ohio for years. (yes, as in over 12 months). Given that I think that block was fine.--Wizardman 20:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The User:Brya socks in general

I am running through all of the plant families, then will move on the plant taxonomy articles, using the categories to find them. I found another Brya sock. The socks are obvious, not clever, they do exactly what Brya did, he/she doesn't try to hide the fact that the account is an obvious sock of a more experienced Wikipedia user, and none of them protest being blocked. The edits are rather elaborate Bryafications of plant taxa and plant taxonomy articles.

Is this usual, that people with blocked accounts produce multiple socks (4 found so far) and make a few edits? What's the point?

Is there anything that can or should be done other than labeling or blocking all the socks as they are discovered? She/he is quite busy doing pretty much what got him banned at other language Wikipedias, the difficult writing (which caused us to think the user was a non-native speaker of English, but the user uses English in all his/her non-English wiki accounts, just difficult, jargon laced, incomprehensible English that must all be edited here), changing everything to APG II (something I would like to do in en.wiki taxoboxes, but the community disagrees with) without consensus or community input--the latter going on right now on commons.

Is there any preventative for this, to get User:Brya to stop making the sock puppets? I think I know the answer to my own question, but I would love to learn otherwise.

Thanks.

KP Botany 03:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The only solution is to have the IP address blocked. Ask at WP:CHECK to have this done - at the lower section, I believe. Od Mishehu 08:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. That had not occured that he/she might be using the same IP with each sock puppet. Probably, as the socks make no attempt whatsoever to hide the Brya identity. KP Botany 18:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Mishehu! The check revealed a total of 13 socks, 9 in addition to the four I found[6]--all socks doing obscure edits in areas of taxonomy/nomenclature that botany folks don't often visit, although I see one editor has been tailing the various Brya socks and reverting most of the edits. The folks at WP:Check blocked and tagged all of the socks, so all the botany folks have to do is revert the edits as necessary. KP Botany 00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppetry

Based on a routine CheckUser of a vandal account, I Heart Vandalism (talk · contribs), it has been conclusively determined that this is the same person as Rackabello (talk · contribs), MostCover (talk · contribs), and ThaBigCunt (talk · contribs), at least one of which appears to be a regular editor. Also see Special:Undelete/Mighty Morphin Red Sox Rangers. Administrator attention requested. Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All blocked indef.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if they were not socks, I would have blocked due to username violations. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's the place to get the template he created deleted? Mangoe 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott

I am trying to "update" all my older sigs with the aid of an approved bot in the aftermath of my username change.

• [7] Ned Scott reverts bot edit at My own RFA (4th)
• [8] Ned Scott reverts manual edit at My own RFA (4th)
• [9] Ned Scott reverts manual edit at My own RFA (4th)

User is revert waring over me updating my sigs including on pages like my own RFA. User has a history of involvement with me even on a wiki he has very little involvement with (see: commons contribs commons:User talk:Ned Scott or Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/Cool Cat (03) (admin only access) (deletion log)). He also has a lesser history with me here: [10] , [11]. I find the users current tone unnecessarily uncivil and dense.

I know signatures are not worth fighting over much less revert war over. I however find Ned Scott's involvement disruptive due to his past history with me.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to be changing your sig on archive pages, where it potentially places the conversation out of context? --tjstrf talk 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See the WOPR section here. I do not believe altering a sig can place the conversation out of context in any way. -- Cat ^chi? 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by that link, I see I'm not the only one with this concern.

Yes, the sig replacement can indeed place a conversation out of context, since it no longer links to your name as User:Cool Cat, resulting in confusion if someone refers to you by that name in the course of your conversation. The redirect avoids this problem, but only if the archive still contains the redirect link.

So yes, stupid edit war, but please stop editing archived discussions in a potentially harmful manner. --tjstrf talk 11:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please! How is "cat out" any more in context than "Cat ^chi?"? I will be renaming the rfas too in due time. Revert wars such as the one quoted here slow down my speed though. How is it useful to anybody for Ned Scott to revert war with a bot and later me over my sig? -- Cat ^chi? 11:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In that sense, changes of this kind are even more ridiculous. Is everyone allowed to their old signature in archives at whim were there not even a username change? Also, yes people would still refer to people by the username shown on mouseover. —Centrx→talk • 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes everyone is allowed to change their sigs unless explicitly prohibited. People have done this before and its beyond logic why some people are making a big fuss over it. Not everyone has popups, I certainly don't. -- Cat ^chi? 19:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think anyone who wants can simply change their signature, not even their username, and make 5,000 edits to talk archives each time to do so? "Everyone is allowed to do something unless explicitly prohibited" is on Wikipedia is not correct, but regardless the redirect policy is explicit about the use of redirects and policies on talk pages and archives are explicit about not editing archives and mutating old discussions. —Centrx→talk • 19:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If they want to press the edit button 5000 times, sure. I do not think there is any policy/guideline basis to oppose my edits. You really have no reason to waste your time on something this cosmetic. -- Cat ^chi? 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The changes you are making are cosmetic. Keeping erroneous text out of talk pages is not. Also, you have completely neglected to address the places where your edits are explicitly prohibited, specifically Wikipedia:Redirects, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, Template:Talkarchive, and contraindicated, specifically Wikipedia:Signatures. —Centrx→talk • 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those policies apply as I explained why on my talk page. Please do not post the same thing on multiple locations. -- Cat ^chi? 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat -> User:White Cat signature changes

I have to agree with Ned Scott and tjstrf on this issue. There's no good reason to alter your sig in archives. I understand that it would be nice to have old sigs take on the new appearance, but this is just a cosmetic concern. If someone believes it was inappropriate to alter your sig on a certain page and reverts the change, it's probably best to leave that one as is. ChazBeckett 12:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I should have a detailed rationale to make "cosmetic" changes to my signature. It is my signature and the change is as you point out cosmetic. Hence there is no reason for anyone to revert this. This is a non-issue. -- Cat ^chi? 12:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On the majority of pages it probably will be a non-issue. However, if the change is contested on certain pages, just let it be. I believe that maintaining the integrity of an archive (by this I mean keeping it exactly as it was) is more important than cosmetic changes to a signature. The fact that at least three users have now expressed concerns about your changes should be evidence that this is not simply a non-issue. ChazBeckett 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is being silly now. Arguments are now "because we say so". Why arent archive pages automaticaly full protected then? Also your argument doesn't explain this edit. user is being disruptive. You do not "raise a concern" via a revert war. You use the proper means of dispute resolution which of course does not include a revert war. -- Cat ^chi? 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this has become silly. Look, you've changed what, 98% of your old signatures? Are the remaining 2% important enough to make a big fuss over? The reasoning isn't that "we said so", it's that archived pages should remain as they were when they were archived. If someone doesn't mind their user talk archives being changed, no problem. If some users object to changing RfA or xfD archives, leave those ones alone. Shouldn't be a big issue, but you seem to be trying to hardest to make it one. Please, if your sig change is reverted, move on. ChazBeckett 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Half of Ned Scott's reverts are not on archive pages. "The big fuss" is because someone is revert waring rather senselessly stating that they will not be tollerated. -- Cat ^chi? 12:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone given any serious example of where this change would make a conversation potentially confusing? It seems a little silly to be opposing a user's control over his own name simply because you can think of some possible scenario where it might be of some inconvenience to someone who really wanted to read archived material. --Haemo 13:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In this specific instance, the block log of his old sig (User:Cool Cat) did not carry over to the block log of his new name (User:White Cat). Someone clicking the new sig would not see the blocks of the user who actually posted the comment in the archive. ChazBeckett 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at my userpage I am linking to that very log. My block log from last year however wont be very useful to anyone. That still does not affect why I can't change my signature. I second Haemo's assessment. -- Cat ^chi? 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Put bluntly, your block log is a mile long and is very relevant to your account, whether you change your name or not. Also, the link on your user page to your block log is broken. ChazBeckett 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also include a link to the block log of your original account (User:Coolcat), which also seems to have gotten lost along the way. Thanks, ChazBeckett 13:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If he's linking to it, I don't see the problem, therein. --Haemo 13:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Un-indent)First, the link to his block log on his user page is broken (although easily fixed). Second, to find this block log they have to visit his user page and read the description. So if someone is reading an archive and clicks on his modified sig's user talk link they'll end up at User talk:White Cat. There's no way of telling that the User:Cool Cat account, with its mile long block log actually made the comment. Normally the redirect message at the top of page would perform this fucntion. In a way, this mass sig changing is serving to erase history. See the problem now? ChazBeckett 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Serving to erase history? Talk about paranoia. I am "taking" responsibility of my past edits by doing this. Also who isn't aware of my username change by now? If someone is reviewing my history I would expect them to at the very least take a glance at my userpage. -- Cat ^chi? 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The redirect message is what informs people that a username change may have occurred. "Oh, I clicked on User:Cool Cat and now I'm redirected to User:White Cat. He may have changed his name." Altering old sigs removes this hint. ChazBeckett 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats really ridiculous. This isn't the median for this. You are welcome to propose a policy over it. -- Cat ^chi? 14:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's not an archive or an otherwise "closed" conversation, I personally don't see a big problem with changing the signature, but I still don't think it's worth fighting over if someone else does (have a problem). ChazBeckett 13:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how a debate being archived or closed matter in my control of my signature. All archives are copyrighted under GFDL which allows modifications legally. Archive pages are not protected, have you wondered why? -- Cat ^chi? 13:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a legal matter. Under the GFDL, vandalism is "legal". Under the GFDL you would be free to simply delete all your comments just as much as you would be free to change your signature. The issue is whether doing so is appropriate on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 19:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Do not freaking alter the title of this case. This is a review request on User:Ned Scott's conduct NOT mine. -- Cat ^chi? 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a subsection for the more general discussion of this issue. ChazBeckett 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least he moved his page, so he can keep MARMOT's vandalbot in the history, of course that really should be a matter of pride. — MichaelLinnear 18:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a point? My userpage was moved automatically. -- Cat ^chi? 19:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the signature should be changed really but reverting these changes? That's utterly useless and serves no purpose. Yonatan ^talk 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The changing username thingie didn't mentioned if White Cat is allowed to do this or not; the only thing I saw was that sigs had to be changed manually to reflect the new username. But honestly, I believe a redirect would have been easier and a short explaination on the top of White Cat's userpage and talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The redirect already exists. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The purpose is to keep the talk page discussions intact. It is no more purposeless than reverting someone who simply deletes a section on the talk page, or who changes their comments on a talk archive. It defeats the purpose of having a talk archive. —Centrx→talk • 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For user page archives, the user should have a choice to keep the signature change or not (I have chosen not to, since I know about the username change). But for the articles, I see you point so they should be left alone, since White Cat's userpage has the information I talked about earlier). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Talked about earlier? Where? I really feel the logic of the approach is flawed. Archive pages' content should be preserved and I am not altering the discussions themselves in any way. Syntax of the signature is not a part of the discussion's content. Logs of my edits are already altered. Aside from User talk:Zscout370 all my contribs have been moved under "White Cat". There no longer is a "Cool Cat (talk · contribs)", as it is my former username. -- Cat ^chi? 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Keeping talk page discussions intact isn't some golden rule. If somebody changes a signature, it shouldn't be automatically reverted as it isn't the changing the contents of the discussion (and nobody's gonna be mislead in any way by this change). It is much more purposeless as the contents of the discussion remain pretty much the same. Maybe the changes shouldn't be made in the first place but reverting them is even more pointless than the change in the first place. Yonatan ^talk 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So if someone refers to "Cool Cat" in the discussion, how is the reader going to know who they are referring to? In this case they might assume that "White Cat" was the same "Cat", but maybe not and anyway that is so peculiar a case that it cannot be a general principle. —Centrx→talk • 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone commenting from the outside, I think brining this issue here is beyond lame, if someone wants to change his/her signature, just let it be, why revert someone just because someone wants to change a signature. Go back to writing encyclopedia. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think this is definately WP:LEW material. --Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It is so lame it isn't even funny :D -- Cat ^chi? 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, if you want to see what a page (and its signatures) looked like at the time of the discussion, then look in the page history. It is terribly easy to fall into the trap of thinking that an archive page is an accurate representation of what the page looked like back then, but this is a wiki and that assumption would be wrong. However, I disagree with changing sigs like this, as the real issue here is that when people read references to "Cool Cat" in a conversation littered with stuff signed by "White Cat". That will be terribly, terribly confusing. Having said that, I too edit archive pages, especially when I see them appearing in cat due to improperly used templates that should have been either linked or substituted, instead of transcluded. Carcharoth 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I'm sure White Cat will be happy not to edit any archived discussion in which he's referred to by his old name (or alternatively, if there's agreement, he can change the reference to his old name to a reference to his new name, then again, I doubt there will be agreement on this). Yonatan ^talk 01:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he's insisting on it now, but Cool Cat now wants his old userpage deleted to no longer include it's redirect, which will make for confusion on sigs that were reverted from his update. Seems pointy. He's now trying to get the redirect speedy deleted, despite the lack of an appropriate CSD. Does the 3RR apply to removing bad speedy tags? -- Ned Scott 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are pointy... -- Cat ^chi? 01:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSD#U1 applies as far as I know... Yonatan ^talk 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

U1 instructs one to see Wikipedia:User_page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? for further guidelines, which says:

"...if there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information. If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page."

