Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive488

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Greek Macedonia/Macedonia/FYROM userboxes[edit]

I've just come across the following userbox, which, if I'm honest, I think should be immediately deleted due to the rather divisive message inside:

Flag of Greek Macedonia.svg This user supports Greece and real Macedonia on Macedonia's naming dispute with Fyrom, because he knows history and he is aware of justice.
Am I the only one who can see a problem with this? FYI, I'm not Greek, or Macedonian, but that last sentence is overly insulting, I think. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that userbox should be deleted. I think userboxes with divisive messages should be deleted. Our job is to build the encyclopedia, not express our personal or political views. AdjustShift (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a pretty clear WP:T2 deletion to me. Out of courtesy, I'm notifying the owner of the userbox of this thread now, however I strongly recommend removal of the userbox. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it transcluded from a seperate file, or is it just manually added to the userpage? If its transcluded, the original should be deleted post-haste. Regardless, it should also be removed from the userpage post-haste as a violation of WP:USERPAGE. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue that might be better handled at WP:MFD. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a userbox template, I think it might have been copied and pasted. I can't find the template anywhere. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with SWik78. This is beyond MFD. I see no compelling reason to keep this sort of shit around longer than about 5 more minutes, never mind 5 days. Per WP:SNOW, there is no defensable reason to put that kind of polemic on a userpage, and it should be removed ASAP... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyways, is there a [[RL:LAME]] for the lamest real-life conflicts? Support delete. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a note: there's a whole host of similar boxes on a lot of userpages of Greek and Macedonian contributors. The topic has come up repeatedly; we've occasionally purged the worst excesses of POV screeds on userpages, but these smallish box things have typically been left untouched. If you delete it (no objections from me), be prepared for a boatload of OTHERCRAPEXISTS complaints. Fut.Perf. 17:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, such overt hostility and divisiveness is blockworthy. I say (a) remove with prejudice, warn user that such declarations are completely unacceptable, and (b) block immediately and without further sommation if the box returns, especially if it has been tweaked to wikilawyer around the warning. Enough with the national disputes already! — Coren (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Cavalry didn't bother to do so, I've just removed the userbox code from User:The Cat and the Owl's page, and left an explanation for the removal and a warning not to re-add the box here. I again invited the user to comment here if they have questions. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just removed it from User:Alexikoua too. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
How are you chaps looking for it? Google and Mediawiki's searches aren't picking it up for me - hence why I'm not removing it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I clicked on the flag image and looked for the pages that linked to it. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a fine tool for searching Wikipedia. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Fyrom is helpful. That particular spelling (vs. all-caps FYROM) is perceived as pejorative (as in "Fyromians" to refer to the people), so many of those links should be examined. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll check up on the FYROM links. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Check this one. --Smashvilletalk 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted that one. Let us know if you find more... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Eek. I'm just not up enough on the whole Macedonia thing to know the acceptable from the unacceptable, so I didn't want to delete...but looking at the user's other ones...eek. --Smashvilletalk 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah, I saw those. Most seem fairly innocuous, you know of the "I support my side" without being overtly offensive towards the other side, but some probably need to go. If you see any that are questionable, try MFD for those. If there are any that seem WAY over the line, then delete on sight. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone has removed them yet (too lazy to look), but I made a list of userpages with that stuff ages ago: user:Republic-of-Malakia (even offensive username), user:Fallacia83 (including a disgusting rant), user:Gagauz, user:Sthenel, user:The-Real-ZEUS, user:Waterfall999, user:Scott Anafas, and user:Maggas. Some of these users aren't active any more, but still. BalkanFever 04:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and user:DefendEurope. BalkanFever 06:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
And user:Hectorian. BalkanFever 08:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
SKO
VAR
VSK
This user would support a solution of the Naming Issue for FYROM in the form of: Skopje, Vardarskia, Vardar-Skopje, or any other name that does not include the (Greek) name 'Macedonia' in the title, and for a suitable flag that doesn't contain any Greek symbols.




What's the problem with this userbox ? apart from expressing an unrealistic position for the name. --Zakronian (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Still pretty political, IMHO. The whole issue is. Ethnically says "I don't care if you think you want to call yourself Macedonian, you're not". To me, that's uncivil - and I'm 100% uninvolved. -t BMW c- 11:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Determining if it's extreme or not depends on the weight one gives to the self-determination right "against" the protection of another nation's cultural identity. In this case reality shows these two are highly connected and cannot be jugded separately (you can deny that in theory and in lack of personal experience of course), and we're talking about a userpage, where you have the most freedom to express any opinions and to balance things your way. This userbox does not imply something that can be seen as more offensive or controversial than for example a userbox where an ethnic Macedonian editor states he has ancient Macedonian ancestry by piping "Macedonian" to "ancient Macedonian" (the worst way to say it) next to the Vergina Sun, a primarily ancient Greek symbol. It may be his right to claim something silly that cannot be really determined, but it also clearly antagonizes the Greek identity, and from an objective view it is mostly backed from the lack of information. You might find all that irrelevant, but then you'd have to be strict in general about rules and i could in turn comparatively extent that to other usepage content issues. The pro-Kosovo and pro-Serbia templates for example. Or, what really makes this issue any different from a template supporting say the unification of Romania and Moldova without solving the Transnistria problem first or calling for respect of Georgia's territorial integrity ? Anyway, i don't support the expressed position on the naming dispute, just spending my free time sharing the Greek perspective with you. :)--Zakronian (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Posts by IP about shell kinney[edit]

This post was originally made at WP:RFC/U in the admin's section. I think it is better suited here. Regards SoWhy 02:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having to write this unlogged in because shell kinney (admin) has made made every effort to silence the facts i've put forward regarding his/her application of a ban I and others feel was arbitrary. His/Her original ban was not rooted in wikipedia policy or openly discussed. He/She has even removed my uninflamatory and purely fact based responses on my own talk page and protected it so I cannot even respond. I'm requesting a third uninvolved party to review the situation. The discussion can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASgeine&diff=248923964&oldid=248923865 Shell has a long history of heavy handed tactics but I'm not here to address that or get bogged down in whatever personal matters exist. Just a review of the facts with a resolution.01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.198.66 (talkcontribs)

This fellow has been using Wikipedia to pursue his personal agenda against Helio (the wireless carrier), by adding content attacking them and sourcing it to documents hosted on personal websites. I dealt with him before Shell. He needs to head over to wikileaks.org, as the content he is trying to add is not acceptable here. I've blocked the IP for a short period, as it's pretty clear it's being used for block evasion. --Versageek 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why the block-evading user's rant was copied onto ANI. Surely we shouldn't be using this board to give disruptive users a place to vent after they've been properly blocked? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to help this user (User:Sgeine) in the last few days, breaking my informal wikibreak to do it. I do not believe this is a proper block at all, and believe Shell is being way too heavy handed with this. In my talks with the user I've helped him to understand what he needs to do next, and why his current sources were considered original research. I suspect he actually listened to me because I didn't treat him like trash or assume the worst out of him.

I do not agree with Sgeine on everything he's said, but most of this is happening because he's frustrated and doesn't understand some of our policies. Shell has, on her own, given him a "topical ban", which she believes he was trying to evade by editing as an IP. However, as an IP he tells her who he is and logs in to continue a discussion with Shell, completely voluntarily on his part. Him editing as an IP was not a malicious act, and most people who edit Wikipedia every so often don't really care if they're logged in or not. The warning of a ban is shown in this edit [1], and sure enough Sgeine did violate this. However, I believe this only happened because we failed to properly explain the situation in the first place, and that an indef block on someone who's never been blocked before is an over reaction. No offense to Shell, but she does tend to be a bit too heavy handed with blocking, and when other admins review they are quick to side with the other admins.

Now he's talk page has been protected for this. I assume it was because he posted a chatlog, but if you look closely the long consists entirely of him saying (to Shell) things like "hello?" with no response (hence, only his comments were posted). Wether or not those logs have any weight on anything, that's another matter.

This is not how we should deal with people. I understand that some people are very sensitive about COI worries, but treating this guy like trash is wrong. After having talked with him, I think he better understands what he needs to do next and won't insert the disputed information anymore. Shell refuses to discuss the matter because it involves an OTRS ticket from Helio. At this point I'm probably aware of more information than Shell is, and there is still no reason to come down so hard on this guy.

How many times has this happened with users who come across Wikipedia and have a culture clash with us?

