Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627

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

Noticeboard archives


Administrator BrownHairedGirl's badgering of User:Boleyn[edit]

There might be something going on with administrator User:BrownHairedGirl and her relentless attacks on User:Boleyn. It really is time someone looked at how badly this looks and get BrownHairedGirl to back down, go away, redirect her angers.

If User:Boleyn's edits really are a problem, the community can take care of her edits in the proper location. However, at this point, BrownHairedGirl's behaviour is a far bigger problem than Boleyn's edits, and BrownHairedGirl's behaviour appears to be escalating.

Last 250 User talk contribution of BHG

Please stop this. This is an encyclopedia, and User:Boleyn is not BHG's personal punching bag. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to sift through some of the edits but wasn't sure what I was looking for or at. Do you think you can provide some specific examples? Basket of Puppies 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps Boleyn could stop creating unsourced stubs? That would be a good first start. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression this was already discussed. Wasn't there some kind of restriction put in place, banning BHG from interacting with Bol?— dαlus Contribs 04:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I was wrong, they weren't.— dαlus Contribs 04:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a vendetta. Looking at the edits by BrownHairedGirl to User talk:Boleyn on 18 and 19 July, anyone would be struck by: the repeated hammering by multiple repetitive postings; the assumption of bad faith (repeated); the misuse of reference to an editing guideline by inaccurate reading; a blatant personal attack; misuse of an edit summary to back up the personal attack; disregard of the comments of three concerned outside opinions; lack of anything constructive to say, and interference with a thread that offered some way forward. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. I have gone to User talk:BrownHairedGirl and been met with nothing but combative self-justification. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Diff for personal attack? Exxolon (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Here: "experienced but lazy editor", repeating a slur from the past, in fact. The same diff shows misdirection as to "verifiability", considering that much unsourced but verifiabkle material is in WP. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I made the point last time that calling an editor with over 100,000 edits "lazy" was disingenous at best. Exxolon (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And I stand by it as fair comment on the stub-creation work of an editor who repeatedly creates sub-stubs which require cleanup by others because they are either unreferenced, factually inaccurate, miscategorised, or misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, an attempt to damage a reputation, rather than explain the situation properly, or move ahead on any front. Whatever is said below about Boleyn, and the stubs are not "ideal stubs" if people are wanting to make a point there, BHG has not established that Boleyn's edits violate policy, despite many arguments, and BHG's conduct has simply been outrageous in the past couple of days, violating several conduct policies. At minimum BHG should be told that, frankly, you are not treating Boleyn as a colleague, and therefore you are the wrong person to be addressing the issues here: posting carping messages to her talk page every few hours looks more like an attempt to drive an editor away than to resolve anything. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
As noted below, if the ongoing creation of large numbers of sub-stubs which fail WP:CSD#A10 is not a problem, then let's have a community decision to that effect, and remove A10. If the creation of large numbers of unreferenced stubs is not a problem, then let's clarify the matter by adding an explicit statement to that effect in WP:V, and let's remove the section of WP:STUB which warns that wholly unreferenced stubs may be deleted.
You are entitled to your views, Charles, but your comments would be more likely to lead to a resolution if you acknowledged that their adoption would require significant changes to existing guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I really wasn't sure what to do about this, as it's been going on for a while. I was taking information on notable people from different Wikipedia articles, e.g. constituency articles, and collating it into a stub. I would then look for a reference and add it if possible. Since BHG started her campaign, I have gone back over most of the 700-odd articles I've created, seeing if I can add more to them, and I'm continuing to do this. I have merged my watchlists as this was the reason given by BHG for giving me an indefinite block, and now use the one log-in. I have also stopped creating stubs if I can't find a reference to go with the information I've found in existing, and usually very accurate, Wikipedia articles.