-- Ned Scott 01:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And over 2,000 pages still link to User:Cool Cat. Many of these links are not apart of Cat's sig. -- Ned Scott 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

People have gotten their userpages or former userpages deleted before. You are explicitly prohibited from removing {{db}} tags btw. -- Cat ^chi? 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Things like a right to vanish don't really apply when you are not vanishing. Other users delete their userpage, but while still using that account. The reason your userpage should still contain a redirect is to point out that when people talk and link to "Cool Cat" they know who is being talked about. -- Ned Scott 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And as I've already said, you were incorrectly applying the speedy delete tag the moment the redirect was recreated. Removing incorrect speedy tags is done all the time. -- Ned Scott 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously contested, Cool cat, err white cat, just MFD your user and user talk pages, and this discussion can go on there, rather then here. And if folks agree there that its a good idea then they can be deleted. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 01:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat, it now seems like you're grasping for a reason to get back at Ned Scott; I cannot believe you filed a 3RR report against him for removing the speedy tag from your (former) user page. I honestly do not understand why you are so desperate to distance yourself from your former username. It's awfully suspicious and your vigor toward achieving that end is attention-seeking excess. -- tariqabjotu 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. It is my fault that Ned Scott recrated my deleted userpage twice? I never asked him to edit that page. -- Cat ^chi? 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it was a silly 3RR report. -- tariqabjotu 02:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We now have an MFD, which was created by White cat on the page, go chat it out there ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hang on. White Cat is Cool Cat? What happened to Chi Cat and Cat Out? I'm confused, now... Carcharoth 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. Chi Cat and Cat Out (actually it's Cat^chi? and Cat^out) are just his signatures (for his new username and old username, respectively). Ugh... I cannot believe I'm commenting in this discussion. It's so ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed it is rediculous, changing signatures is rediculous, but reverting the changes to the signatures is no less lame than it is to change it in the first place. It's almost like "ZOMG YOU CHANGED THE SACRED FORBIDDEN ARCHIVE PAGE" attitute. Anyhow, I'm with Yonatan on this issue. This discussion have very little value and I think the faster everyone would let this go, the better. I would highly encourage everyone, no matter what side your on, to let this go, and make constructive edits to the encyclopedia. Reverting vandalism, cleaning up articles, etc, whatever. Anything is better than getting worked up over this. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 02:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

These are my thoughts on the matter: White Cat shouldn't be doing this stuff, so he should stop. Let's forget about the former signatures he's changed at this point; it doesn't really matter and edit warring over it is stupid. Let's put this issue in the past and move on. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

New User:Molag Bal sock needs blocking

Resolved

Alphablast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been confirmed as a sock of banned sockpuppeteer Molag Bal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with a checkuser by Dmcdevit (note this was carried out privately). Evidence can also been seen of this in Alphablast's contributions. Would an admin please block. Thanks. Will (aka Wimt) 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:AIV. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus the link to his talk page shows its linked to user:Eaomatrix, a sock of Molag Bal here..--Cometstyles 13:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this possible sock; please notify me if it is contested. Aquarius • talk 17:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The user now asks for unblock, contesting that there wasn't a checkuser. Is it possible for the private checkuser result to be posted? Aquarius • talk 20:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of sock puppeting

here an editor uses a false accusation of me being a sock puppet [12]. I'd like either proof or an apology. Since any such proof is impossible because I'm not a sock puppet, I'd like it noted that this editor has falsely accused me of this and expect a retraction. Piperdown 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got me fooled. I checked Piperdown's recent contributions, and nothing seems amiss. It would be appropriate for User:SlimVirgin to explain why she identifies Piperdown as a sockpuppet instead of blanking the request for said explanation. She could also file a report at WP:SSP. Again, I don't see what the story is. YechielMan 22:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Compromised Account

Someone look at Shanker Aravind per this diff and take the necessary actions. mrholybrain's talk 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Asked him to clarify, I really can't make much sense out of that request. I don't (as yet) see anything that calls for the account to be blocked while it's sorted, but I'll keep an eye. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP speedy issue

The following discussion 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.

---

Someone please look at this user page (name obscured). I know that it should be speedied as a copyright violation, but the user who created the page disagrees. Thanks, Iamunknown 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation in copying a Wikipedia page to your own workspace. You cannot violate copyright in that regard. Wjhonson 01:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Copying Wikipedia pages is a routine, standard thing that we have done for years. Wjhonson 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This relates to two articles that I speedied last night for reasons currently under discussion at deletion review. I would appreciate if efforts could be made to conduct that review in a calm and civil fashion. Newyorkbrad 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and realize that the title of this section is certainly inappropriate. I now change it. --Iamunknown 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The user subpage was a copyright violation of whichever editors wrote the now-deleted article because the GFDL mandates attribution. Therefore, I deleted it under CSD G12. Picaroon (Talk) 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL states that it may be copied verbatim. The article states it comes from Wikipedia. That is the required attribution. If not please explain why it is not. Wjhonson 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusers.27_rights_and_obligations offers a more easily parsed version of why, "The article states it comes from Wikipedia", is insufficient attribution. --Iamunknown 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to say that such a copy is allowed. In any case, many users have such copies of deleted articles in userspace, and it's clear the reason this one was deleted was the BLP controversy. The way, the truth, and the light 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Iamunknown if you read that Copyright article you can see that it does not require the entire edit history or any edit history for that matter. It only requires posting a certain short notice. See the example here.Wjhonson 02:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The application of the GFDL to Wikipedia histories is controversial. It makes me wonder why we have admins always talking about how the history is needed for GFDL purposes. The way, the truth, and the light 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Second that - the database dumps even include HTML-only versions with no edit history. And we distribute those. CMummert · talk 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL requires attribution of the five greatest contributors to the work. This is a fact, regardless of what other pages and current practices may or may not say. Yonatan ^talk 02:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To whomever posted "Iamunknown if you read that Copyright article (....) See the example here." The article, however, no longer exists, and so the edit history can no longer be divined. It is an infringement of copyright. --Iamunknown 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit history is not a requirement of the GFDL and the "five greatest contributors" is also not a requirement of the GFDL. If the GFDL actually states this, please point to where it states it. Wjhonson 02:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So all the guy needs to do is have any admin look through the deleted edits and make a list of the contributors? I'll do it if he asks me. The list of users is all that they include on static.wikipedia.org. I think you're putting process over results here. CMummert · talk 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(IANAL) Interesting assertions, CMummert. I thought that I was attempting to apply standard practice regarding userfied pages; if that means that I am putting process over results, so be it. Incidentally, what results are you referring to? The page is currently at DRV, so if it were to remain deleted, it would be inappropriate for the page to remain userfied; if it were to be undeleted, this whole discussion would be moot. And it is still moot, because there is Google cache.

At any rate, deleting userfied pages that are merely copy-and-pastes does seem to be standard practice, so I guess that if you are going to take issue with that, you will need to talk with someone more knowledgeable than me, like the Free Software Foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation, or a lawyer. Beyond that, you would need to redefine standard practice within the Wikipedia community. --Iamunknown 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of assertions, it is common practice to delete copy-and-paste userfied pages, *when those pages* are copyright violations of other works. Userfied pages which are copy-and-pastes *from* Wikipedia are standard. We often tell Wikipedians to *do* just such a thing in order to edit "in their sandbox". This is S.O.P. Your assertions above however do not match what the Wikimedia Foundation has, or hasn't said on the issue. Wjhonson 03:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm interested why you concern yourself with what the Wikimedia Foundation would say; I would think that you should be concerned with what (1) trained lawyers, such as from the Free Software Foundation, or (2) the Wikipedia community (upon information from such lawyers), would say. --Iamunknown 03:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Iamunknown: By process over results I mean that there is a trivial way to make the copy acceptable under the GFDL - just list the contributors at the bottom like static.wikipedia.org (example: Main page). Since that is an official WP page, I think we can assume it shares the foundation's interpretation of the GFDL.

In any case, copying speedied articles to userspace so that they can be improved is completely standard practice, so long as there is a good reason to do it (see Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles). Of course it is not a way to premanently avoid deletion of an article, but Wjohnson explicitly said the copy was only there temporarily. In this case, there is a good reason for a copy to be temporarily available, so that the DRV can proceed more smoothly. CMummert · talk 03:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Except the Google cache works fine for this purpose. Ultimately, though, this is a pretty pointless debate IMHO. The level of discussion needs to be elevated instead of what is essentially dirt kicking on both sides. Calwatch 03:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I don't feel knowledgeable to elevate the level of discussion. And at this point any further discussion is moot, as we have the Google cache and a uber-userfied copy hosted by Wjhonson on his or her personal website. I guess then that the discussion is resolved per lack of anything to actually discuss.  :-) --Iamunknown 03:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Iamunknown. CMummert · talk 03:36, 28 May 2007 (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.

User:65.102.179.133

contribution history

This user is edit warring, disrupting, inserting nonsense and personal attacks against me into an article, most likely has violated 3RR tonight... Just all over the place. This might be related to User:TheDeciderDecides from last night. This editor may have a legitimate beef about content, but they are going about it completely wrong. Edit history is limited to a single article. - Crockspot 04:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The IP has now received an appropriate final warning from SlimVirgin. I suggest you report it on WP:AIV in the case of any recurrence of its behaviour. Sandstein 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't quite sure where to report this one. The only article this user edits is now sprotected, so unless they find a new interest, they're hamstrung for now. - Crockspot 06:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

HideandLeek (talk · contribs)

Resolved

There's excessive political and religious POV on this user page, as well as attack towards homosexuality, illegal immigration and defamation towards someone named Holden Caulfield. Suggest deletion of userpage. --DarkFalls ^talk 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The user that page belongs to has made less than 50 mainspace contribs. His last contrib was March 2, 2007. He has also made personal attacks against openly gay users. See [13], [14], and more in his contribs. This user is not here to contribute constructively. [15] --Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 06:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

GNAA troll, blocked as such ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User:RicoCorinth NPOV violations

User:RicoCorinth has been consistently reverting edits to Homeowners association and Community Associations Institute, in order to reinsert his bias against homeowners' associations and the CAI. He consistently accuses me of not discussing my edits, despite my providing edit summaries; I've also discussed my edit to Homeowners association on the talk page, yet he continues to revert. He previously attempted to go to mediation; I explained my unwillingness to work with him due to his incivility and lack of understanding of WP:NPOV there. Αργυριου (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Stealth AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Using this page states, "please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed."
So why didn't Argyriou inform me of this report? -- Rico 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Invalid Report — Wrong Venue

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Dispute resolution states, "Please be aware that these pages are not the place to bring disputes over content."
It looks like filing this report here was improper. -- Rico 05:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Prejudice in section title

The title of this report is, "User:RicoCorinth NPOV violations." This pre-assumes that I am guilty just because Argyriou says so. Can this be changed to "RicoCorinth's alleged NPOV violations" — or "Edits of RicoCorinth that Argyriou alleges violate NPOV" (since he's the only one making the allegation) — or "Alleged NPOV violations: Argyriou or RicoCorinth" (since we both accuse one another of NPOV violations)? -- Rico 05:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Absence of Due Process in Homeowner associations

• A year ago, Radiojon wrote in an edit, "Homeowners may be victimized without due process or appeal."
• On February 20, Argyriou challenged Radiojon's statement with a {{Fact}} template.
• On May 7, Argyriou deleted Radiojon's sentence.
• On May 22, I replaced Radiojon's deleted sentence with text that I attributed to a reliable source (a law review — case law — written by a supreme court justice, and published by an accredited university).
• Twelve minutes later, Argyriou deleted — without discussion, much less consensus — the sourced paragraph that I had replaced Radiojon's sentence with.
  The WP:DR#Avoidance policy states, "primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."
• I reverted Argyriou's summary deletion, and we went back and forth like that for two or three days.
• On May 24, Argyriou (who had previously threatened that "[he] will not work with [me] on articles"), and banned me from posting on his talk page, finally initiated a discussion on the article talk page — and simultaneously, unilaterally deleting the sourced text again! Unfortunately, Argyriou didn't write why — in Argyriou's opinion the paragraph violated NPOV. Argyriou just stated Argyriou's opinion as a fact that people, I guess, were just supposed to accept — because-Argyriou-said-so.
  
• Wp:dispute_resolution states, "try talking privately to those involved." That was kind of hard for me to do with Argyriou, after Argyriou had written:
  • "You're not welcome to post to my talk page any more." (I'm not the only one Argyriou's written this to.)
  • "I'm not going to take your complaints at article talk pages seriously."
  • "I will not work with him on articles."
• Nevertheless, it was on Argyriou to discuss and seek consensus. Argyriou was the one trying to delete content that was attributed to a reliable source. Once Argyriou saw that I was not going to allow him to summarily delete the well-sourced material, it was incumbent upon Argyriou to take it to the talk page and seek consensus.
• Argyriou has never written that the sourced text was harmful, or that it was "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material ... about living persons [and therefore] should be removed immediately and without discussion."
  

— Rico 05:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing here which requires administrator intervention, as it is a simple content dispute, unless you want to have both of you blocked for WP:3RR violations. Please try to agree on a neutral wording for on the article's talk page. If you really can't come to an agreement, try posting a request at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. —dgies^t_c 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Community Associations Institute lobbying organization

• This started on May 7, when Argyriou prefaced material attributed to a peer-reviewed textbook that was published by Yale University Press, with "According to McKenzie, the author of a book critical of common-interest developments," providing no source that establishes that Professor "McKenzie [is] the author of a book critical of common-interest developments."
  Argyriou's edit summary is, "clarify bias of source" — so Argyriou admits that Argyriou's insertion of the unsourced material is to make the author of the book, an academic, out to be "biased".
  It is not necessary to preface the sourced material with "According to McKenzie," because the statement is obviously "according to McKenzie," because Dr. McKenzie's book is cited in a footnote immediately following the material.
  But the article is not about Professor McKenzie. It is about the Community Associations Institute trade association. I could have just as easily written, "According to Professor McKenzie, the author of a book that won the 1995 American Political Science Association prize for best book on urban politics."
  The difference between Argyriou's content and my content would have been that I would have attributed mine to a reliable source.
  I could have just as easily written, "According to McKenzie, the author of a book that is currently in use as a textbook in accredited universities that are highly ranked by US News & World Report's annual America's Best Colleges article."
  But the article is about the lobbyist, not Dr. McKenzie.
• On May 22, I removed the unsourced material.
• Three hours later, Argyriou reverted my edit.
• On May 25, Argyriou finally writes, on the article talk page, "stop removing the description of Evan Mackenzie (sic) as a critic of homeowners' associations". So Argyriou's edit is to write that Professor McKenzie is a "critic of homeowners' associations"? I could just as easily describe Dr. McKenzie as a professor at the University of Illinois, that also teaches at The John Marshall Law School — in other words, he's an academic — but the article is about the CAI trade association.
  Furthermore, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is quite clear. "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
  "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia."
• May 25, Argyriou is blocked for editing abuse on the Community Associations Institute article.
  The administrator's comment? "Clear violation."
  

-- Rico 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't said what you're asking for that requires administrator intervention. Page protection for an editing dispute? 3RR block? Block for some other reason? —dgies^t_c 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for anything, beyond what I questioned in my initial replies. I'm not the editor that filed this report. -- Rico 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou's edits suggest POV-pushing

Argyriou's vandalism

The homeowners association article had an external link to the Community Associations Institute trade association in it. Next to it was a {{Verify credibility}} tag, that produced "[this source's reliability may need verification]." That made sense. CAI is a duplicitous spin meister that uses specious propaganda and doublespeak to con Joe Sixpack.
The {{Verify credibility}} tag is listed as one of the dispute tags.
Argyriou summarily deleted the tag, with no discussion, even though there was no verification done of the source's reliability.
At the time, Wikipedia:Vandalism stated:

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
[…]

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled.

-- Rico 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou's WP:EL violation

Argyriou added a second external link to the Community Associations Institute trade association article.
WP:EL Important points to remember states, "avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."
WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided states, "one should avoid ... Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."
CAI is a property managers and lawyers trade association that duplicitously claims to represent homeowner association homeowners while lobbying against them.
Argyriou refers to CAI as "a lobbying group."
-- Rico 00:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion in edit summaries

Argyriou wrote, in this report, "He consistently accuses me of not discussing my edits, despite my providing edit summaries."

1. The Wikipedia community does not indicate that edit summaries are the proper place for discussion. That is what the talk pages are for, where all the editors of an article can discuss the article and come to a consensus.
2. Argyriou uses edit summaries to call me names, so I can't be expected to accept them as Argyriou's substitute for talk pages.