If I can get him to agree on not editing the Helio articles then can we stick out a hand of friendship and say "no hard feelings, we look forward to working with you"? He's very smart and likely has a great deal to offer us on other articles. -- Ned Scott 05:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If he stays away from the Helio articles, I don't have a problem with it.. As to not explaining things.. If he had asked questions in response to my warning back in July rather than just blanking the page, I would certainly have attempted to help him understand. (Apparently Shell had dealt with him a few weeks before my first encounter, and tried to help him as well.. ) --Versageek 06:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I must correct myself here. Sgeine has pointed out to me that he did not re-insert the information that Shell warned him about, and I've stepped through the history of the article and this is correct. He did tag the article for deletion because he felt it should be merged/covered in another article, but then that's more newbie stuff. So at this point he has not violated any ban that Shell has given him, at least none that can be verified on-wiki. -- Ned Scott 06:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Versa, I don't believe that page has ever been blanked, let alone by me. And if you take a look at the edit history I actually did listen to you. You'll notice my _last_ edit with that information was two hours before yours and 9 hours before shell's... That's all I've been saying is hey, lets tone this down. I didn't readd it after you guys said that so why are we going crazy here 6 months later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.198.130 (talk) 06:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
nm you're talking about my talk page not helio's page. I wiped my talk page because I didn't feel it was an issue any longer as I had already decided not to add that paragraph again and didn't edit wikipedia for some 4 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.198.130 (talk) 06:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, one more time for teh win: There is considerably more information about this issue than Sgeine or Ned is giving here; other administrators have reviewed and declined to unblock (twice). Sgeine has been informed of the ability to have ArbCom review the indef block as a next step.

Sgeine has been incredibly dishonest about this entire situation and unfortunately has suckered Ned into believing that he's a poor guy trying to do right that just didn't know what he got in to. I've explained a few times now, several of those being to Ned, that what can be seen on wiki is simply the tip of the iceberg. By the way Ned, what Sgeine told you about OTRS is a complete fabrication - that's not who wrote in nor was he honest about the content. Here's the great part about that - the reason he thinks that's who wrote in is because that's who outed him and complained to other websites - that's right, this isn't the first place he's done the same thing to the company (and that's not the only tool in his "campaign" against Helio).

I know that in this case following the Foundation's privacy policy makes reviewing this inconvenient, but them's the rules. I have offered repeatedly to share this with an editor (with appropriate permissions) of Ned's choosing and I'm still happy to do that. If nothing else, perhaps then he could throw a little good faith the way of the long time admin instead of handing it all to the stranger leading him down the rabbit hole.

Contrary to what's being said here, I spent a *lot* of time with Sgeine off-wiki (his preferred method) educating him and encouraging him. Originally, even though the information supported it, I tried a topic ban instead of indef blocking the account. When he came back this month as an IP, I started a discussion to help him learn - even though this IP address had vandalized and added skewed information in the articles before and even though he kept attacking me and my motives. I even went so far as to assist him in putting one of the articles up for AfD and went and found a crapload of references when he peppered another article with fact tags (including those where he first deleted the references that were already there).

It wasn't until mid-way through the AfD that he decided to sign back in to his account. Whether or not this was intentional (i.e. logging out to avoid being caught) doesn't really matter here - what matters is that he violated a clear topic ban and has shown no remorse nor indication that he will desist. Of course now he's pretending that he's never spoken to me and had no idea that the ban was in place; Mangojuice read our correspondence and felt otherwise.

Btw, the reason I protected the talk page is twofold: One, the logs he posted were fake, intended only to make people think I hadn't talked to or answered him, notwithstanding he shouldn't be posting private information. And two, he's clearly going to keep making things up until something sticks. Frankly, had he not behaved like this, I'd be all for letting him back on to edit other things, but the blatant mis-truths and continued manipulation have me convinced that letting him edit would be a very bad idea. Shell babelfish 11:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is the 3rd IP range "Sgeine" has used to avoid his block. Shell babelfish 11:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Stpuidhead[edit]

Is the way this user is treating his talk page ok? It makes it very hard to find previous warnings. They've made User talk:Stpuidhead a redirect, which also makes it harder to find the editor's contributions. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See his rationale. He was doing it to make a WP:POINT, and I reverted it with a warning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
And I'm watching him now. Rarely useful edits and games like this should be getting him blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ControlFreak[edit]

ControlFreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has already been blocked twice for uploading copyright violations and adding them to Mýa discography. Today, he has done it again.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef, img deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked this user indefinitely (not infinitely). I'd be happy to have any admin unblock this user upon acknowledgment that he or she has read and understood the relevant policies and has given a promise to stop uploading improper images. henriktalk 14:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yue Chinese[edit]

Resolved: users directed to WP:DR, no need for admin action.

Could someone take a look at Yue Chinese? User:Newzebras is rewording the article to fit the title he wants it moved to,[2] since he hasn't gotten his way with the actual move. I feel that the text should match the title, but it's now turned into an edit war.

Blanking? No. That paragraph is too long and too detailed to be placed outside the main topic. So I merged those sections into the [topic]. --Newzebras (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a month ago I started a discussion at Chinese naming conventions about how to handle the language/dialect issue, since I and several others felt the existing solution was awkward, and I moved several of the articles in accordance with the consensus we reached. The new conventions allow some leeway, and of course it will take some time for everything to settle down. Recently Newzebras suggested (actually demanded) three moves of the Cantonese articles. Two of these were agreed to, and I moved them. The third, Yue Chinese (the wording used in Ethnologue), was not agreed to. Newzebras then placed a second request, and meanwhile has been rewording the text from "Yue" to "Cantonese", which is ambiguous. ("Cantonese" generally means Guangzhou dialect, and when a distinction is made, as here in our articles, people generally try to use more precise wording.) He has started making similar edits to Guangzhou dialect, blanking large sections of the article in the process (such as the section on written Cantonese).[3] kwami (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a few persons' "consensus", but the page-remove IS TOO imprudent. Former articles associated with Cantonese language or dialect all use commonly used English word "Cantonese", but it was you who replaced all this texts into "Yue", which is a Mandarin spelling romanization and a seldom used term in about a moth ago. (see discussion 1 and discussion 2). Since the newly replaced "Yue" by kwami is argumentative, the best way to end the controversy is to revert back to "Cantonese". ("Cantonese" generally means "廣東話(Guangdong hua)" or it's alias "粵語(Yueyu)". Guangzhou dialect is a smaller subset of Cantonese though people of Hong Kong directly call it using the bigger subset name "Cantonese" due to it's prestige and representative of the whole Cantonese language). Now we have moved Guangzhou dialect to the proper place per consensus reached on the discussion page. The article describing the whole Cantonese language certainly should be moved to a page like "Cantonese (language topic)" or "Cantonese (language/dialect)", rather than current terrible name, see move request.--Newzebras (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Newzebras, this is not the place to discuss the merits of the move, but rather your behavior. kwami (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
So you delate me here and said that I delete paragraphs? (I merged those paragraphs to the main topic since they are too long and too detailed, not blanking them as you said.) This is ordinary editing behavior, not "destruction". I think it's necessary to announce this point.--Newzebras (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed, NZ did as he says, so I struck out that complaint. Without an edit summary, I didn't see what had happened to the text. kwami (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, this looks like a simple content dispute, which administrators are in no more position to mediate than any other uninvolved editors at Wikipedia. Perhaps you two should consider asking for a third opinion or a request for comment on this issue? I don't see anything in the history of this problem that would constitute requiring an admin to block a user or protect a page. Indeed, going through dispute resolution will likely prevent admin action, and we ALL want that, don't we?!? Would anyone object to marking this resolved?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. I don't bring many of these. Should've gone elsewhere. Sorry for the bother. kwami (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wolfberry again[edit]

Could someone uninvolved have a glance at this edit [4] to Talk:Wolfberry by Paul144 (talk · contribs)?