Even with references to the ODNB, some articles I've created have been nominated for speedy deletion by BHG on grounds of brevity, so referencing was presumably not the main problem for BHG. At the moment, she seems to check through all my contributions, looking for mistakes/things that could be improved and then sending me a long and usually rude message each time she spots something. I am trying to stop replying to her as I have answered all her points before, but the messages just keep coming, despite a recent ANI about her behaviour towards me. BHG is on here pretty much literally 24/7 and has made a great contribution to Wikipedia. Her time could be better spent returning to that than stalking and insulting other editors. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The sort of content Boleyn has been creating like James Chaine is being attacked. Brown Haired Girl has persisted on tagging unversally accepted articles from the Oxford National Dictionary of Biography as non notable and even trying to speedy delete her efforts. To me is looks like petty victimization and deplorable behaviour from an admin. Nobody is obligated to add a single thing to wikipedia so to yell at somebody who is generating traditional, much needed content in whatever form is a little off. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr B, that comment on the DNB is simply untrue, and I wish you would stop repeating the same falsehood.
AFAIK, the only DNB-referenced article which I tagged for notability was Sir Henry Russell, 1st Baronet, and at the time it was not referenced to the DNB.
However, I have tagged several others for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A10, which is not related to notability.
As the James Chaine, it would be more helpful if you linked to the article as Boleyn created it, rather than the article after I and others had expanded and corrected it ... and if instead of hysterically saying that the article was "attacked", you noted that the concern I expressed to Boleyn was about the apparent unreliability of the source, a web-forum. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can see now that the articles was unsourced at the time, it initially appeared you had tagged a ONDB article for deletion. May you are frustrated that Boleyn has created unreferenced stubs when you had asked her several times not to. this is a bit harsh. The stub wasn't that bad, it needed some sourcing and expansion that's all. There is also nothing major wrong with James Chaine starter article. It has some basic facts, established notability and requires minimum cleanup. Echoing what Black Kite says below, if Boleyn starts articles with sources and some content in a manner which is desirable to Brown Haired Girl and our guidelines then maybe BHG will back down and calm down. There are always two sides to every story. Boleyn can you ensure you reference your stubs to avoid future conflict? Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Dr B, for promptly accepting the correction. However, since many other editors are commenting on conduct, may I suggest that when you criticise another editor on the basis of something which you hadn't checked but which was demonstrably false, that a little bit of an apology is in order? And that it might be a nice idea to go back and strike out some of the other comments you have made which were also based on the same lack of checking? Just a suggestion, but since conduct seems to be a concern here, I think it's relevant.
Anyway, I'm glad that you can see the merits of Black Kite's suggestion. If Boleyn raises the quality of her stubs, then the problem is solved and I will be delighted to see more new stubs rather than frustrated to see so many more bad ones. In any case, as noted below, I have at this point documented the many problems well enough that there's no point in my drawing more of it to Boleyn's attention. Either she starts seeking help to improve her output (rather complaining that raising problems with her is "unnecessary"), in which case problem solved ... or she continues to ignore the problems, in which case I or someone else will eventually open an RFC. But at this point, it's quite clear that my notifying her of problems is an utterly futile exercise, so I will desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's an easy way to make the issue go away, and that's for Boleyn to stop creating unreferenced sub-stubs that often contain less information than is contained in other articles and/or fail WP:CSD#A10. As soon as she stops doing that, there will be no need for anyone to "badger" her to fix the issues she creates. Especially when given the subject matter that most of her articles are about, there should never be a problem with referencing them. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasting comments I made earlier on BHG's talk page:

I don't think it's personal for BHG: I think the despair about Boleyn's editing is probably shared by other editors who regularly sort stubs or otherwise interact with Boleyn's work. For example yesterday, I came across this. In the course of one short stub this very experienced editor manages to (a) link Plowden to a dab page; (b) create a red-link for Baron Plowden (a later editor created a redirect which links back to this page, the only sensible place for this link to point - so there was no point making it a link in the first place); (c) create duplicate references to one source. She added this person to the Plowden dab page, with no dates or description. All this would be fine from a new editor, but this massively experienced editor should not be leaving so many loose ends for other people to tidy up. (Yes, I got hooked and spent too much time yesterday creating not only Plowden, Shropshire but also Bridget Plowden). She obviously does a huge amount of work on Wikipedia, but I and BHG, and probably other editors too, wish she would improve the quality of her work even if at the expense of some of the quantity. PamD (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And I've just noticed that she added Category:Barons in the Peerage of England which I think is only for early titles - I'm not an expert in this area, but I think more recent titles are at Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and a note there says to use Category:Life peers instead for such people. PamD (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Response from BHG[edit]

Boleyn's comment that "I really wasn't sure what to do about this" is at very best disingenuous, because she knows exactly what to do about it. She should stop creating:

  1. pointless sub-stubs, which do nothing but duplicate some of the content of an existing article, and are therefore speedy-deletable per WP:CSD#A10
  2. shorts stubs which despite their brevity are full of problems and require cleanup even if they are not expanded, because they are one or more of: wholly unreferenced; factually inaccurate; misleading; referenced to an unreliable source; miscategorised.