-- Rico 15:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is down the hall and to the left. I strongly suggest those involved here make use of mediation, it appears it's quite needed here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou's nonsensical bending of NPOV

Argyriou entitled this AN/I report, "RicoCorinth's NPOV violations" — but Argyriou accuses people of violating NPOV by writing that NPOV is what it isn't!
In Lostinletterkenny's talk page, Argyriou wrote that an article with more information about one kind of dance, than another, is "against Wikipedia's Undue weight policy"! Wikipedia's Undue weight policy refers to "viewpoints", not kinds of dance. It's sheer nonsense!
-- Rico 06:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Striking out a proven sockpuppets comments

[16]

Could I have a ruling on this one please? If my wrists need slapping please slap them. Aatomic1 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• The user in question was a proven sockpuppet of [email protected], who is a banned user. Banned users are banned and their comments at RfCs and the likely regularly struck. Mackensen (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's not even a real RfC, so I don't see how any comments made in it can be somehow magically transferred to one that is subsequently opened. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Kittybrewster/VK rfc appears to be a private RfC. It's been around since early March, so the authors have had time to compile whatever information is necessary. It's got certifications and endorsements yet it's never been made an official RfC. Editors on one side of the issue are allowed to edit it but there are complaints when editors on the other side try to do so. If there's no intention of making this an official RfC then it should be deleted eventually. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that they believe that they can do things that their "opponents" can't (see the recent MfD by Astrotrain, who is associated with Kittybrewster, of a similar page that One Night In Hackney maintained, which was recently closed as a keep. SirFozzie 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre

I see there are several BLP-related discussions on this noticeboard at the moment. Would anyone be able to look at List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre? I raised some concerns on the talk page a few weeks ago, and I see that such concerns are still being defended on the talk page. The article includes sections like "Students injured in Room 204" - often with an accompanying "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." This practice is, in my opinon, best described in this quote from the talk page: "There is no single canonical list of the wounded. PERIOD - as you like to say. Scraping together names from conflicting reports is original research". Some example of gratuitous details from the article, that, in my opinion, go against the intent of Wikipedia:Biography of living persons (names omitted below, but mentioned in the article):

• "A bullet hit [his] left side and right arm, puncturing an abdominal muscle"
• "A 9mm bullet hit [his] head behind the left ear. Its final resting place was reported by USA Today as the skull and by the Uruguay Daily News as the throat. Another bullet hit his shoulder."
• "wounded in the right thigh twice, causing a pierced femoral artery; [he] used an electrical cord as a tourniquet to stem the bleeding from the inch-long gash in the artery) On Saturday, May 12, 2007 [he] was able to walk unassisted across the stage at his graduation ceremony to receive his diploma with the use of a crutch."

In my opinion, this excessive detail about the injured students (and the details of the dead is excessive as well) is another example of the sensationalist, tabloid-style, articles that, when written about living people, should be dealt with by WP:BLP. All the material is carefully sourced, but to news articles written in the immediate aftermath of the events. The main article, Virginia Tech massacre, has improved a lot, but less-watched articles like List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre still have these sort of problems. What should be done? Carcharoth 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:RFC. WP:AN/I is not for these types of issues. Paul Cyr 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a few opinions from here first, if you don't mind. Give it a day or so? If you disagree, put the resolved marker back. Carcharoth 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Current discussion at:

• Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Remove names of wounded

Earlier discussions at:

• Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Compiling lists of survivors/wounded
• Talk:List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre#Is this article overdone?

I still think the information on the injured victims is is a combination of original research (synthesis of existing sources), excessive and indiscriminate information, and sensationalist as well. Carcharoth 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

These same concerns, which I also share, have been raised before on the page the list of victims was originally WP:CFORK'ed from:

• Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 12#Making a list of injured individuals by name
• Talk:Virginia Tech massacre/Archive 11#Victims section, its existence and contents

There are major issues with WP:OR, WP:BLP, useless morbid voyeurism, etc., but the page has had enough support to survive an AfD, and I think most of this is a content question that should be sorted out at the appropriate talk page. --Dynaflow babble 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Update:the names of the living have now been removed, so that is an improvement. I should have thought of that myself. Carcharoth 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I hope that will be acceptable. The whole question of whether we actually should be cataloguing this in such detail I leave to others, but in the past few days I've seen considerable support for edits in which I have retained information and references while removing names of private individuals. I think we may be close to the point where we can add this as principle to our guidelines. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So what was the BLP issue here, exactly? Well sourced, not negative in tone, and the few that I've looked at thus far don't appear to have OR issues, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The BLP issues were largely fixed (today) here: [17]. The OR problem comes in because, while well-sourced, the sum total of the article qualifies as original research. Definitive lists of the victims do not seem to have been published, so the creators of the page were required to collate information from a variety of sources and synthesize it, the definition of original research. Journal articles are well-sourced too, but they are inadmissable as Wp articles for the same reason. --Dynaflow babble 23:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase - what BLP issues existed to fix? The article was entirely compliant. As for OR, what you describe does not appear to be original research, nothing's being synthesized in this instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A time bomb. Unnecessary intrusion on private identities. We should probably think carefully before using names of private individuals who happen to be involved in tragedies. We probably shouldn't be asking "why remove these names?" but rather "why retain these names?" If our articles are verifiable then the names can be obtained from the source material. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is titled List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. When people read the article, they probably expect to see, well, a list of victims. As the discussion on the article's talk page mentions, other news sources have reported these names, and we also have a full list at Columbine High School massacre.

This article survived an AfD (I would have voted 'delete') so it seems there is consensus to have this information. The way, the truth, and the light 00:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it's more like there's a point at which increasing lurid detail, however properly sourced, simply become inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. There's no real encyclopedia merit to stating largely irrelevant details of a crime, when there are references in the article which attest to them, and which the prurient reader can peruse at their own discretion. --Haemo 00:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to draw a bright line anywhere, I just want us to ask ourselves as a community, in each case, "is it necessary that the name of this private individual be entered into this encyclopedia which is now a top ten website?" Maybe in most cases we'll find that it is necessary. And maybe not. However we're an encyclopedia and not a phone book or a catalog of stuff that has happened to private individuals, so if we can write about private individuals without naming them (and as it happens, we can, easily) then we should continue to ask this question, without prejudice to the possible answer. It's just important to recognise, in my opinion, that we do have a moral responsibility to ask the question. --Tony Sidaway 00:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

"or a catalog of stuff that has happened to private individuals" thats what an encyclopedia is! Every event in history happens to a private individual, often lots of individuals at the same time. PS are thier "un-private" individuals in your opinion Tony?Hypnosadist 00:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They're not private individuals anymore, Tony. That's the first place we start. As a secondary issue, "a time bomb" is no less a justification. I'm considering reverting you pending some sort of better explanation. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I endorse reverting, though I think the whole article is unencyclopedic anyway. The way, the truth, and the light 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fair, since in ten years when they commemorate the massacre, they are not going to read the names of the wounded. None of the wounded people did anything notable (as reported in the media) other than just being hit by bullets from the shooter or jumping out a window. Therefore, I agree. Calwatch 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, they're certainly not public figures, at least in the legal definition. Personally, I'm not strongly swayed either way on this one: I don't think including them adds much value and so, in the interest of privacy, we may as well not; however, Googling a few of their names shows that generally the news stories on them are as prominent as the Wikipedia article, so our inclusion doesn't have a particularly large influence on their online presence. On balance, I think privacy outweighs the very limited value we gain from including the names. Trebor 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think something should be added to WP:NOT along the lines of "not a sensationalist tabloid news site". That would cover stories of disfigured sex offenders, star wars kids, fat kids, massacre victims, and so on. The idea is to focus on the tone of the articles, not the content per se. An encyclopedic tone would omit details like names, while still linking to sources that use the names. In effect, the names are excess information, whereas the essential details are what need to be in the article - 26-year-old man spawns internet meme etc. The idea is that if you use tabloid news sites as your sources, the article you write on Wikipedia will end up an undignified, sensationalist, piece of recentism. In ten years time it will look silly. Do we ask for articles to look OK now, or do we hope that in ten years time someone will have remembered to let the "here and now" reporting style, with excessive detail, slip away into the footnotes of history. And before people say Wikipedia must record these details otherwise they will be lost, it is not Wikipedia's job to record history. If posterity does not record these details, it is not something Wikipedia should be doing. We should be documenting what others write about history, not writing it ourselves. Carcharoth 03:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like Jeff to consider this. Rather than ask: are these people public or private individual, ask "do we need to put these people's names into our top ten website?" My feeling is that the names of these persons do not need to be there because their names have no encyclopedic significance. Enough identifying information is given, and enough references, to satisfy verifiability. Completeness is not an issue because the names are not relevant to the incidents and the people in question do not appear in other Wikipedia articles because they're not involved in anything else that we write about, or else if they are, it's mere coincidence. I've drawn the line at faculty and I think that's fair. A faculty member involved in a university shooting can expect, I think, to be regarded as a somewhat public individual, both because of his involvement as an educator and his involvement in such an incident, but I could be persuaded otherwise according to the situation.

So I'd like Jeff to make that step: to consider carefully, and admit that others may also be considering carefully, the question: do we need to include this person's name in the account of his experiences? --Tony Sidaway 03:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, not an ethics experiment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I am sure that once there has been enough time for people to regain their perspective, that page will be quietly deleted anyway. We don't have "list of voctims" pages, we have deleted a fair number of them in my time here. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this argument is not about this VTec page itself (WP won't record the names of most of the 30,000+or- americans Killed by guns this year so why the injured of this event are notable is beyond me) but the some editors want to Bloat BLP from its legitamate role in protecting WP from harm to some Human Right to Privacy. All the info is in the public domain are we could not use it anyway so we are not publishing private details like peoples addresses (which would be a legitamate privacy issue). Hypnosadist 16:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While on the subject of Wikipedia drama, see spoiler warnings

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning#We don't need any of this has the claim (by Tony Sidaway, also mentioned in the other DRV drama section above, but he's far from the only person involved) that if nobody reverts 5000 changes made without consensus, that proves that obviously the proposed policy used to make the 5000 changes actually has consensus. (And yes, that 5000 literally is 5000.) See also Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler.

There's also quite a bit of other dubiousness; for instance, Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates has been repeatedly edited to get rid of as much of the spoiler warning exception as possible. In other words, the proposal to get rid of most spoiler warnings has been written into a guideline even before the proposal itself has been accepted as a guideline. (And of course there's been no discussion on the talk page of the other guideline.)

Moreover, splitting the discussion between two pages seems to be an example of forum shopping, and I find it very undesirable that the proposal is being treated as a fait accompli and the only changes being discussed are its exact deatils. Ken Arromdee 23:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever your view, isn't this announcement going to cause more drama? Please follow Dispute resolution if you have a grievance against any Wikipedia editor. You don't get a free pass just because the target of your complaint happens to be prominent. --Tony Sidaway 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned you because of the connection to the other section, but this is far from being about you. There are other people involved, and modifying guidelines before consensus and with no discussion, or making 5000 changes and claiming consensus, is bad regardless of who does it. Ken Arromdee 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Continous insertion of unsourced material

I had previously pointed out the edits of Sc4900 (talk · contribs) to ANI. Editor was subsequently blocked.

• Sc400 (talk · contribs) is no doubt the same
• 60.241.54.145 (talk · contribs) is also the IP used, judging from continous insertion of the same sort of articles related to Sashank etc

Clearly, this editor is trying to disrupt Wikipedia by inserting fictional creations and unsourced material. Please stop this vandal.

xC | ☎ 07:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the sock indef and User:Netsnipe has blocked the IP 3 months. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, quick work! Thanks for taking care of that, happy editing! xC | ☎ 09:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack page

ResolvedCU showed William Henry Harrison to be a sockpuppet - user is now blocked for abusive sockpuppetry

User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite Is a personal attack page against me, using incivility and bashing me.--William Henry Harrison 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No offence, but you orignally called me a sockpuppet - hence why we had a little laugh about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Harrison. You accused Ryan of trying to get a sockpuppet of his through RfA. That was an outrageous personal attack on you part. You are going to have expect some fall-out from such a rash accusation against a well respected admin. You owe Ryan an apology. WjBscribe 17:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I crossed out what I said about that. That is a good enough apology. He needs to apologize to me for alluding to me as unimportant. Calling me a sock puppet and not crossing it out as I did. And calling my comments, "pointless". I ask for an apology.--William Henry Harrison 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why anybody would want to apologise to a pointless unimportant sockpuppet is beyond me. Nick 17:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Majorly (talk | meet) 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Harrison, you have curious definitions of words... you use "personal attack" in a way I've never before seen, as with "sockpuppet" and "apology". Crossing something out is not an apology. Ryan is not a sockpuppet. And I havent seen a personal attack against you yet. Philippe 17:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a user he supported on RFA, and who gave himself a barnstar to... Majorly (talk | meet) 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Help request

Resolved

 – User:SanchiTachi indefinitely blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please repond to User talk:SanchiTachi on their talk page, as I'm sick of responding to them at the minute and wish to remain professional, something I'm not sure I can do if I continue to respond. --Deskana (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In one case the user was attempting to use potential copyright issues as leverage to get unblocked, but I've resolved that problem now. Outside comment is still needed. --Deskana (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The guy is wrong yet again on the GFDL thing, and I see that nothing has been learnt since the last debacle yesterday. I'm not going near this guy as I'm not sure I can be unbiased given his comments recently. Suggest here that SwatJester get involved and take a look. In the meantime, the 3RR block should stay, as it's totally indisputable - Alison ☺ 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He appears to have WP:OWN issues in the extreme. [18] --GentlemanGhost 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't reply to his talk page, for some reason. However, the diff's for 3RR are as follows:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]
7. --Haemo 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

His talk page has been fully protected by Deskana. Go figure :/ - Alison ☺ 02:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• It appears that SanchiTachi continued making personal attacks on his talk page when his talkpage prot was lifted. He has now been indefinitely blocked by Deskana - Alison ☺ 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

question

a particular admin has threatened me with a block, so i'd like to know whether that is reasonable.

on this article, an older image has advertisements on it and is zoomed out to quite a distance. one editor cropped the image down to what looks more in line with the rest of biographies wikipedia (a headshot with no ads, not zoomed way out). this change was reverted and i was threatened if i put the image back in i will be blocked. can you tell me if this is acceptable?

• before: [25]
• after: [26]

thank you 04:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we can't tell you. You have not given us sufficient context to judge the situation. For example, the warnings issued? And the reason that was given for the reversions. No administrator would revert you and say "I will block if you continue reverting" without giving a reason. --Deskana (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:71.112.115.55. Phony Saint 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify the issue here. A number of IPs have been harrassing David Shankbone who uploads a vast number of free images of celebs (see his userpage). The images are fantastic and, as we know from issues with replaceable fair use, very hard to come by. David has rare access to the sort of people we really need photos of.