Paul144 has been the subject of a COI discussion WP:COIN#Wolfberry. He claims the edit, which expunges from discussion evidence of his strong COI, is justified under WP:OUTING (despite there having been no outing - he self-disclosed his identity - and the authors of a book and details of a company are public knowledge. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you can point out his self-disclosure? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Here [5], where he provided a link to a biographical page and article list ("I am a contributor to a few of these, e.g., http://www.npicenter.com/news/DrPaulGross_articles.aspx"); and here [6] ("I am the son of the subject"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban Cossack and never ending edit wars[edit]

I have no other recourse but to ask for admins' intervention in the edit war at Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Over the past week I've tried everything to stop the revert war with User: Kuban kazak, unfortunately none of them worked, he rejected all attempts at compromise and continues to revert even referenced text. This is the user with multiple blocks for edit warring, the last being just in July of this year. Since then he got several warnings from users and admins for edit warring[7][8][9], and yet he continues to wage edit wars not just in that article but in others as well. I understand that admins cannot deal with every content dispute, but this has gone above that. This is a pattern that would not change and it's become a real nuisance. I would appreciate if admins could have a look at this.--Hillock65 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well all I can say is that Hillock65 has in the past year with the exception of interwikis and the odd article Grégoire Orlyk, has limited his participation on wikipedia to edit warring with me. Please look: here, if we filter away the interwiki edits:
  • Zaporozhian Cossacks (no additions on Hillock's behalf, but nearly a year of arguing whether the term destroyed was applicable, in result by majority of users, Hillock failed to add his opinion there)
  • Zaporizhian Sich (again no additions, same edit war, result Hillock gave up)
  • Cossacks - A huge dispute over the lead, where Hillock attempted to first push through a WP:FRINGE theory of modern Ukrainian Cossacks, and then continued an edit war for nearly month about how the historical aspect of Ukrainian Cosascks should be given a greater portion than others.
  • Mukachevo, there was a dispute on the name, yet Hillock pushed to have the official spelling added into the article, again failed.
  • Kuban Cossacks, Ukrainians in Russia, Template:History of Ukraine the irony is that when I make an edit, to any such article, Hillock, always WP:STALKing me wound follow on and revert me. On the second example he got caught by 3RR by being completely careless. (Again there was a discussion in the archives about it).
  • The biggest piece of evidence for the above is that during my wikibreak from 5 August 2008 to 15 September 2008 Hillock made no more than two dozens edits. Yet the moment I came back, so was he. His new victims are Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and History of Christianity in Ukraine.
All in all he is first a WP:SOAPboxing nightmare! Second a ruthless POV warrior, with whom its impossible to have any consensus. However the biggest irony about him, is that unlike some active POV-pushers and stalkers like User:Piotrus, Hillock's contribution to main article space is minute by any measure. Again in all his time on wikipedia one can postulate about no more than 10 significant contributions to article space, and about 1000 reverts and talk page rants.
The biggest irony here, is that he accuses me of being a Russian nationalist anti-Ukrainian editor, yet out of six barnstars four were given by Ukrainian editors.
With respect to the issue above, the usual case scenario, is to ask for a WP:THIRD and follow through a normal WP:DR, but for Hillock its important to raise as much noise as possible, and its too bad for him there is no Wikipedia:Request for block page. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Notwithstanding personal attacks, the issue here is not his or mine contribution to Wikipedia, but rather this user's never ending edit wars, which is easily checked by looking at his edit history and history of blocks. He has selected a patttern of stalking me and starting edit wars whenever I edit. Anyone interested can easily check him following me in articles where he never even edited before [10][11][12][13][14]. I know arguing with him over this is a waste of time. I'll just wait for someone impartial to have a look at this. Enough is enough. --Hillock65 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Let's see adding Russian language to Nuclear power plants is not a revert, and in particular South_Ukraine_Nuclear_Power_Plant Hillock's attempt to remove the passage was reverted by a third party. Ivan Bohun, was not a revert, unlike Hillock's but a correction of facts, I then went on and edited all the other Hetmans of Ukraine, and nowhere did I add Russian language, but copyedited many of them. History_of_Christianity_in_Ukraine and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church contrary to his statements of he never even edited before were partially written by me, I can't claim all the credit by the fact that others have added before and after me, but both articles have been in my to do list and on my watchlist since autumn 2005! Anyone can check the history. Given the above statement, apart from a POV-pusher and an edit warrior, Hillock is also a liar! Spreading disinformation is a usual trait more examples of which I can easily provide. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The original complaint "I have no other recourse but to ask for admins' intervention in the edit war" points to where the problem lies. I see no attempt to file an article RfC, asking for a third opinion or do any other thing normally expected in a regular content dispute. Hillock and Kuban are both useful content writers who frequently disagree in article disputes. Nothing unusual in that. However, I am troubled but what seems like Hillock's obsession with Kuban and persistent attempts to resort to block-shopping to "win" his content disputes with this editor. Hillock follows Kuban's contributions and seems to look for every occasion to block-shop against Kuban (last time he has done it about two weeks ago.) This thread could be just as well named "User:Hillock65 and never ending edit wars" as Hillock's actions is at least no better than Kuban's. I checked the talk pages of the articles in question and Kuban seems willing to discuss. So, I don't see as an ANI matter, users should be advised to seek consensus and compromise, and if unable to reach it, they should ask for more input rather than shop for blocks. --Irpen 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Even a cursory confirmation of the diffs posted confirms that, despite how Irpen attempts to frame this issue above, this is not a content dispute as Wikipedians understand the term. There's evidence of an interpersonal conflict; there's evidence of WP:STALKing; there's evidence of WP:OWN, and there's evidence of assumption of bad faith. For an example, let's consider this edit made by Kuban kazak. First thing to be noticed about it is that it is a partial revert of an edit by Hillock65 about 18 hours earlier. The second thing to be noticed is that in the whole Wikipedia edit history of this article, this is the only edit by Kuban kazak. What do these two facts give us? I submit that by Occam's razor, this gives us a clear episode of wikistalking.

But there's more. Consider Kuban kazak's edit summary in this partial revert: Nothing wrong with this... Such an edit summary attached to an user's sole edit so soon after Hillock65's exercise of editorial judgment -- one could debate it, but that's what the talk page is for -- smacks, to me, of deliberately searching for things that are wrong with Hillock65's edits. In order words, it's not just wikistalking; it's also a clear case of assuming bad faith, if not battleground creation. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for intervention[edit]

"However the biggest irony about him, is that unlike some active POV-pushers and stalkers like User:Piotrus..." - this is a clear violation of WP:NPA/WP:SLANDER and such, and I assume the community will address this.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I sort of wondered who will pop up here immediately after my post. I guessed right. --Irpen 21:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Piotrus was advised to come here by an admin, having already filed a complaint on AE hours ago [15]. --Folantin (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Irpen, will you please apologise for your assumption of bad faith that has turned out factually incorrect? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
What "assumptions"? Kuban kazak states that some users (Piotrus among them) is following the contributions of the target editors all around Wikipedia. I don't think bringing up any names here was useful. It may have been unhelpful in sense of bloating the discussion on the narrow issue but as far as facts are concerned, my own experience with Piotrus is that he is one of the users who regularly does that sort of thing (see here, for example. So, how is stating what seems obvious from the Wikipedia actions becomes a "slander"? I wonder who else will follow me into this discussion now but this is all beside the point. The original complaint was that the content disputed between Kuban and Hillock needs an admin intervention skipping any usual steps used to resolve content disputes. Then people totally unrelated to this start magically popping up blowing and expanding this simple and narrow issue to use them for their own agendas. This is a text-book example of WP:BATTLE conduct. --Irpen 22:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
From the context, it is clear that you accused Piotrus of stalking you, and even smugly take credit for the assumption. From Folantin's post, it's clear that you were incorrect in raising such an accusation. As the primary promoter of the so-called 'sophisticated incivility' doctrine, you know as well as anybody that an insult needs not to be spelt out to be uncivil. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Natalia Korolevska[edit]

I never edit with most of you (not interested in Ukrainian politics?, strange it so much fun and a lot of female Ukrainian politicians are very good looking!) but still I think the last edits here are not helping, if not making things worse... This seems only a problem between Kuban Cossack & Hillock65. I don't see a need to drag all wikipedians in it especialy if the suggest nothing to fix the problems between Kuban Cossack & Hillock65. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of Kuban Cossack is nothing new. I think he should be warned for incivility and placed to this "Digwuren" list. Biophys (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Endorse - this is what the discretionary sanctions for EE are for.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not completely on-topic, but I can't believe that Kuban Cossack is being threteaned with sanctions while for months nothing is ever done about, say, Jo0doe (talk), whose behavior in terms of never ending edit wars, disruptions of articles, etc. is 100 times more egregious than what Kuban Cossack is accused of. Kuban Cossack and I often - indeed usually - take different sides on issues but despite some instances when things have gotten "hot" in general we have been able to collaborate very effectively on articles such asUkrainian Russophiles or Danubian Sich. This is so much the case that when I recently created the article Conversion of Chelm Eparchy one of the first things I did was invite Kuban Cossack to make contributions to that article. I am frankly floored that Kuban Cossack has been sanctioned and may be here when a truly disruptive editor such as Jo0doe is allowed to do his thing with impunity. Faustian (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Faustian and would like to ad that I got the idea that Kuban Cossack is getting targeted because of his controversial userpage, don't judge a man on his looks, but on his behaviour. When dealing with Kuban Cossack I found him being very collaborative while I (also) often - indeed usually - take different sides on issues then him. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I agree with both you of. Sanctions against Mr Cossack and Mr Jo0doe are probably warranted. Moreschi (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have placed this elsewhere, and will repost it word-for-word here....