She's quite right that I have better things to do with my time than pointing out the errors in her contributions (such as completing a draft list of MPs elected in 1832, in which I am experimenting with a new format that probably doesn't quite work). However, as well as creating new content myself, I also routinely monitor a series of categories of other articles in the areas I edit (esp UK MPs), to look for anything that needs correction or cleanup. At this point, by overwhelming majority of newly-created or newly-expanded articles in that area requiring cleanup are the large numbers of sub-standard sub-stubs created by Boleyn. I am not the only editor to have identified this problem (see comments on my talk from Choess and PamD). I raise the issues with Boleyn precisely because I have better things to do with my time than to cleanup articles created at high speed by an editor who prioritises quantity over quality.

This is NOT stalking. WP:HOUND says clearly: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That's what's happening here: related problems are occurring on multiple articles.

The messages have kept on coming because the problems have continued to recur. For example, despite the problems having been raised by me a month ago, and discussed at ANI, Boleyn created over the weekend two new wholly unreferenced stubs: 1& 2.

User:IP69.226.103.13 is quite right to point out that "this is an encyclopedia", because that's the core of the matter here. Wikipedia is not a blog or myspace: it's an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to publish verifiable, reliably-sourced information for readers.

That's why articles which waste the reader's time by adding nothing at all to the content of the articles from which they are linked are and speedy-deletable: they are pointless, and waste the reader's time.

That's why articles which are wholly unreferenced are tagged as such, because they do not meet our most basic quality standards, which readers have a right to expect that we editors will strive to uphold.

That's why articles which assert untruths or mislead the reader are problematic, because we create this encyclopedia for the readers.

And that's why I routinely use RelatedChanges to monitor a series of categories of articles in the areas I edit, to look for new articles and for potentially problematic changes. In the course of reviewing those categs a month ago, I found several article created by Boleyn, which led me to review her contribs and find that they were the tip of a large iceberg, so I made this post raising the problem with her. Her lack of response and her continued creation of factually untrue stubs (such as James Christopher Flynn, comment here) led that situation to escalate to an ANI thread in which there was widespread concern about Boleyn's make-work sub-stubs.

After that, I took a break from monitoring her work, but when I checked again I found serious problems continuing. Since then Boleyn has repeatedly defended one-liners-pasted-from-a-dab-page by saying that anyone else is free to expand them ... and when factual and other errors in the stubs she creates are pointed out, she insists that she doesn't want to know about the problems. If she doesn't see the problems herself, and doesn't want to be informed about them, then how is she either going to correct the errors or avoid repeating them?

There has indeed been some progress since I started trying to tackle this, but the fact that even after four weeks of scrutiny, she was still creating wholly unreferenced new stub articles over the weekend (1& 2) shows how far there is to go.

That's why I have ceased to assume good faith wrt Boleyn. Per WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence".

I think it's also important to correct some of the untruths being stated by a few editors on Boleyn's talk page. For example, my concern about one-sentence articles referenced to the DNB is not (except in one case) notability, but the fact that they are waste of reader's time, but create a pointless blue-link from an existing article yet say less about the topic than that other article does. That's why WP:CSD#A10 exists (and no, AFAIK I had no hand in the creation of A10).

At this point, I'm quite satisfied that my notes to Boleyn about her latest additions document very well how her contributions fall below the standards of quality required for an encyclopedia, so I do not intend to add any more. The problem is clearly documented, and at this point a community decision of some sort is required.