This account and another which I blocked for trolling have been systematically replacing his images with cropped images uploaded to Commons which do not contain proper attribution (the reuploader claims to be the author) and hence are invalid as far as GFDL is concerned. Whether or not cropped version are better is a matter for discussion. However these IPs have only targeted David's work. I see this as part of a campaign of harassment against David and this IP's history as well as that of User:84.178.254.52 show clear Wikistalking. They are not the first to display a strange interest in his uploads in particular. Such conduct against a valued member of the community is unacceptable and I have made it clear that if any of these accounts continue in such behaviour, they will be blocked. WjBscribe 04:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

His pictures are definitely needed, but don't forget that if anyone comes up with a better picture, that will be used instead. There are several of those pictures that I would agree need cropping and/or have backgrounds that are too "busy". Best to get people to stand against a monochrome backdrop, rather than a mix of an American Express advert and a movie poster, as in the Patricia Neal case. I agree with the cropping there. Don't get me wrong, we should all be grateful for the pics, but cropping is something that is allowed. If David Shankbone doesn't want his images cropped, he needs a more restrictive license. Carcharoth 05:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't just about the cropping. That's a part of this. And there may be an argument for cropped pictures. Both those have to properly attributed. And this isn't about just one picture. Going through someone's contribs and altering them is problematic. Particularly as part of a wider pattern of harassment. It isn't the crops in of themselves that are the problem, but the way this behaviour is targeting a specific contributor and the background to this incident. Editor have been wikistalking David for months now under various IPs. He's undertstandably stressed by this and we have to make sure that editors are not being harrassed. In my judgment, the behaviour of this editor is not legitimate (regardless of whether cropped versions may be preferable in some instances). WjBscribe 05:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't the cropping, it's the Wikistalking. There is a systematic effort to remove my Wikipedia name from the photographs. No more, no less. --David Shankbone 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, wikistalking is bad. I haven't looked into that closely, as I'm just looking at the photography issues. Hopefully WJBScribe can deal with the alleged (I always say that to cover myself) wikistalking. Carcharoth 05:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't be fooled by this IP. Their most recent incarnation is User:71.112.115.55, but they have also trolled and vandalized under User:71.112.142.5, User:71.112.7.212 and User: 71.112.6.35. Their most egregious behavior which had them blocked about four times was under User:71.112.7.212, which is where there vendetta against me was born since I listed about ten reasons why they should be blocked. In those reasons you'll also see an admin review of their behavior mentioned. It's clearly a Wikipedia editor who goes anonymous since from day one they had a handy knowledge of tags, AfDs, RfCs, block reviews, etc., not to mention the Wiki style. They have teamed up with a friend, German IP User:84.178.254.52 for re-naming all of my hard-worked on, difficult-to-obtain photographs. It is an issue not only on the Commons, where the IP was warned to stop claiming credit for my work by an admin there. Their work stretches to all international projects. Both IPs continually vandalize the Afro page with a blurry photo of a guy in a photoshopped afro wig, to name only one instance. This IP was blocked for edit warring POV edits on Nancy Reagan, began remove all mentions of the Academy Awards from articles, and the list goes on and on... This has been going on for months. Once the heat on one of their IP addresses gets too much, they switch to another IP address to make it difficult to follow their behavior. Welcome to the world of my troll. Now the troll has enlisted the help of a German user who is re-naming all of my files. This is becoming a problem. --David Shankbone 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i looked at the image on commons, it is properly attributed. it says it came from davidshankbone: [27] 71.112.115.55 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It says says "Author | Frauleinwunder" which is incorrect, that is the name of the person who cropped it. And even with attribution, the wikistalking would still be an issue. WjBscribe 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think User talk:71.112.115.55 helps. From what I can make out, the user cropped a picture released under a CC license, but neglected to make it clear that the new (cropped) picture was not their's. Well, maybe. I'm not entirely sure of the exact sequence of events. I did something similar with Douglas Adams: before and after. I was worried about getting the attribution correct, so I asked on the Commons Help Desk. Not quite sure of the history that led to block threats. Ah. Now I see. It is explained at User talk:WJBscribe#My contributions. Carcharoth 04:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

so is it ok to put the cropped pictures up as long as they have attribution? the uncropped photos have a lot of ads in the background. the advertisers make sure there logo is there behind celebrities but we don't have to play along by having pictures that are zoomed out so far to show them. 71.112.115.55 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I mentioned the advertising as well, but I am sure this is just a case of the photographer managing to find Ms Neal and saying "can I take your picture please", at an opportune moment. The background is just poor photographic composition, but necessitated by the brief "window of opportunity". I've done this sort of thing before. You feel embarassed to say, "can you move over here where I can get a better picture", and sometimes you can't do that, but sometimes it is worth trying. As for Photoshopping images to clean up backgrounds. I only do that with my own images. Cropping is as far as I go with other people's images. Carcharoth 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

just a side note, blurring the ads with photoshop might not be legal. i remember a spiderman movie swapping in its own ads for billboards in times square and getting in trouble for it.[28] 71.112.115.55 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That lawsuit was dismissed: [29]. It was clearly frivolous and I'm surprised that there weren't sanctions against the lawyers who brought it. *** Crotalus *** 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think removing them completely is OK. Carcharoth 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, what license would you recommend I use to not allow cropping? Also, did you see my message above starting with "Don't be fooled by this IP..."? --David Shankbone 05:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I'm afraid. I have changed the authorship details on the cropped picture so that you still get primary attribution. I am going to put the picture in the article and credit you directly in the caption. Is that OK? Please revert my changes if there are any problems, and we can discuss. Carcharoth 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the images that have been cropped have been re-uploaded on the Commons. Putting my name in the caption is problematic. The main point to have my name in the file name is for external-Wikipedia downloads to keep the attribution. --David Shankbone 05:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Carcharoth 05:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i'm still unsure here: can i be blocked for replacing the photos with others that are cropped if they have attribution? 71.112.115.55 05:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is to first check the license, then crop if that is allowed (in most cases it will be), and then add "cropped" to the filename. Don't change the filename, and at each stage ensure you keep the attributions to the original author. If you mention yourself at all, make clear that all you did was crop the picture. If you do everything right, it should be fine. But, until the allegations of wikistalking have been sorted, I'd steer clear of pictures by David Shankbone. There is plenty of work you can do elsewhere, and nothing particularly urgent that needs doing with Mr Shankbone's work. Carcharoth 07:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

i didn't create these photos, i just want to know if using them is grounds for blocks? also about the filenames, should each person that changes the photo add his/her login to the filename? it seemes like it could result in some long filenames. thanks 71.112.115.55 20:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

confrontational user

Hello, User:LuciferMorgan adopted a confrontational attitude during a GAR that he initiated. I guess we can live with his mockery, although his response was hardly in good faith. However, he challenged to report him to this board, 'or else', and frankly, I think he is overstepping certain boundaries with his behavior. Arcfrk 08:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he needs to chill a little bit, but there's nothing really "pushing" there. It's not exactly sugar and spice, but I don't really see the problem. He wants more footnotes, and believes strongly they have value - and doesn't appreciate being baited. That's about it. --Haemo 09:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you adopt LuciferMorgan's characterization of descriptive remarks as "baiting" suggests you are not impartial. I would be curious to hear from others. For example, to me his statement reads like a threat, not a civil dialog.

Food for thought: Given the extreme attitudes we are seeing at GA/R, such as "each para should have at least one citation", I believe it likely that the substantial proportion of Wikipedians supporting the scientific citation guidelines will choose to voluntarily withdraw from any participation in the whole GA business. --KSmrq^T 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's pretty clear that someone stating:

No, I recognize the name of the nominator; this is simply more footnote-worship

Is attempting to bait that editor, since they (1) admit to recognizing the editor, and their views and (2) dismiss their concerns in a derogative fashion calling them "foot-note worship". I don't know where you would get the impression that I'm not impartial, since I have nothing to do with the article, or editors in question, nor do I have any strong feelings about footnoting, and I've never heard of scientific citation guidelines before.

If you insist on labeling everyone who disagrees with your interpretation as being "not impartial", you're not really looking for any honest input here - you're looking for support. --Haemo 10:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are impartial; I speculated based on your words here, and nothing else. And perhaps my mind is clouded by battle fatigue, for my experiences with footnote wars have not been happy ones. But your second post diminishes my confidence in your judgment again. I responded to one post, which is a far cry from your suggestion that I 'insist on labeling everyone who disagrees with [my] interpretation as being "not impartial"'. Furthermore, I used moderate language ("suggests", not "confirms"), and I said I was curious to hear from others.

We digress, for which I apologize. In truth, nothing here rises to the level of ANI, and I shall not comment further after this.

But Arcfrk is relatively new to Wikipedia, perhaps new enough to still be put off by endless arguments about Jewishness and a public threat by LuciferMorgan to "report" someone (Septentrionalis) who complains about a zeal for footnotes. (This was in a forum where Arcfrk and Septentrionalis regularly post, and where LuciferMorgan is a stranger.) Is Arcfrk wrong to speak up? For Wikipedia's sake, I hope not; because what he is asking for is true civility, not a sham used as a bludgeon. --KSmrq^T 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Haemo's take. Also, WP:V is WP:POLICY; anything that makes things easier to verify makes Wikipedia better. Advocating for that is hardly grounds to expect someone to recuse him or herself from a GA review. Can you show where the "mockery" and "baiting" were taking place? I don't see it happening at that GA review. [EDIT: On the other hand, this edit on Arcfrk's part requires explanation. Not assuming good faith and calling process "punishment" right off the bat do not set the stage for civil exchanges.] --Dynaflow babble 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Dynaflow and Haemo. The article is currently heading toward being delisted partially due to a lack of citations, as you can see at the article's GA/R. I myself complained in the past about the lack of citations (as you can see in that GA/R) and was also brushed aside. Quadzilla99 11:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we should be grateful that juvenile and incompetent editors are engaged in this frivolity, and not doing wider harm to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC) - - this is taken from here at another Maths talk page section. As concerns needing to chill which Haemo said, I received a block this week for incivility and cannot afford yet more trouble. I'm not the most loved person on Wikipedia, so if I step out of line just one iota I'm gonna get blocked. All I'm saying is if PMAnderson wishes to protest at the fact mathematics GAs are being put on GAR for lack of citations and feels it's wrong, he can do so by opening a debate on the GAR talk page. If the GA criteria asks for citations, he can raise a debate on the GAC talk page asking for the criteria to be changed. He doesn't need to specifically refer to me in his remarks that's all. As far as I'm concerned, both me and PMAnderson will never agree on the citation issue and we're better off just leaving at that rather than specifically naming one another in the citation debate (wherever we're both debating it that is). Furthermore, I don't wish for this ANI to go further, and I don't wish for anything to be done to me or PMAnderson by an administrator. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LuciferMorgan was unnecessarily confrontational and dismissive in relation to this GAR at first, but I agree that there is no case here for further action, and welcome the sensible tone of LuciferMorgan's response. I second User:KSmrq's comments, and would also note that some of the quoted comments by mathematics article editors reflect a general despair with the current state of the GA process rather than a personal attack. There is also general despair that editors' time is wasted on peripheral issues (such as "was Cantor Jewish" in this case) at the expense of improving articles: the "punishment" comment merely reflects this.

One of the challenges of Wikipedia is that the wiki spirit goes against a lot of normal human interaction. When something is wrong, or mistakes are made, the normal response is to complain, whereas the wiki response is to fix it. My own view is that procedures such as GAR and FAC are not currently helpful in this regard. It often does not require expertise to add citations or remove original research from articles, so I would encourage more editors to just do it, and only go into talk/complaint mode after a revert or two. If we complain first, we are bound to feel brushed aside if our complaints are not addressed. Procedures like GAR and FAC encourage complaint mode. FAC just about works because the nominator is often dedicated enough to answer the complaints and fix the article him/herself. GAR is currently broken in this regard, and it is no wonder it leads to trouble. Geometry guy 19:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Geometry guy has hit the root of the problem. It is aggravated by the name of the process, which implies that articles that GA approves are good, and that articles they delist are not good. Since their standards would not produce this result, even if they were implied intelligently - and they all too often are not - this is deplorable. I will return with a link to the move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Requested_move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any reason that this needs administrative intervention. This isn't Requests for comment. That said, I am sympathetic to the argument that GA is currently on the road to pointlessness, since it seems destined to approach the requirements of FA closer and closer over time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

List of people by name

The following discussion 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.

---

As identified below by Carcharoth, this is not really the right venue. Kudos to him for proposing closure, and bringing the drama to a calm close. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

---

User:Srikeit has suggested I post this here although I'm really not sure if this is the right place as all I wanted was his opinion as closing admin. Anyway, below is the discussion from his talk page. <KF> 12:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you realize this, but the list of people by name article has something like 1400 subpages. Does your DRV closure encompass these? --- RockMFR 04:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all the subpages are covered under the close. I realised that after the closure and was trying to figure out the best way to go about it when I received your message. I requested Eagle_101 to help me out and he has graciously accepted to help me out using a script. --Srikeit 04:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're carrying a huge load of responsibility now. In your closure, you have failed to address the concerns of all those, including myself, who were against deletion without any replacement. Various suggestions have been made for that, but it seems no measures have been taken. Could you comment on that, please? All the best, <KF> 09:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is my responsibility to clarify and counter each and every argument in a discussion before closing. I considered the arguments offered, determined the consensus achieved in both the former AFD and the DRV, used the discretion I have been afforded as an admin and made the call, which seems to have been accepted as fair by most (as indicated by the lack of complaints here). However if this close seems grossly unfair or irresponsible on my part, please feel free to start up a discussion about it on WP:ANI or any other avenue suitable to you and if you can garner enough support for your cause, do bring it back to DRV. In the meantime, I stand by my decision. Thanks --Srikeit 10:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be awful, wouldn't it, if you as an admin didn't stand by your decision, so I didn't expect anything else. I'm talking about an altogether different thing here, as the inevitability of this bulk of information being eventually deleted was clear to me (although, personally, I don't see any consensus anywhere). No, I'm talking about an alternative to the c.1,400 pages that are now lost. Their removal has orphaned what may well be hundreds of biographical stubs, and the next step might be their being tagged for deletion by an insensitive bot.