Whilst I am reasonably new to this area of WP editing, I have obviously taken the time to familiarise myself with others who edit in this area, their interests, their style, etc; and I can say I am familiar with KK's edits on mainspace. I am not completely familiar with Hillock65. I have gone thru the previous "attempts" at mediation also, and have come to the conclusion that this is not warranted for Arbcom.

Hillock refers to an RFC and Medcab above. If we look at the article in question, Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, it appears that KK and Akhristov worked on this together (with some edit warring), and the dispute that arose was whether Russian language names are suitable for "Ukrainian" topics. Hillock prior to that dispute doesn't appear to have edited any articles relating to Metro topics before this, and it appears that his intervention was due to this message left for Hillock65 on the uk:wiki (in which he calls KK a rabid Russian nationalist), so it appears that Hillock65 had no place in that dispute, except for his being canvassed by another editor to get himself involved; the dispute being hijacked as a result. Before Hillock initiated the medcom request, he filed an RFC against KK, which appears not to have been anything but an attempt to corner and get rid of an opponent.

The AN/I comment by KK may demonstrate that Hillock's editing pattern on en:wiki is somewhat limited to interwiki links and perhaps stalking of KK's edits; for example: [16], [17], [18]....the list goes on, but a pattern has emerged; KK would make an edit to an article, which he would be familiar with. Hillock would immediately revert, provoking an edit war, and takes an uncompromising stance; for example Talk:Ukrainians in Russia#Kuban section and neutrality when KK presented sourced material to Hillock, he removed it completely, not even bothering to check it; when User:Faustian re-presented it to Hillock, he accepted KKs version. It appears the only way Hillock can compromise with KK is when a third party (often an Ukrainian editor) repeats what KK has said. Thus, are we to say that it is KKs additions that are not justified and warranted?

KK has a huge number of contributions, has written countless articles from scratch, and for that, despite sometimes holding opposite viewpoints on history and politics to many Ukrainian editors, he has been able to get on perfectly with the majority of them. Indeed, as KK pointed out on AN/I out of the six barnstars, four were given by Ukrainians, that is at a time that Hillock was unable to get on with any editor (including non-Russian ones) that opposed him. At the same time, KK has been a somewhat stabilising force in the Ukraine-Russia area over the edits of his that I have familiarised myself with.

In regards to the edits picked out by Hillock above, using Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant as an example, I have reverted Hillock's removal of the Russian name out of the lead; this appears to be a major thing with Hillock, in that perfectly legitimate insertions of Russian language names are removed, in what appears to me to be a desire to rid legitimate entries of Russian from Ukrainian-related articles. So I think, that this arbitration request should be looking at some severe issues that Hillock has, instead of simply being an attack on and an attempt to get rid of an opponent that is clearly what he is trying to do. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 03:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I did advice Hillock65 this summer (see:[19]) to be more cooperative with Russian editors (Kuban in particular). I gave 2 of the 6 barnstars to Kuban and despite my deep affection for Ukraine and my dear friends there (and 1 from there). I'm not a Ukrainian. See section "languages" on my userpage. But I consider it a compliment you see me as one ;) -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to referee between Hillock and Kuban at Talk:Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) but soon lost a clue what they argued about, in my view (although I know little about any Orthodox Church) I didn't see an attemp by Kuban to "Russification" it, quite the oppisite, he could have (according to wikipedia infobox rules) removed "Moscow Patriarchate" from the infobox (making the "other" Ukrainian Orthodox Church look illegal) but didn't. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


I'd just like to note that apart from past uncivil and childish behaviour from KK (on political subjects), he's apparently falsified sources not too long ago during an edit dispute. He cited a book that had no information about said subject at all. I don't know if this is the right place to bring that up, but it made me lose a lot of good faith in him. Grey Fox (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

More problems with Libro0[edit]

After I tried intervening with several baseball card articles, Libro0 has on more than one occasion branded me a sockpuppet of Baseball Card Guy (see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Baseball Card Guy) and has engaged in several passive aggressive attacks on me. His latest attack [20] where he says: "facade account(YRE) conveniently comes to the rescue of a contributor(BCG) whose edits are all reverts of my edits whenever he is in a bit of trouble". I have had it with these two who have wasted people's time with this nonsense (for example see: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-04 1950s Topps). I have to constantly check up on these two to see if they are slandering me again instead of doing things that are constructive. Can we just ban these two and get on with making an encyclopedia? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As an observer of this WP:EDITWAR on various articles notably 1950s Topps and 1960s Topps I've seen vicious verbal attacks on Libro0 (talk · contribs) by Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs) here:[21] and I filed a WP:3RR report the other day to no avail here:[22] Frankly administrators need to take action and stop these two from continuing to tie up every article they touch. Abuse, calling names, political slurs, you name it and this guy does it:Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs) - why hasn't he been blocked or even warned by an administrator about his abusive and appalling behavior? Modernist (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
My god, I remember making my comments at the SSP reports however long ago that was... it seems like an eternity! Anyway, I would be totally shocked if YRE were a sock. On the other hand, the SSP is probably worthy of a second look... I have not looked at it exhaustively, but there is some suggestive evidence that makes me think Baseball Card Guy has done some socking in the past. I do not believe YRE is one of those socks, but the SSP could use a second look, maybe even a CU. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking into this issue, it is readily apparent that Baseball Card Guy (talk · contribs · block log) has issues with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and as a result has been blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Additionally since the last dozen-plus edits to 1950s Topps have all been part of a slow-motion edit war, I fully protected the article for ten days. Finally, since SSPs are difficult to adequately resolve in a complicated situation like this (and largely only serve to inflame tensions), I would strongly encourage the parties involved to either let it drop, or file a WP:RFCU if they have sufficient evidence. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Single-purpose account for edit warring purposes?[edit]

I don't know the protocol here, but it appears that Rtally3 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account created specifically to edit war on William Timmons; the account was created a few days ago, and every edit relates only to one paragraph that I tried to add to the page. I have since started an RfC regarding the material as I found it strange that two users and an anon ip were all edit warring to keep the material out, and ignoring the substantive arguments for keeping the material in. It is possible there is some unlicensed sockpuppetry afoot. The Rtally3 account seems to be someone who has been around Wikipedia long enough to know our policies and how things work; that is inconsistent with the fact that the account was created less than a week ago. Again, there may be nothing suspicious here -- I acknowledge I am a party to the dispute on the page -- but it sure looks suspicious to me. csloat (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm even more sure there is something suspicious afoot now -- another of the editors warring on that article is Jmcgee2 (talk · contribs), created on the same day as Rtally3, whose first edit was to blank the William Timmons page, and who also ONLY edits that page. Surely this is worth looking into. csloat (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, it seems a third person edit warring on the same page is the Washington DC-based anon ip 68.100.74.123 (talk · contribs), which started editing a few days earlier than the other two accounts, and has only edited the William Timmons page, and has exclusively focused on getting the one paragraph removed. Very interesting. csloat (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Update, we have confirmation that the Rtally3 account is editing from Washington DC as well, with an ip close to the anon ip. Perhaps this is all a bizarre coincidence but that seems unlikely to me. csloat (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  •  Confirmed Rtally3 and Jmcgee2}} are the same person,  Likely the same as the IP as well as Kbhickory (talk · contribs). Thatcher 00:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Note that this is a BLP, and the item that all these socks are edit-warring to keep out is sourced to the Huffington Post. Looie496 (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks as if they're still edit warring. Is anybody going to block them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.245.4.252 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating, they are not only edit warring but claiming that the collection of socks represents a "consensus" -- see this edit for example -- I think all of the accounts should be blocked; it's a pretty clear case of sockpuppets being used to violate the rules of Wikipedia. csloat (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rtally3 and the IP blocked for a month, Jmcgee and Kbhickory permanently. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

IP Full O' Slurs[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for two weeks. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to try and clean up IP 67.186.20.215 (talk · contribs) user's page, but after seeing edits like these [23] [24] [25] and the other messages he's left on his talk page, I just figured I should bring it here for admin attention. It seems to be an ongoing problem with racist slurs. Dayewalker (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert and put semi-protection for an hour. That should stop the nonsense. I'm watching in case he comes back. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
My tolerance for racist slurs like this is remarkably low. As such, the IP has been blocked for two weeks. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Taylor Brook[edit]