As far as I can see, there are two issues for the community to decide

A) Is it acceptable for Boleyn to churn out large numbers of new articles which either add nothing to existing articles, or have persistent failings of quality (unreferenced, factually inaccurate, referenced to unreliable sources)

B) When an editor creates hundreds of abysmal sub-stubs, apparently prioritising quantity (see her articles-I-created counter) over quality, should other editors:

  1. ignore the mess, and leave readers to be misled by untruths or have their time wasted by following link to articles where the two major facts asserted are untruejust a bare factoid lifted from a list; or
  2. devote huge amounts of time on each of these rapidly-created sub-stubs: checking the references which the creator didn't bother to check, then correcting the errors and misleading statements, and say nothing to the editor concerned
  3. Inform the editor of the problems in the hope that they will try to avoid such errors in future.

This is a serious issue. Boleyn creates so many stubs, so full of problems, that another editor could easily spend many hours every day doing nothing but clean up the newly-created stubs of this one contributor. My understanding has always been that every editor takes responsibility for the quality of what they add to wikipedia, and has a duty of care not to introduce factual errors or mislead readers. If I am mistaken in that, then I'd like to be directed to the relevant policy or guidelines, or to see some policy or guideline created out of this discussion which clearly states that editors are free to churn out large qauntities of sub-standard new articles, and should not be reproached for this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You fail to appreciate, it seems, that your chucking your weight around and insulting another editor is damaging (concretely, in real time) to Wikipedia, while substandard stubs have always been with us, and always will. I support the idea that your conduct (including use of admin tools) would properly be examined in a conduct RfC. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Charles, you seem to have been consistent in your view that the creation of large quantities of sub-standard content, despite many concerns expressed by multiple editors and explained in detail, is not a conduct issue which needs to be addressed, and you have repeatedly criticised me for invoking WP:CSD#A10. At this point we need to see whether or not there is a consensus of uninvolved editors to support your view that WP:CSD#A10 should be ignored wrt Boleyn's articles which meet A10, and that it is inappropriate to criticise another editor for consistently creating sub-standard content and for denouncing posts explaining her errors as "unnecessary".
At this point I dunno which way this will go. As above, I thought that the over-riding purpose of editing here was to build an encyclopedia, and that contributions which did not meet our quality standards were problematic. It may turn out that the consensus takes your very different view, in which case so be it; but if that's the case, it's a very big issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Here we go. It is not true that anyone who advocates against onsite harassment is commenting on anything else. You misrepresent what I wrote on User talk:Boleyn, which related only to stubs I have personally sorted through. You attack me for calling you on your bullying approach, which would rather make my point. You misdirect, systematically, from your own violations of basic principles, such as AGF, NPA and a collegiate approach. Even if there is a serious issue here on content, that provides not a scrap of justification for the line you are taking. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, that's the core of the issue to be decided here. When an editor repeatedly creates sub-standard content in large quantities, you believe that it is wickedly inappropriate for another editor to point out the problems: e.g. in this thread, where you object to me drawing Boleyn's attention to yet another wholly unreferenced stub.
My idea of a collegiate approach to editing would have been for you to examine ways of encouraging Boleyn to stop doing that, rather than to simply criticise the messenger. As a matter of conduct, your insistence on ignoring the content problem and instead looking for ways to criticise my attempts to solve the problem is not a collegiate approach and fails to AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You forget, I think, that at User talk:Boleyn#Just a thought I made a good, solid suggestion, to which you added a nitpick, plus a reiteration of your assumption of bad faith in Boleyn. You had no business in there carping and adding to your invective on that page. You can clearly type fast, but higher standards are required of admins. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Not at all, Charles, I didn't forget that I had commented there. It seems to be you that forgot that I specifically supported the principle of what you suggested, and that I replied not to you, but to Boleyn, who had misprepresented my position ... and to clarify that I would not object to her creating DNB stubs, and that if they contained "a few sentences, referenced to the DNB, and checked to endure that the facts stand up ... that's fine".
However, you are right that I do not at this point AGF wrt to Boleyn on this issue, and I won't repeat my explanation above of why AGF is not required in such situations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
You forget that you dragged a spoiler right across someone else's suggestion that would actually address the issue? Looks very like an assumption of "ownership" of the issue right there, and that view of mine seems to be reinforced by comments elsewhere in the thread that you might consider an RfC on Boleyn. The issue here and now is your conduct, in fact. The end does not justify the means, and for Wikipedians to say that it does is short-sighted in the extreme, denying nearly a decade of building a community to be proud of. The issue of "good faith" clearly removes from you the right to interact with Boleyn on this matter, doesn't it? No amount of intransigence on your part changes that: call people names and deny that they are working for the common good (a position flatly contradicted by others here) and you necessarily have to back off and let others clear up the mess at the personal level you have created. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Charles, you made an apparently constructive suggestion, Boleyn's reply indicated that she thought it was probably doomed because I'd object, and I responded to clarify what I did and didn't object to, leaving the path clear for your idea. If that's a spoiler, I'm a banana and you're a milkshake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