Carcharoth has made a suggestion (at the end of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name) what could be done to counter this, and my (and other people's) humble idea was to "projectify" all those pages in the way it was done with User:Black Falcon/Sandbox/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) or Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/List of literary works with eponymous heroines. That's what you haven't addressed in your closure, and I just want to know what you think about it. Best wishes, <KF> 10:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth's was an interesting suggestion but even after a dual listing at AFD/MFD and a complete DRV discussion it did not gain any substantial consensus nor did it provoke any discussion elsewhere. However the consensus to delete the pages was quite clear with substantiated reasons in both the discussions so I based my decision on it. As for the loss of information, I request you to look at WP:EFFORT. Anyway, I don't think my talk page is the best forum for drawing attention to the matter. Please go to WP:ANI if you want a more thorough discussion about this. Thanks --Srikeit 11:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus at AfD and DRV to delete this. I suppose you could start a category for "every person on Wikipedia" if you think it would be useful. ^(H) 12:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just re-reading this. You are aware, right, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography have effectively been trying to do just that? There have been valiant efforts to tag all the talk pages of biographical articles (articles about people) with {{WPBiography}}. That does effectively create a category (albeit for the talk pages) of "every person [with an article] on Wikipedia". So I fail to see what point you are trying to make? That such an effort is doomed to failure? Maybe. But LoBpN was one way of attmpeting it. {{WPBiography}} is merely another such attempt, and I've been trying to ensure the information from one is transferred to the other. Carcharoth 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I agree with Srikeit that the closing administrator is under no obligation to bear the responsibility of either refuting the opposition on an AFD, MFD, DRV, or other page dedicated to the consensus-creation process. All that an administrator must do is to ensure that his or her decision is in line with "consensus", give or take the minor discretion that the administrator is allowed to take. It is, then, not Srikeit's responsibility to offer any suggestions as to how the deleted data is to be preserved on Wikipedia, if at all.

If I am allowed my own, personal, opinion, then it is that it is an intrinsic attribute of the List that it is unwieldy and difficult to maintain, regardless of whether it exists in article (main) space or in a wikiproject. The reason why our categories system works to the extent that it does is that it features an article->category relationship, not a category->article relationship. With a list, (1) All users working on a biography must know the existence of this List; (2) Any user who decides to put the biography in the List has to actively move to edit the List to add that biography, and (3) Any such user must know how to navigate and maintain said List, difficult when the List needs a whole page of instructions dedicated to it to address this topic. With a category, on the other hand, the user (1) has to find the relevant category, but (2) only needs to edit the article itself to add the article to the category, using a pretty self-explanatory syntax that almost all seasoned editors have mastered.

Please note that in no way am I against the idea of a List; in fact, I think it is quite useful. However, its usefulness can only be maintained as long as it is complete and concise. Completeness on an encyclopedia this size (not to mention the abundance of biographical articles), and on an encyclopedia without a definite editorial team, is difficult; however, I believe it can be achieved through the use of technical means. While I do not call for Wikipedia to become semantic overnight, I do believe that a few useful software tools, leveraging the power of the categories and templates system that already exists on Wikipedia articles, could generate an automated list that would be more complete, although maybe not as concise, as the List. Anyway, that is just a personal idea of mine. I encourage you, KF, and everybody else who is reading this to provide alternative ideas for the defunct List, as it is ultimately the responsibility of the community, not the deleting administrator, to provide such an alternative and to implement it. With best wishes, Tangotango (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If all biographical articles are categorized as such, perhaps a bot could keep a set of indexes up to date by reading vital information from infoboxes. But I agree that deleted system was just a tangled partial out of date mess. ^(H) 12:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, the trouble with these lengthy discussions is that many contributors pick out one (maybe unwisely chosen) word or one (maybe unwisely worded) argument and elaborate on it while paying no attention to the rest of the text. I was talking about Srikeit's "responsibility," and I knew already when typing this that people would pick on it. I wasn't saying, was I, that it would have been his responsibility to come up with dozens of counterarguments. What I was saying is that it would have been ... nice? ... if he had also dealt with people's suggestions on how to preserve, and make accessible, the data from the now deleted list. As I have already pointed out, many contributors who were patrolling the New Pages and came across a biographical stub automatically did two things: (a) basic wikification and (b) add the new name to the List of people by name so that it no longer figures as an orphan, not even for the time being. Also, I have already made my suggestion: projectify the 1,400 pages or so. And please let's not start the "unwieldy unmaintainable outdated indiscriminate etc." discussion again (although the only thing that is clear to me here is that there is no consensus). <KF> 13:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to preserve the content of an article the time to do it is during the AfD, and the place to do it is your hard drive. I am sure if you ask nice you can have the deleted content e-mailed to you(though 1400 pages may be a bit much). ^(H) 13:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Let us please discuss this seriously. My hard drive is only open to myself and maybe one or two Trojans but not the general public. <KF> 13:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What part of deleted are you having trouble understanding? The whole point of deleting it is that it's not really useful to the encylopaedia, which means that hosting it somewhere else on the encyclopaedia is not going to happen. The fact that there are over a thousand subpages rather makes the point that it is hopelessly unmaintainable. What do you want that mass of junk for? Guy (Help!) 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not having any trouble understanding things (except maybe the concept of Wikipedia:Consensus). Also, as I have learned, WP:USEFUL is not an argument, so why mention it here? Thirdly, I don't believe you are the new benevolent dictator around here to be in a position to say "that hosting it somewhere else on the encyclopaedia is not going to happen". (Aren't you willing to discuss Carcharoth's proposal, see below?) And fourthly, I want that "mass of junk" for the same reason people want indices in books. And once again, please let's not start the "unwieldy unmaintainable outdated indiscriminate etc." discussion again <KF> 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It certainly may have been "nice" for Srikeit to have provided suggestions on "how to preserve, and make accessible, the data from the now deleted list", but even if had, it would not have been part of his role as deleting administrator. Indeed, if he had provided suggestions, those suggestions in themselves may be attacked as not mindful enough of every opinion voiced. The deletion and the preservation, if any, of the data deleted are two different topics. You are welcome to start a new Wikiproject or a new user page with a List of People by Name; however, you should note that unless radical changes are made to the List, the same problems that afflicted it will continue to afflict the new List.

On a different note, I do not agree that simply listing a biography on the List qualifies it as an unorphaned article; in fact, I think that is quite a dangerous attitude to take. If the only thing that links to a particular article is a global list, then it is quite possible that the subject of that biography is not notable. Listing an article on a list makes it an unorphaned page as far as MediaWiki is concerned, sure, but it simulatenously makes it difficult for the orphaned article to be detected and possibly integrated into Wikipedia, or possibly dealt with in another fashion. Cheers, Tangotango (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As can be seen from the edit histories of both User:Black Falcon/Sandbox/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/List of literary works with eponymous heroines, those lists had quite a number of active contributors as long as they were in the main space. Some of those contributors have now left (e g User:Whycreateanaccount, my pet example) but the main thing is that those who want to work on, or simply consult, the lists—and there is no longer any way of telling how often a page is accessed, is there—can do so in peace without the list being attacked all the time by the opponents of its existence. Even if they are considered "unwieldy unmaintainable outdated indiscriminate" etc., lists in the project space are not controversial—at least that's my experience. That's why I have made that suggestion.

I don't think it's "dangerous" (it's fun picking on a word) to try and complete a list as long as you have made sure beforehand, for example when patrolling the New Pages, whether a new biography is worth keeping and wikifying or not, after you have decided against speedy-deleting it. <KF> 13:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Missed the DRV completely

Um. I managed to completely miss that a DRV was taking place on this. I would have raised the same arguments that I did at the MfD. If I had known that there was a DRV heading towards deletion, I would have requested a few days to make a copy of the contents (as I did at the MfD). As it was, once the MfD closed I carried on with other stuff, and tried to generate discussion for my proposal. I am frankly rather horrified that people were participating in a DRV and were completely unaware (I'll assume good faith and presume, that like me they just missed the discussions going on elsewhere) of the discussions taking place at:

• Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name#Proposed solution
• Template talk:WPBiography#Category with all the articles in it

I was aware that there was little discussion going on, but I am about to take a wikibreak and I was going to return to the issue in June and advertise the proposal a bit more widely and start working on it. So how did these discussions completely miss each other?

I effect, my argument sums up as:

• (1) I was willing to take the time to make a copy of the now-deleted list (see the talk page of the MfD), but this good-faith offer has been ignored and indeed snubbed.
• (2) I was actively making detailed proposals on how to carefully move from this system to one based on categories, but people seemed to have lost interest in helping me carry out that proposal, so I was preparing to advertise it more fully and indeed carry out the required work myself (the actually LoPbN pages could have been blanked to page history to preserve the data while making the pages defunct).
• (3) A DRV opened and closed without me being aware of it (I don't think I've ever actually edited the main LoPbN page, so it probably wasn't on my watchlist). The closing admin said that the proposal "did [not] provoke any discussion elsewhere" - that is just plain wrong. I have linked to the discussions that were taking place elsewhere.

Can I please ask for the pages to be undeleted and blanked and protected. That way the data is still accessible, but people cannot keep adding to this system. Carcharoth 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I thinks its a really unfortunate coincidence that you missed the DRV as your comments could have initiated an alternate discussion which in turn might have affected its eventual outcome. However that did not happen, consensus for deletion was established, I made my judgment call and here we are. However my statement about your proposal not provoking discussion elsewhere isn't incorrect. The links above show that despite your honourable attempts to initiate them, few comments were offered and the discussions have been completely dormant since the 23rd i.e since the DRV discussion started. As for your request, I'm sorry but it is out of my capability to undelete 1,400+ subpages single-handedly. Even the deletion of these pages was done by the diligent efforts of Eagle_101 and ABCD, whose help I solicited and who used a script to carry out the mammoth task. I'm sorry to be so unhelpful, but I feel I have done as much as is expected of an admin closing a DRV. Thanks --Srikeit 15:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. Thanks for responding, it is much appreciated. Can I just asked whether blanking to page history was ever even considered? That tends to preserve data while still rendering a page effectively defunct and dormant. Also, if a script was used to carry out the deletion, couldn't a script have been used to create the list I asked for at the MfD? I still feel, like I did there, that there was little effort made to preserve the information before deleting the system of pages. Unless someone can generate a list of all the pages listed on those pages, there is no way of saying for certain exactly what pages were listed there in the first place. Also, as I said at the Esperanza discussion, umbrella deletions like this really need to have a list at the MfD of all the pages deleted. ie. a simple list of all the 1400 pages deleted. Who has that list? Carcharoth 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This might help. --Srikeit 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. One more point. Template:List of people by name compact page-index is what I would have used to make a copy. Theoretically I only wanted to make a copy of 26*26 pages, minus several pages as some are merged together. Probably less than 500 pages actually. So not quite the 1400 figure mentioned above. There were a lot of subsidiary and connecting pages. Carcharoth 15:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

More background

Further to the above, one of main things I had come up with was User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index. This is what I am proposing would be used for all biographical articles, using a category based on some bot-generated list from {{WPBiography}}. I can still go ahead with this, but I was intending the first step to be to compare a list from LoPbN with {{WPBiography}}, to ensure nothing got missed. The list from {{WPBiography}} has already been prepared. It is a compressed size 3.4MB file at File:Bio list.sxw, containing 376,274 names. So work was (slowly) being done on this, and I am depressed that stuff was just deleted without anyone even acknowledging that discussion and work on the problems were taking place. The template talk page discussion also threw some interesting light on different methods of finding comprehensive lists of people with articles on Wikipedia, and how no single system seems to work yet. The methods were:

• LoPbN (human maintained - often out-of-date)
• Existing disambiguation pages (human maintained - often out-of-date)
• Using indexes of relevant categories (automagically generated, requires human use and maintenance of category tags and pipe-sorting)
• Transclusion list of {{WPBiography}} (more difficult to generate, requires humans to identify biographical articles for tagging)
• Brute force, extended Google searches (requires human ingenuity to construct search terms)

All these methods were tried for finding a complete list of Wikipedia articles written about people named Fry. It was amazing how the lists were all different and had varying levels of success. The human-designed Google searches turned out to be best.

Thoughts on process

Finally, can I ask what went wrong here? If I make detailed proposals, and cogent arguments, is it normal for them to just be ignored? Should I have advertised them more widely? Should I have not looked away after the MfD and had in the back of my mind that a DRV might have been possible? Should those at the DRV have noticed that one of the most vocal participants in the AfD seemed to have missed the DRV entirely? I really don't know what to think abot this any more. I know I should have been more alert, but I feel the system is partially at fault as well in that numbers were being looked at rather than arguments and, that detailed proposals to move from one system to another before deletion, were just ignored or brushed to one side. In essence, the way I see this went is something like:

• Delete, unmaintainable.
• Oh, but why not do it this way?
• No, delete.
• But look, I've made this proposal.
• No, delete.
• But I'm willing to do the work on this
• No, delete.
• Are you listening to what I've said?
• No, delete.
• Hello, is anyone there?
• No, delete.

I hope this gives some idea of how frustrating this has been for me. Apologies for writing at such length, but I do feel strongly about this. And to be crystal-clear, I am arguing only for a delay in deletion. After the new system was in place, I would have been very pleased to prepare a new MfD/AfD for these pages, or simply get them moved to Wikipedia namespace, and blanked to page history. Anyway, it is bad timing, but I'm going on a wikibreak for a few days, so won't be able to respond. I hope my arguments above are clear, and that others will argue on my behalf if they agree with me. Thanks for listening. Carcharoth 14:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing that went wrong here is your luck and a few ill-timed and unfortunate coincidences. Your arguments, cogent and detailed as they were, garnered few comments; probably because few shared your point of view, probably because they thought it was too tedious, maybe because they just weren't interested. We're all volunteers here and none of us are obliged to support every valid point and carry out every task however noble it might be. A more public forum might have helped your cause as it could have possibly have gotten you suggestions like Tangotango's above about the technical ways to maintain the list and maybe Eagle_101's script help. But that is all speculation. In hindsight, you should have probably watchlisted the page you were working on so hard and kept a general eye out for things going on with it. However you too are not obliged to do so. The participants could have informed you but again it wasn't obligatory. They might have thought that you had lost interest (like many other MFD particpants) in the matter as well. The system worked just as it was supposed to. Disputed close, DRV filed, consensus for overturning established (however not overwhelming), admin makes a judgment call and closes it. And I must say I did not consider just the numerical advantage in my close. Several detailed explanations (including the fine argument by Radiant! in the nom) were provided by the commenters favouring overturning. And I found many of the "endorse" comments to be essentially WP:ILIKEIT arguments in their various forms. Nevertheless, we can argue endlessly about the merit of the close and never have any valid solution. I understand that this entire situation has been frustrating for you and I apologise for it but blaming the system is never the solution. I hope a constructive discussion about this matter does occur and a mutual solution is formed. But in the mean-time, I think it is for the best that the current decision be accepted and we move on. Thanks --Srikeit 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to respond. Again, I really appreciate it. I just feel that my arguments were being ignored. I understand you can say Radiant's nominating argument was good. But then where does that leave my arguments? All I ever wanted was a list of the names on those pages, or the time to make a list. That was consistently ignored by those voting delete. The MfD no consensus closing had the unfortunate effect of prompting me to put it on the backburner until June, and I missed the DRV. The point is that it is always possible to reverse things on Wikipedia, and people should be prepared to if needed. The time taken for deleting shouldn't be less time than for undeletion. Carcharoth 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential solution