Resolved: article is at AFD

Could an admin please review this article - I've tagged it twice for issues, which have been removed by the author. I'm not even sure the person is notable, but have been (imo) fair in just tagging issues, rather than tagging for deletion. I don't want to get into a 3RR situation, so would appreciate some input. CultureDrone (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Theresa knott has requested speedy deletion of the article. AdjustShift (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have, I tagged it rather than deleted it myself because I'd like another opinion but this looks like self promotion to me. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
My concern with doing that was that the article does assert notability - in terms of his music having been performed. I've been informed by admins in the past that asserting notability (even if it the article doesn't prove notability) means that CSD A7 cannot be used, and it would have to be a PROD/AfD. Have I been misinformed ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm he doesn't say where or when so i would say this is speediable. However I'm willing to go through afd if you like. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The rule is that to avoid speedying, an article has to give a reasonable indication of notability. This one doesn't -- no useful sources or indication that any might exist. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there doesn't need to be any sources to avoid A7 speedy. The requirement is only that the article actually claim importance, not that it is referenced in any way. The phrase "award-winning" is a claim to importance. Whether or not those awards are enough to pass notability tests is a subject open to debate, which is why in these situations, we open a debate at AFD... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Award winning is meaningless and must be believable, awards should/must be named. I've deleted the article as a CSD A7 (the trend was a WP:SNOW delete either way). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
That's fine too... It should also be noted that there is no impending destruction that will fall upon the earth REGARDLESS of which deletion process is used in these cases; though oftentimes hurt feelings and unneccessary conflict can be avoided by taking a conservative approach towards deletion. The article was certainly below any notability standard, and the debate was certainly WP:SNOW-able. I was just commenting that, in general, there is no great harm in at least opening an AFD discussion, and in many cases a small benefit can result from it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd article missing DRV notice[edit]

Resolved: I think I added the right template. VG 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it customary for the article to have a notice pointing to the WP:DRV discussion? VG 18:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
DRV started on the 25th, might be a little late now. Wizardman 18:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
And so this thread was started why? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mlpandia[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. GbT/c 20:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Mlpandia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user seems to edit only to add either his name or his family name to various articles. I've warned him in the past but am not sure what is the best thing to do right now. He hasn't responded to warnings. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef for advertising only, COI edits. He's welcome to say he'll stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kinobe[edit]

Resolved: All is well. People are allowed to improve Wikipedia without fear of being sanctioned for violating obscure procedures

I'm visiting here to bring my actions up for a broader look. I supported a delete in this AFD. I looked at the people that wanted to save it, so I basically rewrote the entire thing, and changed my vote. The AFD is here. I closed it because the nom withdrew. Nothing has transpired, but I feel like I might have had a conflict of interest because I not only voted, but changed my position and turned this into this. I may have saved this, and learned that it is possible to change a stance, but I still feel like my closure may have been bad. If someone who puts an article up for deletion retracts it, should I have asked an admin to close it? Any and all criticism would be welcome. Is it wrong to add closure when the person putting it up retracts it? If so, my bad. I just felt that anyone, admin or not, would have done the same. Ideas? Law shoot! 09:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

See the above thread. (No, really do!) If the nominator withdraws, AND no one else is currently making a case for delete, speedy closure (by whomever performed) is the right answer. We don't keep debates running for no good reason.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I had to turn myself in. I am the Law. :P Law shoot! 10:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
We ignore the Law here. ;). --Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Related question: Would it have been OK for me (being the nominator) to close the AfD after I'd withdrawn the nomination? I was vacillating about it, but Law (who did an excellent job fixing the article) did it before I'd done vacillatin' :-) --Bonadea (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Basically, unless someone else has argued for delete, you can withdraw it. If no-one is currently asking for deletion, the thing is moot.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Concur with other editors. This close is fine. You, the nom, and Jeremiah were the only editors moving to delete; you were all happy; any complaints are likely based on wonkery. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Ditto from me too. You did nothing wrong, the AFD resulted in a better article, and Wikipedia is improved for the whole incident. As such, there is no reason to feel uncomfortable or ashamed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The teamwork done here is an example of why I can put aside my pride and save an article which I wanted deleted. People provided good sources and I felt compelled to rewrite, as the nom was compelled to retract it. I don't often run into this, as I stick to more content-based editing, but it is very refreshing and I think the end result is all around a good thing. Thanks for not yelling at me! Law shoot! 07:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
YOU DID EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING - THIS IS WHY WP:AIV EXISTS!! (If someone has acted to the betterment of WP, why not yell it from the rooftops?) LHvU (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, Kinobe are actually a pretty decent band. "Slip Into Something More Comfortable" is one of my favourite electronic chillout songs, and "Butterfly" and "Summer in the Studio" (a cover of "Living In The City") ain't bad either. Surprised it came up for deletion to begin with, but pleased with the end outcome. Orderinchaos 00:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat against high school[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, page(s) protected, police contacted. Metros (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

For two days a registered SPA user has repeatedly vandalized the Eastern Lebanon County High School article by posting an essay which was reverted by myself and others while on vandal patrol. The essay concerns the actions of an alleged student and ends with a threat of violence against the high school. (e.g. "The skies will rain with bloood and the earth will tremble at his every step. Those who speak his name in vain shall perish at by his hand.") The user has been persistent in their vandalism - registering two accounts and being reverted 7 times. Following Wikipedia:Threats of violence guidelines, I have taken the side of caution and reported this incident by e-mail to the Police Department in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. I wanted the Wikipedia administration to be aware of this. CactusWriter | needles 10:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the two accounts, semi-protected the article on the school for a month (if it turns out that full is needed, let me know, or go to WP:RFPP), and I have protected the article he's made a couple of times against creation. I've also contacted MySpace to make sure that he's not threatening anything on the profile to which he keeps linking. To clarify, CactusWriter, did you contact the Lebanon County police, the city of Lebanon police, or the police in Myerstown? Metros (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I contacted the Lebanon City Police Department -- and only by e-mail, with a request for them to acknowledge the receipt of my e-mail. I did not contact the Myerstown police because I didn't see an e-mail address on their website. I decided if I hadn't received acknowledgment from the Lebanon City Police by this afternoon (my time in Denmark), then I would make a phone call to Myerstown. CactusWriter | needles 10:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I have contacted the County sheriff's office by email, as well. It is highly likely that Myerstown doesn't actually have a police force and relies on the sheriff's office, instead, for its force (this is typical in areas with smaller towns). The sheriff's office appears to not have Saturday/Sunday hours, so, I'm hoping that by a stroke of luck, someone happens to check the email this weekend. Metros (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I agree that the sheriff probably has jurisdiction in Myerstown, but I think the Lebanon city police probably have more personnel on duty. As I said, if I don't receive word back, I'll make a phone call within the next few hours. Thanks for your attention. CactusWriter | needles 10:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, CactusWriter. The sheriff's office contact is here should you feel you need to call them as well. I've marked this as resolved since I've blocked and protected and since we've reported. Please let me know (email, my talk page, or here) what the response is from the office, Metros (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I received an e-mail response from a Captain Daniel Wright of the Lebanon City Police Dept. He informed me that ELCO High School was under the jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania State Police. He said that he has forwarded my e-mail to them as well as spoken with one of their representatives. CactusWriter | needles 14:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call. Good job all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Troll needs a ban[edit]

Resolved: Gwen Gale blocked the main account. Rlevse blocked the socks and the open proxy they were using. VG 14:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Pedofenion first vandalized the page for Magibon with obscene language, then proposed it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magibon_(3rd_nomination), claiming BLP violations. Someone needs to look for socks as well; multiples SPAs showed up at AfD. VG 14:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for the username which in Irish slang more or less means pedophile Catholic. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a comment, porportedly from the subject (which I responded to as such), at WP:AN. At that time the AfD was live, which I advised the editor at their talkpage. I am unsure if they will be happy with the keep decision, but keeping the vandalism out may go some way to mollifying them. LHvU (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Could someone run checkuser on User:Magichan, User:Firithfenion, User:Pedofenion, User:Forryga and User:TrueForryga. Based on the unlikely interaction between Japanese Americans and Irish users, this whole affairs seems a giant troll farm to me. See [26] and [27]. VG 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, trolls are notoriously poor farmers. Although they are often full of sh|t, they often bury their good ideas too deeply in the ground, and end up with merely chaff on the surface. -t BMW c- 16:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Likely so. Mind, User:Forryga and User:TrueForryga were already blocked yesterday for vandalism/trolling. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedofenion (talk · contribs) was already name blocked. Found several of these accounts were using an anon proxy and I blocked it's whole range as well some socks I found using it, including Magichan (talk · contribs) = Magibonchan (talk · contribs) and two seemingly unrelated to this case.  Inconclusive as to Firithfenion (talk · contribs), Forryga (talk · contribs), and TrueForryga (talk · contribs). RlevseTalk 13:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dubious line of questioning[edit]