(I'm moving this down as it might have been missed due to BHG's lengthy post just below it)

BHG should consider alternative ways of handling this. Regardless of the merits of her stance, it's coming across as a personal crusade/vendetta. Suggestions :-

  1. Open a user conduct RFC and get wider community input on Boleyn's editing style and stub creation
  2. If BHG feels Boleyn's edits require any admin attention or action, report here for a neutral admin to evaluate and act if required.
  3. If there is an appropiate Wikiproject devoted to stubs, let them as a group take a look at Boleyn's edits and come up with evaluations/proposals.
  4. If BHG feels that experienced editors should be held to higher standards on stub articles - propose this policy through the correct channels.

Additional suggestions welcomed. Exxolon (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If, as BHG suggests, there is a broad body of opinion with similar concerns about Boleyn's edits, it shouldn't be that hard for BHG to find a proxy in dealing with Boleyn. This sort of minimum cut-out might allow for a more reasoned and problem-solving approach; and would deal with the current fracas. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, many editors who identify problems such as this simply don't want to put the time into tackling it, so although there are several other editors who share my concerns (some of whom have already posted in this thread), that doesn't mean that they are likely to commit the effort to setting up an RFC or whatever.
I will be winding down my own editing over the next few days, before going away (and offline) for about 5 weeks, so I don't intend myself to open an RFC at this point. (It would be unfair to set it up and then vanish)
At this point, the points I have documented on Boleyn's talk page are quite sufficient to provide ample evidence that there is a problem and that attempts have been made to resolve it, which provides the basis for an RFC. As noted above, I do not intend to continue for now the time-consuming process of documenting them all ... but if when I return in September, I find that Boleyn is still creating the same sort of substandard new pages, I will see if I can find time to gather the new evidence and add it to the existing bundle to open an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No experienced editor should be creating uncited stubs. Doing so is nothing but trouble, that is what I expect from new accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Very true. As Black Kite mentioned above, the problems would go away if Boleyn started citing articles appropriately. It's not difficult. It's not a race to create as many new articles as possible. I agree that it's definitely a problem, and I think BHG's efforts to clear this up have been responded to badly, which has naturally caused her frustration. I think an RFC is in order, as people are clearly divided over the issue. Aiken 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see BHG as being in a bit of a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. She's got a problem with Boleyn's articles, seeing them as a diffuse web of useless, unsourced and frequently inaccurate microstubs. From what I've seen, this perception of the stub is accurate at least a high percentage of the time. BHG's taken it upon herself to clean up or repair the mess, continually following Boleyn around begging and demanding that they show some restraint and responsibility. This, coupled with the fact that the job is apparently too big for anyone else to even think about attempting, can make it look as though BHG is on some sort of anti-Boleyn harassment campaign. Getting snippy obviously just reinforces that perception. But I think that going "pretty please with sugar on top" would have even less effect in stemming the crapflood. In any case, I think it's obvious that an editor introducing inaccuracies into Wikipedia that take much longer to repair than they do to perpetrate is far more problematic than the manners of the person telling them to stop.Reyk YO! 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rediscovering the wheel, isn't it, to say that admins can behave as they goddam please as long as they don't keep a cool head? I though we'd nailed that one around 2004. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that, and you know it. Please stop twisting and misrepresenting the words of others; it isn't the first time you've done that on this thread. Reyk YO! 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Where to from here?[edit]