Would anyone have any objections to it being moved to the userspace of someone willing to work on it, so that an appropriate solution may be found (I would suggest categories, since thats what they are meant to be used for)? This question is being asked of the community as a whole, not just the aobve user. Viridae^Talk 13:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems raised at the MfD was the potential for libellous comments hiding in the morass of pages. I tend to agree with that, but the solution would seem to be blanking to page history. That removes the links from Google searches, and depopulates "what links here". However, the actual data is still accessible in old versions. I would have proposed this at the DRV if I had been aware of it. Carcharoth 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean by "potential for libellous comments hiding in the morass of pages". Viridae^Talk 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this quote from the MfD: "Additionally, there may be BLP problems. One redlinked entry from this sublist reads "American criminal". Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. I have no idea how long it has been there (it predates the last subpage-shuffling on 24 Mar 2007) nor who added it. How many other entries present this same problem? How would we know?". Now I've cleared that up, can anyone confirm or deny that blanking to page history would deal with that, just like courtesy blankings of certain AfDs and DRVs? Carcharoth 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI is not a second DRV

Just wanted to point out the ANI is not a second DRV. ^(H) 14:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry about that. Can I open a second DRV? I didn't realise that. If I can, I'll wait until I get back from wikibreak, and then request a "history only" undeletion of, um, 1400 pages. That should be fun. Carcharoth 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That was not directed solely at you, not trying to single you out. A second DRV would only make sense if something has changed that would render the previous decision incorrect. ^(H) 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So, "I missed it" doesn't count? :-) Seriously, I would have had several key points to add to such a discussion (see above). Whether or not those points would have changed the results is not really for me to judge. There is a step beyond DRV, but I don't want to go that route yet. A "history only undeletion" request (to enable me to review the content of the pages) is effectively what I am asking for. I just hope that those that carried out the deletion are aware that the onus may fall on them to carry out something like that. That is one of the things about massive deletions of 1400 pages - you have to be prepared to undelete if necessary. "It would be too much trouble" wouldn't really be a valid response, as it was just as much trouble to delete. At least I hope I've interpreted the DRV notes correctly. Carcharoth 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I do implore you to attempt to use the google cache first, I might even see if I can't rig up a page that has google links for you, that have all the old pages. You could use the cache from there. If we must undelete, a script will need to be written to effectively undo the deletion, should not be too hard. In any case, as a prelude, would you like me to undelete a few select pages and let you look? Again I'd suggest going the google cache route first, as that requires the least effort. (Give me a few moments while I rig up a page with links, if I can even do such a thing efficiently.) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How long does the Google cache last? I'm going to be away from my computer for a few days. I should be packing now. :-( Carcharoth 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-people-by-name-aa (for instance) is a Wikipedia mirror that's likely to contain these pages for a couple of weeks or so. --ais523 16:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. Names by X is a great example of an index list that can't currently be done with a category. Mainly because Category:People is depopulated into its thousands of subcategories. But hopefully if a bot can be got to re-add Category:People to all the {{WPBiography}} pages, then a category based index using {{largeCategoryTOC}} can be implemented. There. That sums up my plan, and if you (the audience here, not ais253) don't understand that, look at User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index to see the system in action for Living People. Carcharoth 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here I've created a page with links to google cache, and if you like I'll make a page to whatever mirror you ask for. Go to User:Eagle_101/Sandbox where I've done the text replacement for you, and most if not all the links are now links to the google result from which you can get the cache from. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do note I did mutilate some of the formatting, but it gives you the results you need, even though the page is not the prettiest ;) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both so, so much. You have been really helpful here. I can now finish packing and go on holiday with a clear conscience! :-) All I ever had here was a vision to use categories to produce a maintainable system to replace LoPbN, and to carefully ensure all the information under one system was transferred to the other. If anyone wants to go ahead with the plan laid out at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name#Proposed solution (please, please, read that before commenting), then please do so. I'll stop here, and add a final comment right at the end. Carcharoth 16:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Eagle 101's text formatting might need tweaking, as it doesn't quite work yet. But no matter, I get the general principle and I can easily generate URLs like that myself. Thanks again to you and ais253. Carcharoth 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing this thread

I'd like to propose that this thread be closed now. Though I'd be interested to see other's people's opinion on all this, I am aware that my typing and arguments have been increasingly frantic. For that I can only apologise. I don't normally do this, but as I said above, I'm packing to go on holiday and am a teeny bit stressed. Bad timing, I guess. Apologies if anyone was irritated by the drama here, and thanks again to those who were very patient and responded and helped find a solution to this. Thank you so much. Now, where's that wikibreak template... :-) Carcharoth 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For someone who has put in an incredible amount of work on a project only to see it deleted without notice, you have been extremely polite, civil and understanding. I must commend you on that and I don't think any apologies are needed. If anything a lot of highly possible drama has been avoided and that's a real achievement. I hope you enjoy your holiday and relax those nerves. Looking forward to seeing you later. Cheers --Srikeit 17:13, 28 May 2007 (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.

Requested Move Challenge?

Resolved

 – Closing admin reviewed his decision

An admin recently turned down the RM of the Dokdo article. It seems odd that he decided there was no consensus when there was about 60% in favor of the move just on raw votes of established editors alone (the old bar that needed to be met). Furthermore, clearly some of the votes for Dokdo had no reason listed (just a signature) or were not in line with policy. It seems that with far fewer than 40% in favor of keeping it, the result is there is no consensus for it to stay--exactly how high of a bar do we need if 60% isn't enough even when we do consider the votes that aren't according to policy?

I might add that several admins voted in the poll, all in favor for the move for whatever policy reasons they had (presumably they might have more knowledge of policy than the newer editors). It seems that this poll just tossed out all the reasoned arguments and instead went along with the raw number of politically based votes. Any opinions? —LactoseTI^T 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Voting is evil. Paul Cyr 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls only gauge current sentiment regarding a situation. They do not make decisions. —Kurykh 20:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Burntapple, block-evasion sock-puppet of indefinitely blocked Grazon

Resolved

 – Blocked due to RfCU

Burntapple very much appears to be a sock-puppet of indefinitely blocked Grazon.

Burntapple's edit history reveals:

• the same, somewhat odd combination of preoccupations, including:
  • negativity about homosexuals and about opponents of Christianity, with
  • attempts to cast left-wing political figures in the best light and their opponents in the worst.
• editing of the same sorts of articles and often the same articles (for example Burntapple has attacked the article on Brian Flemming in the same manner as Devilmaycares (a confirmed sock-puppet of Grazon) once did;
• edit summaries of the very same flavor, including:
  • many empty summaries,and
  • inappropriate use of “rv” and of “rvv”.

Burntapple's talk page shows repeated violation or near violation of WP:3RR, and otherwise conflicts of the same sort as characterized edits by Grazon with his or her various accounts.

I'd formally request a Checkuser, but I'm not quite sure how to edit a page on which prior requests have been made. —SlamDiego 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that Burntapple stopped editing on 25 May, the day that 132.241.246.111 was blocked because it was being used by Grazon for block-evasion and problematic editing. —SlamDiego 19:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've made a request for checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proven, account blocked. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo... Go push your agenda else ware Grazon. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help at Talk:Factory farming

Please help at Talk:Factory farming. We need a miracle or arbcom. WAS 4.250 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin says "I don't know where you get the idea from that a dictionary is a good source for Wikipedia, because it's not in any of the policies or guidelines. On the contrary, these say we prefer secondary sources, not tertiary sources, for obvious reasons." at Talk:Factory farming#Mediation WAS 4.250 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To me it is just nuts to say that dictionaries can not be used to define words in wikipedia. WAS 4.250 19:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't the correct page for your pleas. Note above where it says such things as “This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process.” —SlamDiego 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of policy is an important part of administrator's job. I am asking for administrators to weigh in on SlimVirgin's unique representation of our verifyabiliy policy. WAS 4.250 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an appropropiate venue, and an RfM has been filed anyway, which WAS could sign up for. In brief, however, the use of dictionaries instead of reliable sources has been rejected many times, and was the issue at the heart of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII (which was closed without a decision), where one user wanted to define "capitalism" using a dictionary instead of economists. The issue in this case is whether the terms "intensive farming," industrial farming," and "factory farming" are used interchangeably by reliable sources. They are used interchangeably by CNN, the Washington Post, the BBC, and Reuters. WAS is rejecting the use of those sources and wants instead to use reference.com. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's not an appropriate venue, you shouldn't be making a case for a particular resolution. —SlamDiego 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with those assertions, but I am not going to argue here. WAS 4.250 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You're writing about whom in response to a point about where. —SlamDiego 20:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is nuts to say that dictionaries cannot be used to define words on Wikipedia... as long as they are cited to verifiable and reliable ones (Urban dictionary, etc., doesn't count, obviously). DreamGuy 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rebbie Jackson articles by User:Onthe6

User:Onthe6 has been creating some articles related to singer Rebbie Jackson, in particular: Centipede (album), Reaction (album), R U Tuff Enuff, A Fork in the Road (Rebbie Jackson song), and The Rebbie Jackson Collection. All of the articles this user has written have had to be moved because of naming conventions and have been tagged with the cleanup tag, as all the articles are copy-and-pasted from Windows Media Guide, iTunes, and Amazon. First of all, I'm sure that Onthe6 had good intentions, but I know him from a board I was once a member of, and he's only 13 years old, and has quite frankly done a terrible job. I haven't left him any messages, but I think an administrator should. I'm also wondering why these pages with bad naming conventions and copy/pasted descriptions have gone by unnoticed by admins. I've been the one who has tagged all the articles and corrected their titles. What's going on? Rhythmnation2004 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's stuff copy/pasted it might be a good idea to re-write it straight away, or blank it and come back to it later, as it's almost sure to be copyvio. DrumCarton 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pro-pedophile trolling

this is pedophile trolling. Can an admin please look at this and take action. To accuse a good faith editor of being a perdophile is claerly unacceptable andf should result in action being taken. Said pro pedophile activists have also struck my legit comments twice, eg [30]] SqueakBox 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the person who struck out your comments for other pedophile related edits. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pschemp - copyright dispute

Resolved

User:Pschemp removed my possible copyright violation reports and blocked his uploads without explanation. Those files have been deleted from Commons (see: commons:User talk:Pschemp#Your icon images). A.J. 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep Commons disputes there, unless you are talking about disputes here. —Kurykh 22:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That affected Wikipedia, because Pschemp transfered those deleted files here... But eventually he explained all doubts and I consider this matter resolved. A.J. 22:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• she Viridae^Talk 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin assistance requested on a talk page

Hi there! Could someone take a look at User talk:124.148.69.200 and let me know what they think? They posted their response originally on my talk page and I copied it there for continuity. I looked at this user's contributions, and feel that they are indeed rather heinous (and not valuable). Yet, this user has now taken the time to request a new article at Articles for creation and have it created, which doesn't strike me as vandal behaviour. I don't know if I buy the "account hacked" bit, but perhaps a reformed vandal possibility?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 23:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

He stated on his talk page that he was just bored, so he was lying. So, as a blocked user, he is not entitled to edit here. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I read the dates wrong. He could be telling the truth, but I don't buy the "account was hacked" thing. 24.136.230.38 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SanchiTachi

Well, following a long and twisty tale of arguing and wikilawyering it appears that User:SanchiTachi has decided to leave. this, of course, is his choice. He did do some good work on the site but found the way we operate to be too difficult to grasp (in my opinion that is).

Now, the issue I have at the moment is the large rant on his talk page that he has posted as his parting gift. Please can a couple of admins take a look and see if I am right in thinking it is not appropriate, no matter how mistreated a user thinks they have been? Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A long string of personal attacks? Bizarre, and incorrect assertions about the GFDL? A series of legal threats, and assertions of criminal offenses by other users? Sounds like inappropriate content to me. --Haemo 00:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

He also refuses to allow anyone else to edit, or reply, to his talk page to rebut his allegations. --Haemo 00:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"The following is quoted from my personal website and is only accessible here via quote. Any altering of the following text or taking a majority of it and copying to any other page without my explicit approve will be deemed as a violationg of my copyright/Intellectual Property privledges and is against the GFDL policy." Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this an explicit claim of copyright? While I'm not sure whether such a legal claim is even valid, there are no allowances for using fair use / with permission copyrighted content in userspace. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (Nor in the Wikipedia namespace, come to think of it. Did I just violate copyright? :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's apparently copyright, and violates the GFDL, but it's so confusing I don't know what to say. I mean, you can't simultaneously claim it's copyright, and it's licensed under the GFDL. --Haemo 00:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A few random thoughts: Does this have any bearing? If I have written something and then release it as GFDL (on here by clcking the button below) then can I take that all back afterwards? Does anyone have a link to this personal site? If it is his site and he owns the copyright doesn't he also have the right to give it away under GFDL which he has done by publishing it here? (Emperor 02:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

He can, but he cannot then claim that his website's copyright claim supersedes the GDFL agreement he consents to every time he clicks "Save Page." He also cannot hide behind copyright claims to dodge the general regulations regarding user pages and user talk pages at Wikipedia because again he's implicitly consented to Wikipedia policy by dint of getting an account here. By first posting his screed on his website and then claiming that it's been quoted on his talkpage and thus subject to his own copyright claims is Wikilawyering of the worst sort. Beyond that, most of his claims for his grievances seem based upon similar misuse and mangling of copyright claims.--Rosicrucian 04:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hamedog -- Block

Sunday User:Willkca, post some comments a school talk page, these comments identify individuals who have been subject to criminal investigations to which no charges were laid, the comments were a your guilty this how, leaving both himself and Wikipedia open to WP:LIBEL under Australian law. As soon as I became aware of these I delete the comments. Notified Willkca and after discussions with another Admin he realised the position he had placed Wikipedia and himself in. The problem with Hamedog is he believes he was a subject of these comments and asked Willkca to repeat them. Since then Hamedog has continued to push the I want to know its my right and every body elses to know the comment line. Even after warning him pointing him to both WP:LIBEL and Slander_and_libel#Australian_law he has continued to refuse request by myself and others to archive his talk page discussion and is still saying the discussion isnt closed.

To end this continual request for the comments, I have Blocked him for Trolling for 72 hours(his 3rd block, previous 2 were for vandalism). Can other person review, and they choose to alter the block I have no problems with that. thanks Gnangarra 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196 sockpuppet

Resolved

Legal prowess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked --Srikeit 02:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

No admins have blocked anyone on the list for at least fifteen minutes--someone needs to hop over there and clean this mess up. Thanks. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 03:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no longer a backlog. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Second opinion requested

Mixino1 (talk · contribs · logs) made a couple of (what seemed like) joke edits to Irish-Scots. I warned him about WP:BLP and he reverted anyway, vandalised my user page a bunch of times, and has had fun since then with my comments on his user talk. I don't want to block as it might look like I was annoyed at him for vandalising my user page. Could somebody else please take a look at it? I'm obviously open to the criticism that I should have been more patient when he made his silly edits. --Guinnog 05:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with your behaviour. I just warned him about not editing other people's comments and user pages. He's clearly in his "do something just becaue I was told not to" phase of vandalism, and I'm expecting vandalism of my comment and/or user page within minutes. I'd recommend a 24-hour cooldown block if he vandalizes again. --Ashenai 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin and Ashenai, for your interventions. --Guinnog 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 24 hour block by SV

JulesH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spamming articles with website

The following discussion 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.