One of the editors involved in that AfD, User:Ariana-hime has very unusual talk page, which consists of dozens of unanswered personal questions from User:Hetelllies, who (you've guessed) is also interested in Magibon. VG 03:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any socking or CU-type stuff going on there? RlevseTalk 13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably not. It just looks like User:Hetelllies was trying to flirt with User:Ariana-hime, who didn't quite appreciate the advances. VG 13:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Threat[edit]

Resolved: Hersfold protected Metros (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There's probably no merit to this threat, but I feel it's my civic duty to report it anyhow. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Hersfold took care of it. J.delanoygabsadds 02:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Yup, don't worry about it - here at Wikipedia, disruptive unblock requests are dealt with as promptly as possible. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Common Travel Area[edit]

There appears to be an edit war on Common Travel Area right now, between an anonymous user (with multiple IP addresses from the same range) and User:Blue-Haired Lawyer. I warned the 78.16.196.21 IP yesterday, and today, before the 24 hours is up 78.16.109.244 reverts. As the revisions are the same, and the edit summary is in keeping with previous reverts I'd guess it's the same user. Of course that's a wide range to block; but I am at a loss over what little I can do here. I can certainly see the argument for both sides *shrug* --Blowdart | talk 11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Standard Republic of Ireland pipe-linking edit war. Both sides could technically claim to be right, but pipe-linking thus [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], as the IP is doing, is also generally accepted, as the name of the country is Ireland. (We wouldn't, similarly, call France the French Republic.) The IP(s) do appear to be edit-warring across multiple articles, though, and with somewhat uncivil edit-summaries too. A block may be in order if the behaviour continues. Black Kite 12:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh indeed; but User:Blue-Haired Lawyer reverts saying it's a banned user. Now I can see the point for greater clarity on this one article; as confusing the island with the political entity is possible when it just becomes "Ireland", which makes the summary open to misreading. --Blowdart | talk 12:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and he's probably correct about it being a particular banned user; however although the geographical location is correct, there's no real way of actually proving it, so the IP will have to be judged on their own merits, and if they continue to edit-war with incivil edit summaries, they can be blocked on their own merits. Black Kite 13:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

NeutralHomer[edit]

This user refuses to follow and or read the non-free content policy, repeatedly violates it and reverts good faith edits within policy as vandalism. βcommand 05:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get into a "pissing match" about this. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:55
Why are you reverting my edits that are 100% within policy? βcommand 05:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Because when you claim a image doesn't have an F-UR when it does, that is vandalism. Now, you are officially talking to yourself, OK? I am off to find a Vicodin. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 05:59
the image in question has a rationale for a separate page. there are no rationales for the pages where I am removing it. βcommand 06:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
One more time, I am not getting into a pissing match, you are talking to yourself. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:02

A little background would be nice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

user claims that per a email from mike godwin (Foundation counsel) that our Non-free content policy is void and that fair use is standard, (with liberal usage of copyrighted images). Obviously that is incorrect. I attempted to explain, but he refuses to listen and read what I link to. So I started spot checking his uploads and ensure that they are within policy. I found a few that had been uploaded by others that failed WP:NFCC so I started tagging them, he considers this vandalism and returns to his old habits of mis-using twinkle. βcommand 06:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess Image:WVNS-DT2.PNG this image wasn't F-UR'd to his liking. Currently, though, we were in a pretty heated discussion here and here about Image Galleries (Fair-Use or NFCC). He made several edits to WVNS-TV and I reverted and that turned into a revert war and us both Warn4im'ing each other. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:13
Comment - At the time this entry was listed, the logo in question had a valid fair use rationale for the article in which it was being used. There had previously been a revert war, but it could have been avoided had the complainant simply added a fair use rationale for the image in question rather than deleting its use in the article. Likewise, had the subject of this complaint added the fair use rationale before reverting, there would have been no cause for continuation of the war. I see no reason for sanctions, as both parties share blame. dhett (talk contribs) 06:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I take partial blame (as Dhett said) for the revert war on the above mentioned image. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:27
may I also point out List of animals in The Simpsons's history where NeutralHomer stalks my edits and ignores policy? βcommand 06:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
To "stalk" your edits, I would have edited on each and every page you did...which I didn't and don't have time to do. I looked at your edits, thought you were "jumping the gun" before the discussion was over and reverted. You reverted back and templated me. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:35
Only if I may point out the truth: you originally removed the images as copyright violations without explaining why they were such, then when NeutralHomer reverted, asking for a discussion, you again deleted the images, claiming violation of NFCC #8, a totally different reason than copyright violation. When he again reverted, questioning your reason for deleting and citing that the images had passed legal muster, you again deleted the images and accused NeutralHomer of vandalism. Your conduct is appalling. dhett (talk contribs) 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've been looking through this dispute, and it seems to come down to this:
Fair Use is a legal concept in the USA, where WMF servers are housed.
WMF requires that all content comply with relevant US legal codes (city, county, state, federal) for Fair Use.
WMF further requires as Terms Of Service that content be held to a higher standard.
NeutralHomer seems to be arguing that US law trumps any restrictions which WMF imposes upon projects under its purview. WMF clearly follows all US law, but adds that in order to post content to what is a private website run by a private corporation, all content must follow specific rules that expand upon what is required by generalities in US law.
To argue by analogy: federal employment laws state that discrimination on the basis of gender is not acceptable; men and women must be hired equally if equally qualified for a certain position. A local fire department requires that new employees be able to lift and carry 250lbs. This is not unreasonable, and imposes a simple metric on all applicants. Yes, there will be a bias towards male applicants due to simple biology, but it is well within the law.
Similarly, WMF requires that on top of US law, content must abide by certain rules. These rules don't discriminate; they merely state that within the extant law, there are further requirements for inclusion. Given that these further requirements do not contravene US law in any way, there is no basis for challenging them.
In short: WMF requires certain things. Abiding by those things is something we all agree to every time we contribute. roux ] [x] 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Like I have said, that is the way I understand it. I will be the first to admit I don't understand NFCC and F-U that well. I understand it the best it has been explained to me. Explain it to me, give me a short version, without 10 pounds of legaleze and I might understand it more clearly. Yelling at me ain't gonna help. Also Roux, insulting me on IRC (I am there too ya know) doesn't help. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:46
Seeing as I didn't, that's a moot point. I offered an opinion here; you are free to take it or leave it as you see fit. Cheers. roux ] [x] 06:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
<[roux]> At what bloody point do admins say "OWAIT, blocking not working, BYE BYE YOU"
<[roux]> Taking AGF to extremes is bloody stupid.
-and-
<[roux]> Also sweet jebus, but that many userboxes indicates serious OCD issues.
Seems like an insult to me. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 07:01
Yes, offhand comments which do nothing to detract from the point I have made here. Cheers. roux ] [x] 07:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if reposting irc logs is allowed or not, but assuming it is... While the comments might not be completely pc, it's not clear he's even referring to you? I feel like I might be missing something here. ~ L'Aquatique! [talk/stats] 08:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to him, but again, they have nothing to do with the substance of the comments I made in this thread. roux ] [x] 08:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Both users are, imho, acting inappropriately. [This looks like edit warring to me, and there really isn't much excuse for that. Both of you need to take a deep breath and maybe step away from the computer for a bit. Remember, it's only a website. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 06:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
...and I take full responsibility for my behaviour. I should have walked away, I didn't...my fault. - NeutralHomerTalk • November 2, 2008 @ 06:47

Twinkle abuse[edit]