---

With Will's statement that this resolved, I'm boldly purple boxing it. Anything further can be addressed at the appropriate article or policy talk pages, or in a new thread if necessary. Serpent's Choice 09:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where this should go, but it needs some intervention. Editor has been warned not to add the link, but is adding it to numerous articles. Anchoress 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A better question is why User:Will Beback is characterizing nielsenhayden.com (or however it's spelled) as an "attack site" ([31], [32], and especially [33]). Buh? --Calton | Talk 00:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Calton, I've looked at various pages on that site, and it engages in violations of privacy. Speaking as a victim of serious sexually-motivated stalking from a Wikipedian (now banned from Wikipedia) who found out my real name and subjected not only me but also my family, my friends, my former teacher, my superior, and my work colleagues to a campaign of terror which lasted for a year (until he was taken into police custody over a separate issue), I would just love to know why, when people see that something is removed from a page as an attack site (especially when the removal comes from an administrator, rather than from a troll just making a point), and when the removal still leaves the article looking reasonably respectable, they find it so urgent to restore it. What harm will it do to have a not very well known article without a possibly useful but certainly not essential link for a day or so, while you're sending a discreet e-mail to the person who removed it. How serious is the damage to Wikipedia if the link stays out until the person disputing its removal has been able to make discreet enquiries as to what the problem is? Why do people not think a little more about the possible distress of the victim? Musical Linguist 10:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that TNH has made it clear that she considers herself the victim of stalking by an anonymous person who goes by the name "Will Beback." --130.189.15.61 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for Heaven's sake. A handful of nasty comments plus a reference to an easily-found allegation about a "real" name, in the context of a vastly larger site, do not an "attack site" make. A little off-Wiki name-calling, however uncivil and unjustified, does not remotely equate to the kind of stalking described above, nor make it significantly more likely that some third party will engage in such stalking as a result of it. Will has removed more than a few links on these articles, none of them leading to the page with the so-called "outing." And yes, it does hurt the articles, and Wikipedia credibility. I urge both sides in this not to overreact, either by attempting to ban links to Making Light or by attacking individual Wikipedia editors and admins. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 11:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack site incident - comment by Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

The science fiction editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden (TNH) has also been a Wikipedia editor (using acknowledged IP addresses), and in that context she and I have been in conflict in the past. The conflicts were civil. I had noticed that she ahd made some derogatory remarks about me on her popular blog, but I didn't respond. However I just found out that she has been making further personal attacks across many pages including trying to discover and post personal identity information.Google search Altogether, it adds up to a lot personal attacks both by TNH and her readers, some of whom are also Wikipedia editors.

TNH's readers' actions are not germane to this discussion Doctorow 00:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They most certainly are, if it means that the privacy of Wikipedians is being compromised by links to her site. Musical Linguist 10:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If she hosts derogatory remarks by others without removing them, as well as making her own, then it shows she's promoting personal attacks. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In response I've removed about two dozens links to her website. User:JulesH and User:Doctorow have objected and reverted my deletions repeatedly. I'm seeking to contact TNH about this, but in the meantime could some other admins take over? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• The ArbCom has ruled that "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances," [34] and that "[l]inks to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." [35]
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Linking to attack sites ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If the website's trying to out a Wikipedian who hasn't outed himself, there's no reason we should help them by linking to it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a very accurate characterization of the material. Teresa Nielsen Hayden (TNH) remarked with perplexed frustration on Will Beback's changes to her edits. In this, she seems to have been quite justified. For example, Will Beback adamantly told her that it was inappropriate to use contractions in a reference work. This is wrong. TNH knows it's wrong because she has worked in publishing for decades, including a stint as an editor in a prominent series of reference books (Beback has been playing the innocent in this, saying that TNH has never offered any "constructive criticism" -- surely, disabusing him of this notion counts). She went on, in her message board, wondering about what sort of person would be convinced of such a strange idea and why he was following her around Wikipedia, changing all her edits. She and some of her readers put "Will Beback" into Google and mentioned what they found in the first page of results. This hardly constitutes stalking and outing of an editor -- this is *Googling* of an editor, in extremis, after prolonged provocation.

Will Beback's response (including his one-sided recounting here) has the character of a vendetta. He is removing relevant links that have nothing to do with Wikipedians or Wikipedia from articles in the project. In one case, he removed the only reference an article had, because it went to a page that was hosted on TNH's site. He says that he'll only stop removing these useful references from the encyclopedia when TNH changes what has been posted to her message board.

The disputed policy on Attack Sites is subject to abuse, and no example could be clearer than this. Will Beback wants someone to censor her message boards to remove links to Google and frustrated remarks about him. He is willing to delete the hard work of other Wikipedians in order to accomplish this. Being a Wikipedia editor does not -- and should not -- confer on you the right to edit someone else's website, nor to dictate what may or may not be posted on that website. Doctorow 04:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What may not be apparent here is that the attack sites section in NPA is very controversial and has been seen by many editors--including me--as being pushed through without consensus and with some very questionable arguments. See the talk page and the essay at User:Dtobias/Why BADSITES is bad policy.

Note that Arbcom doesn't make policy, and their "findings of fact" are only decisions about a particular case and don't bind other people. Arbcom decisions should not even be mentioned in the policy in the first place. Ken Arromdee 01:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee does not make policy, although it decisions may be incorporated into policy by the community. With respect to the MONGO decision the essence of the decision is that you shouldn't engage in hurtful behavior toward another user. Whether our decision is incorporated into Wikipedia:No personal attacks or not that principle remains valid and enforceable. It is the principle which lies behind Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Fred Bauder 12:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Mr. Beback, whoever he might be, is part of the problem. In this instance, with his initial edit, he didn't even try to link to any definition of the attack-site term he used. Going by the material other people have linked to, it looks as if he has exaggerated the offending content of the Making Light site. Moreover, if TNH shouldn't edit the page because, being TNH, she is biased, it's arguable that Mr. Beback should stop editing the page too. Allegations have been made of bias on his part, leading to inappropriate editing of other pages. After all, we expect Judges to recuse themselves from hearing cases in which they have a personal interest.

This whole "incident" seems to have begun as part of a personality conflict between Will BeBack and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, in which most of the blame in my opinion lies with the former. I suggest that Will stays away from any Nielsen Hayden related topics, as he or she is incapable of behaving rationally in this context. --Martin Wisse 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by JulesH

Teresa Nielsen Hayden is a well-respected professional science fiction editor, whose web site is generally considered a reliable source for publishing industry information. She is also the originator of the technique of disemvowelling, hence her web site is highly relevant to this subject. She shares her web site with her husband, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, hence it is highly relevant on his article as well.

User:Will Beback has objected to the use of this site for an unspecified reason, labelling it as an "attack site" without providing any evidence of such. A brief scan of the site's contents reveals no attacks against him or anyone else who is identifiable as a wikipedia editor. I have noticed in the past that he has a negative point of view of her, for instance commenting on a discussion on WT:A (IIRC) that he wouldn't accept her web site as a reliable source due to her adding unsourced information to wikipedia in the past, although there is nothing in policy that links the two.

When I noticed he was repeatedly removing the links (removals which, in many cases, had previously been reverted by User:Doctorow) I reinstated them, feeling that this was vandalism driven by some kind of personal disagreement. When he commented on my talk page, I disagreed with his assessment. As I read the policy he quoted, we may be barred from linking directly to personal attacks on another web site, but we are not barred (except in unusual circumstances, e.g. where a site routinely disparages wikipedia editors) from linking to the site at all. I therefore, in the belief that he has misinterpreted this policy, continued to revert his removals. Neither I nor User:Doctorow have violated WP:3RR, although User:Will Beback has on a number of these pages.

Specifically, referring to the quoted content above, "[a] website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants" appears to me to be a description of a site that routinely publishes private information about Wikipedia participants. Whatever the case, User:Will Beback has provided no evidence that [36] has ever published such information (at least not without the users' permission -- for instance it does contain personal information about me that I don't mind revealing). I therefore fail to see the relevance of this arbcom decision. JulesH 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Jules, what are the links being used for? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be the most relevant question. If the links are simply being used to support claims about the subjects of the articles, and are not links to attack material, that would be fine in my opinion. I'm not an expert on the arbcom's decision, and applying it to other cases would require careful interpretation lest the arbcom themselves object if this ends up before them. It would seem to be common sense that the ruling was intended to apply to (a) links to websites that are primarily 'attack' websites, and (b) links directly to attack material. In no way can I believe that the ruling was intended to be used as a blanket ban on useful information. It is similar to how useful edits by a banned user shouldn't necessarily be reverted. Technically WP:BAN says that this is OK, but if the edits stand on their own merits, it shouldn't matter who made them. Shoot the message, not the messenger. Carcharoth 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also - editors interested in commenting on the Attack Site policy in general, it's now at WP:NPA - i've commented there on the talk. Thanks - Purples 01:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A variety of purposes. For instance, on Teresa Nielsen Hayden and Patrick Nielsen Hayden along with Former Latter-day Saints and List of people with narcolepsy they are used as references for basic biographical information. On disemvoweling they are used as a primary source showing examples of the use of the technique and as a 'further information' external link. On John M. Ford and Villanelle they contain examples of poetry and other writings by John M. Ford, who was a frequent contributor to the site. On Talk:PublishAmerica the link was part of one of my comments, justifying why I felt another editor's opinion was incorrect. There are others that are simply external links providing a different view of the subject. JulesH 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• The encyclopedia is more important than the feelings of editors. If the Haydens' website is a reliable source for various articles (and there is a longstanding consensus that this is so), then it should be linked to. To stomp our feet and complain because criticisms of Wikipedia or of Wikipedia editors appeared on that site is childish and unprofessional. This is exactly the kind of situation that critics of WP:BADSITES were worried about. Under no circumstances must these links be removed. *** Crotalus *** 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you approve of the outing of editors? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Have you stopped beating your wife? *** Crotalus *** 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • It may be a joke to you but it matters to some. I don't see your real name on your user page. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 02:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The "outing" in question is being wildly overblown, as it consists of a discussion of the top screen's worth of results when you put your userid into Google. The idea that having this on an obscure Making Light message-board (in addition to all those Google pages hosted by griefers who are unlikely to remove their information because you say so) will keep people from finding out who you are is not very credible. With or without Making Light, "outing" you is as trivial as putting your login into the Google search-box and clicking "OK."Doctorow 05:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Although it's not displayed openly, I'm sure someone could figure it out if they really wanted to. I don't see that as the end of the world. *** Crotalus *** 02:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I see the content that User:Will Beback was refering to: I had forgotten about it, but I did see it at the time it went up: a link to Encyclopaedia Dramatica, along with his real name extracted from that site (always supposing the information there is even approximately true, it just looks made up to me). A single page out of the hundreds on the site, and not one that is being linked to in any of the articles in question. JulesH 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I should note that JulesH participated in one or more of the offending threads on the website.[37], as have other Wikipedia editors. So this isn't just something that's unrelated to editors here. Second, it calls the website's neutrality into question. If the editor is engaged on ongoing disputes with Wikipedia and its editors, can it still be viewed as a reliable source? Lastly, we blocked links to ED that didn't go straight to attacks because there were plenty of attacks on that site. The same applies to this website. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should "participation in the thread" be germane to this discussion? The thread was about Wikipedia in general. One tiny subset of it was about you. Neither JulesH nor any other Wikipedian participated in that tiny sub-discussion. Is it your position that merely being in the general vicinity of a discussion about putting your userid into Google makes one suspect? In my view, being the subject of criticism on a website is a much more serious compromise of your neutrality -- of all the people on Wikipedia, you are the one with the least neutrality in distinguishing "criticism" from "attack" -- after all, you're the subject of the criticism. Doctorow 13:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If the editor is engaged on ongoing disputes with Wikipedia and its editors, can it still be viewed as a reliable source? Of course it can. Wikipedia is not the center of the universe, and the above statement shows a remarkable degree of egotism. Secondly, the allegedly offending comments were posted not by the Haydens themselves, but by commenters on the thread. We don't refuse to link to reliable sources because some commenters on the site said something nasty. This is childish, unprofessional behavior. That thread contains a variety of statements: some reasonable criticisms and some over-the-top trolling by disgruntled editors. The encyclopedia is more important than your feelings. *** Crotalus *** 01:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, the allegedly offending comments were posted not by the Haydens themselves, but by commenters on the thread. You mean like #185 of like this, for example. Oh, wait, it has her name on it. --Calton | Talk 02:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. But it doesn't change the fact that removing these links does nothing to punish the Haydens — it merely reduces the quality of the encyclopedia. Reliable sources aren't required to kiss our butts. *** Crotalus *** 02:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but even 'attack' websites can have ordinary, sane, useful, well-written pages alongside their rabid, ranting forum pages. Banning linking to any of the pages is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All it does is encourage a new game for trolls to engage in: get attack material inserted on a website (forum pages are a good starting point) and then campaign to get all links to that website removed from Wikipedia, and sit back and laugh at the ensuing mayhem. I've had similar arguments before over blanket reversion/deletion of material contributed by banned users. If other Wikipedia editors judge the content or links to be useful, then that should count for something. Trust the community of Wikipedia editors (the focus of which widens as a dispute escalates) to be able to judge this sort of thing. Otherwise the overall message is a condescending one of: "we don't trust our editors to be able to recognise bad edits/attack sites and we have these blanket rules in place to protect ourselves from rogue editors". Carcharoth 01:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur: while TNH is behaving very badly -- her attitude is disturbingly self-entitled, akin to those of people like Jack Sarfatti and the Aetherometry crowd -- a complete purge is going overboard. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I got one of those threatenting phone calls from Sarfatti and I've gotten other phones calls too. I haven't been blasted with an air horn, though I do know of an editor who's been harassed that way. Perhaps a complete purge is an over-reaction but not by much, considering the context. We don't tolerate on-wiki attacks and we shouldn't encourage off-wiki attacks either. I'm sure we'll be able to work this out as the subject is undoubtedly saner than Sarfatti or Primetime. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