In the past, NeutralHomer has had his access to Twinkle removed for abusing it. Administrators can see this history at Special:Undelete/User:Neutralhomer/monobook.js and others can see one of the discussions about it here. It's quite obvious that he is abusing it again based on edits like this, this, this, and this. NeutralHomer is already on a short leash based on this unblock of his account (personally, I'm a bit surprised he wasn't also told to stay away from Betacommand in addition to JPG-GR and Calton because these two have had bad interactions in the past). Is it time to "detwinkle" again? He is using Twinkle to revert valid edits in an area where he admits he is absolutely clueless, yet he goes around reverting anyway. Metros (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And add these two to it as well (both of these occurred in the last couple of days). Metros (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget his tagging of me as a vandal and his attempt to bait me into outright making me violate Wikipedia: Civility. He is quick to blame me for being a vandal, yet will not apologize for a remark that he made that I considered to be baiting just as I was about to accept someone's acceptable explanation over another matter, which wasn't called for..--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I forgot his abuse at WJLA-TV just a week ago (I was involved in that dispute). See the article's history and NH's edits such as [28], [29], [30], and [31] where he used the tool to revert valid changes per the manual of style and our verifiability and sourcing policies. As I have been involved with disputes with him in the past, I will not enact any blocks or removals in this case, however, I think something clearly needs to be done if there are at least ten examples of Twinkle abuse in the last week by a user who has had it removed twice in the past. Metros (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes - tagging perfectly good edits as vandalism is the very definition of Twinkle abuse. I have de-Twinkled. Review invited. Black Kite 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Support this. Just a couple of notes — You should protect the monobook.js when doing such thing to ensure the user does not re-add the item; and, add the user to MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js to prevent them from simply enabling twinkle in their preferences. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, there's a page I never knew existed! Of course, I'll forget it exists months down the road when I need to use it... Metros (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't know about that page either, I must admit - thanks for pointing it out. I didn't protect the monobook - I just watchlisted - because I assumed an experienced user like NH wouldn't be daft enough to simply revert ... perhaps I'm stretching AGF too far. Black Kite 14:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll keep an eye on it: I effectively became one of NH's probation officers when he was unblocked (althoughRjd0060's protected it). Acroterion (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
          • If people are watching it I've got no problem with somebody undoing the protection. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Vandalism at the moment[edit]

People on Huggle struggling to keep up - can we have some help? \ / () 11:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

With what, specifically? There are quite a few articles on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
He's just asking that we go to recent changes and take a look. Theresa Knott | token threats 11:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Things are down to manageable levels (though still moderately high). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Well ill join in for a bit. Shouldn't have anything else slipping through for now. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 18:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:Ashley kennedy3[edit]

I have been involved in a couple of content disputes with User:Ashley kennedy3, most recently at Banias. Today, after trying to engage in a discussion with him regarding some inaccurate edits by him (see this), he has started reverting my edits without engaging in discussion on the talk page, or explaining his reverts see this, or worse, with rude edit summary such as this). After I asked him on his talk page to explain his edits, he began a series of personal attacks on me on my talk page, culminating with the recent 'you belong in the Osama bin Laden category of extremists' ([32]), and the addition of said category to my talk page. Can someone please get this editor to start behaving in a civil manner? NoCal100 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalking and disruptive edits by NoCal100.

NoCal100 has a long history of disputes. This for the first time with me. He has been caught wiki stalking Nishidani in his latest POV pushing episode. previously NoCal100 had no history of editing Banias and as soon as Nishidani was asked to copy edit Banias NoCal100 turns up. I don't particularity like stalkers, well actually I think that they are scum of the earth....So I am quite happy with the fact that NoCal100 has brought his wikistalking to the attention of the administration...NoCal100s edits are minimal and nearly always disruptive...His reverts normally defy logic and reality...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ashley kennedy3, your first attack on this user [33] was met with a polite warning,[34] and you then raised the stakes with a completely out of bounds comment. [35] I have blocked your account for one week. Whatever NoCal100 might have done wrong is no excuse for your behavior. I did check their contributions and nothing jumped out at me as particularly problematic, except for one block for edit warring that has already expired. I also see that you did not cite even one piece of evidence in your complaint against them immediately above. Jehochman Talk 17:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of AFD[edit]

Resolved: RMHED blocked and "retired". Underlying issues of BLP and content removal too big to be solved here. Protonk (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to personally note that although I think that RMHED's indef block is a bit much even though he was being POINTy, this particular case is, as Protonk says, resolved. However, the bigger issue remains. We have an editor who was acting a bit pointy but in the end forcingn us to confront a serious issue: there are completely (totally!) unsourced biographies which need to be fixed, and if they can't be fixed, they need to be deleted. Simple as that. Elsewhere in this discussion someone mentions the possibility of a special BLP-PROD, and I think that may be the right approach. As it stands right now, we have a template on some of these articles that says that unsourced statements should be removed (especially if they may be libelous) and yet the articles have no sources at all, and we blcok someone for doing exactly what the template says. This is madness. My own view is that such articles should be subject to extremely aggressive pruning or deletion, but I acknowledge the need for some process which takes into account the possibility that someone may care enough to make them of reasonable quality by sourcing them. But if no one will, in some cases after months have passed with a template, then nuke them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and collapsed the discussion below following the resolved tag and Jimbo's comment above. I suggest the next step should be to start discussion at the appropriate venue on what to do with unsourced biographies of living people. Do we need a new page or should the discussion take place at an existing page? Please, no further discussion here. Let's get the discussion recorded properly on the right page, and have a link here to that discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note that the summary didn't make clear that the block was 24 hours, not indef. "Retired" was a term that only RMHED used on his user talk page, although that has changed somewhat. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 00:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Extended content

I am not sure what to do here. There is a user, RMHED, who is nominating a lot of BLP's for AFD. (Please note, I am talking about BLP's where there is NO controversy about the content, not speedy material either). I don't think he is doing this in bad faith, but I think he is seriously misapplying policy and causing problems because of it. The issue is that he seems to simply take every bio that doesn't have sources, and put them to AFD without searching. This means everyone else is forced to go dig up sources, add them, vote, OR the article will get deleted. This seems to violate WP:DEADLINE. It would seem that nominating an article where there are obvious sources available, but not in the article, would be an abuse. In otherwords, if you nom an article, you are at least morally required to make a good faith effort to see if sources are available, particularly if you are flooding AFD. The reasoning we are hearing is "If you wish the unsourced BLP content to stay then please source it, I'm certainly not inclined to do so" which violates WP:V as well. I am not sure what to do, but I don't want to keep following an editor down just to "fix" his AFD's. I have tried to politely explain this to him, but he seems to not care. If we are going to nominate every article that is unsourced (but sourceable), then why do we have tags? PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • All BLP's should be adequately sourced or deleted, any part of a BLP that is unsourced should be removed per policy. RMHED (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • RMHED, let me make sure I totally understand you: Are you saying that every BLP that has no sources at all should be deleted in whole, as well? PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes Pharmboy reasonable time should be given say 5 days at AfD for interested parties to source it if they so wish. If after that time the article remains unsourced then it should be deleted. If it is partially sourced then that portion should be kept and the unsourced parts removed. RMHED (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
        • If that is the case, then a blp/source tag should automatically start an AFD discussion, no? There would be absolutely never a reason to use that tag. Why does it even exist? This flies in the face of wp:deadline, and even wp:v, which doesn't say everything must be perfect on day one, it just must be possible to verify. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yes, isn't that the way Wikipedia works? Tan | 39 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
didn't we have this conversation, about this editor, a couple of weeks ago? Let me ask the same question as I did then. What percentage of the articles he is sending to AFD are being deleted? if it's 90%, then I say we have no problem. If it's 10% and he persists in sending articles to afd, we have a problem. obviously I don't expect the numbers to be like that but you get the idea. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
He has 20 up currently in the past couple days, two have been snowball keeps, and one closed as no consensus. The other 17 we'll have to see what happens, though none currently have a delete consensus. Wizardman 01:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've looked at them and I've noticed that a lot are easily sourceable. I've fallen into this trap a couple times — nominating something for AfD without sufficiently checking for souces. I know he's trying to act in good faith, but I agree that this is of concern. I'll wait to see how the rest turn out before commenting, but it's not a good sign when he's 0 for 20 in getting a consensus. (Unless he just has that same curse that User:Synergy does.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 01:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Where the problem with an article is a lack of references, I think an editor should make a good-faith effort to find references before nominating an article for deletion. It doesn't take much time to copy-and-paste the title of an article into the search box at http://news.google.com/archivesearch , and refusing to do so shows a lack of respect for other editors. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • On that point I agree. While it's true that some of us aren't that good at finding sources (you seem to be really good at it, Eastmain), I haven't really seen any proof that RHMED is even looking for sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Before the last few days, he hasn't nominated anything for deletion that I can see from looking. I am trying to gentley get across to him that he may be radically misunderstanding his responsibility as the nom of an AFD, and his actual words seem to indicate that he thinks "well, if it isn't sourced, it should be deleted", period. It isn't about faith, and I don't want anyone blocked. I think he just grossly misunderstands the process and was hoping someone could convince him of this fact. As another editor pointed out, he almost seems to be making a WP:POINT in the way he is doing it. Some of these articles literally took 30 seconds to find sources for. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Point In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erkin_Alptekin he is basically saying that he is challenging any BLP that is unsourced, thus, that makes it contentious, thus, that makes it an AFD candidate or subject to the content being deleted. Please tell me I am reading that wrong. If that is what he is saying, then WP:POINT does apply and my faith would be getting a little stretched. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That is what he is saying but is isn't strictly a WP:POINT form of disruption. "wikt:Contentious" doesn't just mean what wiktionary says it does. It means (for our purposes) anything liable to cause debate. We don't need to source that the world is round. We need to source that Person X is notable for act Y. We need to source that Joe Schmoe is an elected official from Winnipeg. These are things that require sources if we are to say them. They are contentious. Protonk (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • RHMED is no stranger to skirting the border of WP:POINT, and these seem to be following down that path. The logic goes: WP:BLP says that in no uncertain terms, contentious, unsourced material can and should be deleted without comment. However, RHMED sees that attempts to delete, blank or nominate unsourced BLP's results in strong pushback. So he nominated (I assume) a bunch to force the point that BLP requires one thing but commong practice results in another. I don't think it is actually WP:POINT, because he seems to believe that BLP would dictate that these articles be deleted (in other words, POINT requires that we show intent to disrupt for the sake of making a statement, here he may be disrupting because he feels a certain way about BLP), but honestly it is tiresome. I don't want to roundly repudiate him because he's basically right: we have a community practice about new articles that stands in obvious contrast to the supposedly widely accepted BLP policy. RHMED's actions aren't going to help close that schism, though. Protonk (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Forget WP:BLP (and this is the only time you'll catch me saying that): per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Somebody has inserted this material; RHMED is trying to remove it. The burden then falls to the people wishing to retain the article to verify the information in the articles. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The policy says "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic". That isn't the case here. wp:v says an article must be verifiable, not verified. WP:DEADLINE says it doesn't have to done today. WP:BLP says if there is any controversy, remove that part of the content post haste. Nominating articles without even searching for sources is not in policy. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 02:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a separate clause from the one that deals removal of material. As for WP:DEADLINE, I think a more appropriate read is that we don't need an article today; we can afford to wait until the sourcing's in place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That is fine logic to use when creating an article (and I use it personally), but when the article already exists, are we not just biting other editors for getting the facts right but not putting the sources in on day one? PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 02:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Frankly, no. Biting the newbies doesn't mean ignoring policies because someone is new. Likewise, WP:DEADLINE is not very helpful in this discussion. BLP doesn't apply to the hypothetical end state of an article. It applies to every revision. We can't just say "well, eventually this will have sources" and ignore the issue. I don't think RHMED's actions are very helpful, but we can't appeal to BITE and DEADLINE in condemning them. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I didn't say to say that. I am saying that an experienced editor (expecially one who is trying to RfA) should first LOOK for sources briefly before going to AFD. If they are found, the energy should be spent adding a couple of sources instead of going to AFD. This is what a good contributor should do. Otherwise, it is making a point. If the sources are easy to find, yes, IMO, an experience editor and RfA candidate should be expected to exercise better judgement and fix instead of delete. To simply AFD a bunch of aritcles without a good faith attempt to source or fix (or at least look at google, then walk away), where the subject matter is not controversial and sources are easy to find, *is* abusing the process, in my opinion. Even if it isn't breaking a particular rule specifically, it is abusing the process. At first I thought he was misunderstanding the policy, but his comments seem to indicate another issue. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If he's only nominating ten articles per day, then he's showing remarkable restraint given the magnitude of the problem that Wikipedia has in this area. At ten articles fixed per day, we'll have cleared out Category:BLP articles lacking sources in just over two years. (Forget about doing the likely thousands articles that aren't even tagged, or the thousands of unsourced BLPs that will be created in the meantime.) Editors saying that he should just go and look for sources for those ten articles each day are missing the point — if we slap him on the wrist and tell him to sit quietly in the corner, we're effectively saying that we don't care that there's a massive backlog of BLPs without sources. (It's okay; RHMED will get to it eventually.)

    Frankly, if we don't get off our asses and start to be more proactive about requiring sources for biographies, we're going to get another Seigenthaler incident. When that happens, we'll probably end up with a duplicate of the 'non-free images' solution. A policy will be imposed from above, setting a hard deadline for all BLPs to be sourced, and permitting the deletion of all unsourced bios within seven days of their creation.

    Sure, we can shoot the messenger here, but what we should be doing is getting our house in order. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

    • I appreciate where you're coming from, but I think you and RHMED are both misidentifying the problem. The problem isn't that there aren't citations - articles can have plenty of citations and still do things like falsely allege connections to the Kennedy assassination. The problem is that anybody can put whatever information they like into any BLP, and in the vast majority of those cases nobody's likely to notice. All the citations in the world aren't going to fix that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but I think that having sources does have (at least) two major benefits. First, it gives our readers a fighting chance — they can check on the cited source, to see if our articles actually reflect those sources. Second, it at least helps to protect our reputation – it shows that we're at least trying. I agree that articles which misrepresent the contents of cited sources (accidentally or deliberately) are quite worrying, and that many articles which do contain sources don't have nearly enough of them. Nevertheless, if we aren't prepared to go after even the lowest-hanging fruit – articles which have no sources whatsoever – where will we start? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well you know I'm in agreement with you there Sarcasticidealist, the sooner all BLP's are permanently semi-protected the better. RMHED (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's different to putting BLP up for deletion. The bits to remove are anything that is contentious if it's unsourced, if you wish. You could always stub it and rewrite it without needing to much time to do it. There's no need to send articles which do not violate, or could be made to not violate, BLP to AfD. RHMED has had problems at AfD before, with dodgy non-admin closes. They were one reason he didn't pass RfA. Sticky Parkin 02:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Now let me recall how many of my dozens of dodgy non-admin AfD closes were overturned by an administrator...Just one I think. RMHED (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • To everyone, the RFA and "dodgy NACs" aren't the issue. The issue is, do you AFD an article that takes 30 seconds to source? It literally takes longer to start an AFD than source many of these. Can we call information "contentious" simple because we don't have a source for it? That someone "is a professor", this is contentions because there isn't a ref for it. Is THAT what the policy says. That is what is at issue. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've yet to see a BLP that takes only 30 seconds to adequately source, even a one line stub would take longer than that. If it's that quick and easy then the ten BLP's I AfD should only take approximately 5 minutes to source by your estimate. RMHED (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Pharmboy, I'm not saying the NACs are the issue- I'm just saying RHMED has a history at AfD of overly 'keen' actions. What does it matter if finding a source takes a bit longer- WP:TIND. That's better than losing valuable articles. Contentious bits are all we need to/should remove from most BLPs if they're unsourced. Of course feel free to nominate a BLP for deletion if you think it has borderline notability and may be doing damage to the individual. Otherwise, it's just getting rid of potentially useful content for fun and pleasure. If I were nominating for deletion I'd first look at google news etc and see if there's WP:RS- to do otherwise is laissez-faire. Sticky Parkin 03:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For those who (rightly) believe that these must be sourced, the obvious thing to do upon seeing an unsourced one is to try and source it. One person won't be able to source all they find that could be sourced, but it would help a little in a positive sense. Articles that cannot be sourced after an effort appropriate to the subject must be deleted, but while doing that probably 90% of the existing unsourced ones that could easily be sourced. Here's my test of someone who in good faith and not POINT wants to help--they select some articles which are particularly potentially harmful or dubious, and nominate them for deletion--not pick at random.If we are to effectively delete the junk, the people who select what we want to discuss deleting must make a good faith effort to start with what there is some reason to think is actual junk. I have elsewhere supported a requirement that anyone taking anything to AfD for deletion for lack of sourcing of existence or notability or verifiability be required to do at least a preliminary search-- if it convincingly shows lack of sourceability, the deletion will be all the smoother. it's afds like these which support what i proposed. DGG (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I thought there existed an unwritten policy (good faith) that anyone taking an article to AFD must do at least a basic search to see if it passes. Not searching first clogs up AFD with articles that don't need to be there. That is the big point, to me. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 10:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not unwritten. This approach to verifiability has been written down since 2003. See