One link to an old ED thread, even though it's by one of the blog's proprietor's, doesn't make Making Light an "attack site". In a different comment, Theresa Nielsen Hayden writes a pretty extensive complaint about Will Beback's editing behavior, but that doesn't make it an attack site either. I don't see any reason to remove links to Making Light. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful about calling any website an "attack site" if it names someone, perhaps without realizing that that person was "outed" elsewhere by troublemakers and stalkers. We should perhaps give Teresa Nielsen Hayden a chance to remove the material; if she's decent, and she seems to be, I'm sure she'll take the request very seriously. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Have I got this right? We are now contemplating removing links to sites that have so much as a single link to ED? You know that means Urban Dictionary, YouTube, amazon.com, and Digg, right? Risker 04:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that. Please don't set up straw man arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I forgot that sarcasm translates poorly over the ether. However, that appears to be the theory on which Will Beback was operating. Risker 05:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is just sheer lunacy. Put the links back, if they aren't back already. Whining about one page where people looked into the strange actions of a wikistalking editor here does not make an attack site. Suggesting that she remove the section from her site before links will be readded is blaming the victim. As a sign of good faith all those links should be put back and maybe then she'll remove the tiny part one editor went into hysteria over, not that she has to by any means. This is pure censorship of outside sites for personal reasons, at an extremely bad precedent for Wikipedia to take. "Do what some editor here wants you to change on some unrelated page on your site or we blacklist all of your pages" is just an obscene and ridiculous stance to take. DreamGuy 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of wikistalking, if it were then TNH would be the stalker. Nor is TNH the "victim", just the opposite. I'm willing to see the links restored while this is being resolved, but WP:NPA is a core policy. We shouldn't be linking to sites that seek to harm Wikipedia or its editors. That's just common sense. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

NPA is a core policy. So, however, are our requirements of verifiability and NPOV. TNH is an important source for statements about publishing, and particularly publishing in science fiction and fantasy. Under our NPOV policy, this view must be represented in some articles. These claims must be sourced. WP:NPA does not, should not, and can not trump this requirement. Deleting such links is, frankly, actionable vandalism. Phil Sandifer 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The use of blogs for sources is also disputed. While this blog may be acceptable in certain areas, it is not the New York times. The author is biased on a number of issues and the blog has been used as a source for topics outside of scifi (Animal hoarding?). That's a side issue, but we shouldn't confuse this blog with a undoubtedly reliable source. It's a blog that promotes attacks on Wikipedia editors. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Beback, let's be honest about this. You and Mrs. Neilsen Hayden have a history of arguments, on various topics. She is quite open aboput her RL identity. You aren't. And the only Wikipedia editor that her blog criticises is you. Everything you've said here seems intended to diminish the personal nature of this dispute, and gloss over your abuse of admin privilege. The general allegation is made that Wikipedia can't control such abusive behaviour. Since you seem to be using a concept--"attack sites"--from a rejected Wikipedia Policy proposal, I find it hard to avoid seeing you as an uncontrollable loose-cannon, rolling unpredictably across the deck and crushing all in your path. The only difference between you and the usual Usenet troll is that here you have admin privileges. "Power without responsibility: the privilege of the harlot through the ages." Zhochaka 09:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Will, did you even read the articles you were editing? The link on Animal hoarding is not being used as a reference. It's in the external links section, which is where a well-researched and informed essay on the subject belongs. JulesH 08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The links were removed under WP:NPA, a core policy. However I'll note simply that the guideline WP:EL includes blogs under "links normally to be avoided". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 08:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You people just love to keep referring to "common sense", don't you? So, I guess my sort of sense, as seen in my essay on the subject, is uncommon? *Dan T.* 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Um, according to discussion here, the offending material has been redacted at Making Light, mooting the point of this whole mess for now. Meanwhile, there's already discussion at WT:NPA to address the larger issues of identifying attack sites and all that aspect of things (and there has been for two months now ... NPA isn't protected without reason, sad to say). With those considerations making this thread a high-pressure setting for matters resolved or being handled elsewhere, might I motion that this thread should now get the purple-box treatment? Serpent's Choice 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see TNH's act of moderation and withdraw my objections to linking to her website. I acknowledge over-reacting initially and appreciate everyone's patience in this matter. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:29, 29 May 2007 (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.

Striking votes in AFD discussion

In the following AFD [38] number of keep votes have been striken by those who want to delete the articles. I checked one and found out that the striking was not done by the editor who voted. I fixed one but there are others. This is getting out of control as well as personal attack as terrorists who voted to keep the article or edited the article. Need Admin input. Thanks Taprobanus 15:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It could actually do with closing to be honest with you - it's been open long enough, good luck to whoever does :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've closed it with the result "no consensus". My rationale is on the page. Now I brace for possible angry editors :P. Paul Cyr 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Iwazaki (talk · contribs) has reopened the AfD and stricken out the keep votes again declaring them "sockpuppets". --Farix (Talk) 10:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content from Afd logs by User:Rodrigue

Rodrigue removed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryan_Woodhall from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 28 as seen here [39]. When I tried to discuss this with him on his talk page, he removed that without response as seen here [40]. That, to me, shows an unwillingness to discuss a rather serious conduct issue. I can only conclude that he acted deliberately to alter the record of Afd debates. Perhaps you fine folks will have better luck getting through to him than I have. Deranged bulbasaur 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. It looks like he accidently removed it when adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions. Nothing to get upset about. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has dealt extensively with Rodrigue, I can say that part of it is ignorance and refusal to properly list AfDs. He has a history of half-assed, non-consensus major edits and mal-formed AfDs that he expects everyone else to fix. He is a problem user. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

TJ Spyke

Resolved

I just blocked TJ Spyke (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours due to revert-warring at Wii. As one can tell from the article's history, he reverted the article seven times in the past twenty-four hours, primarily removing two (possibly spam) links another user had added. Now I realize that simple vandalism is exempted, but does that really qualify as simple vandalism? Another admin had blocked the other editor involved for violating the 3RR. So, I'm on the fence here... perhaps the links here could be considered simple vandalism, but WP:3RR says it is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. Additionally, seven times in twenty-four hours just seemed excessive and Alfiboy (talk · contribs) is not just a new kid on the block who doesn't understand the rules or is a serial spammer. Comments are welcome. -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the situation was borderline or questionable, did you consider a warning before blocking? Newyorkbrad 02:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the admin who blocked Alfiboy. Had I noticed that TJ Spyke had reverted him 7 times in 24 hours, I probably would have blocked him also. This is exactly the sort of stale edit warring that WP:3RR is intended to prevent. I would probably only have blocked him for 24 hours, though. Perhaps you should consider adjusting TJ's block down to that, if this is a first offense. Nandesuka 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tariq already unblocked outright and gave a warning; see TJ Spyke's talk. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, spyke wasn't the only one reverting Alfiboy's vandalism. It was actually User:Maxamegalon2000, User:Dancter, User:TJ_Spyke, and, of course, User:Nandesuka who all had to combat his actions, which included adding spam links, and repeatedly removing legitimate external links. This, this, and especially this were all flagrant and intentionally spiteful vandalism. Coupled with him levying accusations of vandalism, as well as parroting back people's explanations to him, very definitively established him as a severe disruption. I really don't see how spyke could've acted in any other way, other than if he'd made a notice here on AN/I for an immediate blocking (To be honest, after nine intentional disruptions, I'm surprised he didn't get more than 24 hours). Anyways, I know a lot of people read AN/I, and I just didn't want people to think spyke had actually been doing any edit warring, or anything else disruptive beyond trying to handle a vandal. Bladestorm 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

USER:Sparkzilla

A recent COI [41] was proved against the above user. He has now laudably admitted his COI and declared his true identity. One result of the COI was that he was warned too back-off editing the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) page, by admin Mangojuice [42]

However, although I have been trying to engage in dialogue with him to include his input via the talk page, [43] he has now resumed editing the article directly. He has also lapsed back into personal attacks. [44]

Sparkzilla is displaying strong WP:OWN issues and does not seem to have taken on-board the advice the admin offered or any lessons from the recent COI. I feel some action should be taken, and his editing of his company-related articles curtailed. Thank you very much David Lyons 02:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, User:David Lyons history shows he is a WP:SPA that has an undeclared COI as a member of Baker's support group. His whole posting history has been either to remove negative information about Baker, or to attack Metropolis for exposing Baker. In fact, I have asked him to supply sources for items positive to Baker that I could not find [45], but instead of adding them, he perefers to attack me.

I am a published critic of Baker's case, which includes an editorial I wrote about the case [46], an article about my criticism of the group in the Swindon Advertiser[47], and a follow-up article in Metropolis [48]. I am also the only person to have analysed of all of Baker's public statements, in a 30-page report that I wrote while the trial was progressing, and which is available on my personal website. (please note that I do not use this as a source, mindful of WP:OR). This 30-page document and my opposition to Baker's support group was notable enough to be acknowleged by Baker's mother Iris in a lengthy rant on the support website. I attended the appeal trial on several ocassions and have talked with many journalists about the case. I have far more qualification to discuss this case than him.

David Lyons is misrepresenting the RFC I created (mindful of my COI), to gather independent comments regarding the use of my editorial and subsequent article as sources in the Baker article.

From WP:COI You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion.

According to this policy, I put the inclusion of my sources to RFC. The respondents' comments [49] say clearly that claims made by me, and by my magazine that have mutliple sources can stay in the article.

To clarify: There are three respndents to the RFC who are for inclusion if the items are properly sourced (cla68, jossi, and ZayZeeEm), one who is neutral bordering on inclusion (SMcCandlish) and one who added a source (Addhoc). There are no editors who say the source should be removed. I recently received confirmation from cla68 that he agrees with my summary of the RFC results.[50]

In fact, I have not added two of the disputed claims because they only appear in my magazine and don't have multiple sources and have told David Lyons that I am will leave the "reactions to the trials section" as-is. I also edited the section down to reduce concerns of undue weight by removing a "criticism" section and removed some other outdated claims.

This is also not about self-promotion. Each item about my magazine's involvement that is currently in the article is backed up by multiple secondary sources. My op-ed is backed up by the Swindon Advertiser article, the claims in the Metropolis article are backed up by the defence's own documents, and Baker's support site, and the claims about the MP have two sources. I am not asking for any other claims to be added at this time. This case was controversial because it was a disputed conviction -- it would be strange if the opinion and supporting facts of people who don't believe Baker's story are not acceptable. In other words, removing this properly sourced material makes the article have a POV that Baker's innocence was not in dispute.

David Lyons is simply asking for the removal of well-sourced items to suit his POV. He has been engaged in a campaign to remove negative information about Baker since day one. He has so far tried the following methods for removal: He has questioned the notability of the sources, questioned the expertise of the writer, tried to claim the items are self-published (all of these claims were rejected). Then he got another editor to bring a COI against me. He is now using the COI to force his POV edits unopposed onto the article and bringing this to AN/I to gain further leverage for his POV.

USer:Mangojuice says on the COI I have raised against David Lyons [51] that his recent edits regarding the circumstances of Baker's arrest are pushing POV (he is stating Baker's claims about his arrest as facts).

I have told David Lyons on numerous occasions that WP:COI is not a get-out-of-jail-card that allows him to inject his own POV edits. This is what WP:COI says...

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I have also told him to concentrate his effort on "attacking the article, not the editor".

I would like David Lyons to...

1. Declare his COI as a member of Baker's support group
2. Stop misrepresrenting the results of the RFC
3. Stop trying to invoke COI to push POV edits
4. Stop pushing the POV that Baker's claims about his arrest are facts. They are not.

I have also offered to stop editing the article if David Lyons (and his meatpuppet Heatedissuepuppet) also do so, and let other editors take over. I think this is a reasonable solution.

I hope that admins will see that despite my COI that I have followed policy, and am trying to get to proper resolution using the dispute resolution process. I hope that admins will see through David Lyon's attempts to game WP to his advantage and bring this issue to a close. I know it was long, but this guy has really been doing this for too long, and it has to stop. Sparkzilla 03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyons may well have conduct issues. They may need to be investigated. But there is no exception to any policy for "but the other user was being bad too!" So you still haven't shown that you should not be sanctioned for misconduct. -Amarkov moo! 03:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why I should be sanctioned. According to COI policy I can cite my own sources if they are relevant, and can edit to remove POV. There are many experts in many fields who also do so (global warming for example). Even so, mindful of my COI I have followed the dispute resolution process properly through RFC to get the opinion of uninvolved editors. David Lyon's simply doesn't like the results of the RFC and is escalating the incident to here as yet another part of his long history of disrupting the dispute resolution process. Sparkzilla 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

At the least, you made the personal attack he cited. There may or may not be more. -Amarkov moo! 03:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I called him an anonymous coward because he has is editing the artcle with an undeclared COI, while using my COI to force POV edits. Pot/Kettle. I have been very patient with this person for a long time. If I made a comment that was out of line then I apologise. Sparkzilla 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, it is not the first time he has resorted to personal attacks. [52] David Lyons 04:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut the crap about minor civility issues and focus on dispute resolution -- I call on uninvolved editors here to comments on the results of this RFC, particularly the comments of uninvolved editors on the RFC (in other words, is my summary of the RFC correct, or is David Lyons) [53] Sparkzilla 05:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, kindly moderate your tone. I would direct you to the opening paragraph of this AN/I posting. It is about you and your uncivil conduct and COI/continued posting on the Baker page. Please restrict your comments to that. It is not about your RfC or anything else - if you wish to discuss that, may I suggest that you explore the dispute avenues open to you. Really, all this stuff you've posted here - do you really think anyone is going to wade through it all? David Lyons 08:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wasting everyone's time trying to force what is basically a simple content dispute using COI, or this bogus AN/I request. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I have directed uninvolved admins to the RFC, where they can comment directly on whether or not you have misrepresented the results. [54] Sparkzilla 08:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Cross post from the COI forum...I believe that I'm a neutral editor involved with the Nick Baker article. I have no connection to Metropolis (other than the fact that I read it sometimes) or to Nick Baker's cause. My comments on the matter are included in the RfC on the article's talk page. I believe as of right now the article is more or less balanced, giving both (Baker's and Metropolis) sides of the issue. I don't have any comment on the question as to whether there is a COI problem with either Sparkzilla or Lyons or whether they've been uncivil to each other or not. Cla68 09:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of disputed AFD

Per Wikipedia deletion policy, non admins "may only close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." Paul Cyr (talk · contribs), who is not an admin and has no prior experience with closing AFDs, closed the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination) as "no concensus", thereby directly violating guidelines. Regardless of whether an experienced admin will agree with Paul's decision, given the extremely lengthy discussion - and the numerous "delete" votes by anon IPs - I'm sure that an admin with a lot more experience should be actually going over the discussion and then closing the AFD, let alone the fact that's what should be done according to policy.

In that respect, can this be judged as an improper closure and the discussion be reopened, pending proper closure? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reopened the AFD, but I have no intention of closing it now. Sean William 04:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for the help Sean. I also re-added the AFD tags onto the article's page. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sr13 (an admin) closed it about six hours after Sean re-opened it. Shortly after that, someone else re-opened it again. I've reverted back to Sr13's version. If people disagree with closure now, they should take it to WP:DRV. -- JLaTondre 12:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that WP:DELPRO is a guideline. If a non admin closure is done an no consensus, and there is truly no consensus, then it may be improper to reopen, there is DRV. I have no opinion on the actual AFD itself. Navou 12:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Admin. please involve User:Sarvagnya is heavilly vandalising the above page. See the revert [55] without any reasons he/she reverted of the TWO editors' edits simultaneously.Lustead 07:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Blnguyen (cranky admin anniversary) 07:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)