Seems a few people have some bugs up their asses, but there isn't really anything here that demands admin action. The best course would be a WP:WQA or WP:RFC, rather than clogging up ANI with "yes you did/no I didn't" posts. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given that it says in WP:HOUND that If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions, it's rather important to discuss exactly what has been happening. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That's what WQA or RFC are for. Unless its clear hounding, ANI can't do a damn thing with it. And this isn't clear, as both sides have some disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read the bit in WP:WPA that makes it clear that they are complete forbidden, no matter what the other party has done. And then tell me why there is any need to dicker about this. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm Yes, harassment is forbidden. But I don't see that this is clear harassment. It's a behavioral issue on both sides. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be taking an indefinite wikibreak as I just can't take any more of this. This has recently started to feel like a job I'm not doing well enough, rather than me volunteering my time because I enjoyed it and thought it was important. I have spent many hours, especially over the last few days, going back over articles I created and adding to them, but as far as I'm aware I broke no policy in creating short stubs. I apologise for any and all mistakes I have made in my editing, but as I've said before, I spend many hours a day editing and there will be some errors found, especially if someone checks every edit I make - I believe the amount to have been exaggerated. I may pop back on to look at messages but am unlikely to edit for a while, and will see if I think I still have anything to contribute to the project. Thanks for all the support I've received over the last two and a half years, particularly in recent weeks. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, please, disregard the rather callous comments by a few above who apparently are not prepared to hold an admin to basic standards. Instead discuss with Dr. Blofeld and me a way ahead that will be more fruitful, ignoring if you can the personalia that have been aimed at you. I uphold the view that you did not break policy, and have been harassed. The appropriate policy is cited above, and it looks like three strikes against BHG to me, at least. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's advisable for both users to take a non-permanent break, and that both users should read all of the following.
With respect to BHG, even during difficult situations, admins are expected to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another, and to engage in proper conduct. That requirement is not optional purely because one becomes involved in a dispute and is technically not permitted to use their tools in that dispute; it applies because that's part of the responsibilities that come with becoming an administrator (or any other position of trust on Wikipedia). Remember that it would be counterproductive if an user felt that the only way they can contribute is through new accounts so that their content will not continue to be subjected to an unusually high level of scrutiny. I appreciate the concern about the quality of content that is being generated, but know yourself, and take breaks when you find you cannot maintain the standard of behavior that is expected.
With respect to Boleyn, clearly the perceived conduct issues and approach can overwhelm any user - especially when it either appears or feels like an user is consistently trying to find fault with whatever you do. Similarly, you should also remember that where an user appears or feels that their concerns about your approach or content are not being heard, not responding to the comments is hardly going to deescalate the situation either. If necessary, slow down or take breaks; chances are that it will help both you and the project.
I think everyone would like it if both users constructive contributions are retained particularly as both users want to or have in some way (tried) to improve the project. But sometimes, it is better both for the individual and for the project that they take a temporary break when things are going too out of control (too much to handle) or things are getting out of perspective. When it is taken in appropriate circumstances (like here), this can be the best form of dispute resolution - better than a solution that any editor, admin, community or a bureaucratic committee can provide. It's also a preferrable option to a WQA or a RfC in this case. Come back refreshed after you've both taken enough time off; work on the issues that others have identified with your approaches (even if this means talking with others or working with others to address these), and finally, continue helping the project - that's all we want, and that's what the project will benefit from. My 2 cents anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I just say quickly here that
  1. it is not, and has not been, either my aim or desire for Boleyn to stop editing wikipedia, and I would encourage her not to quit. All I have sought is for her take some steps to acknowledge and learn from problems identified. I have more than once suggested several ways in which she could do that (e.g. mentorship, engaging with concerns when they are raised, creating new articles in userspace and seeking a check before they go to mainspace), and I hope that when she returns after her break, she will find some way of seeking assistance from other editors so that she an do this without raising concerns.
  2. For myself, I will be taking a summer break from next week, and have in any case already committed to staying clear of Boleyn other than possibly than to raise an RFC if problems persist on my return.
  3. One of the issues revealed by this discussion has been a divergence of views about the applicability of existing clearly-worded guidelines on the sort of content creation in which Boleyn has engaged. One of the factors which escalated this dispute was the intervention of editors who appear to me to reject clearly-worded relevant guidelines such as WP:STUB#Basic information and WP:CSD#A10, although they seem sincere in their readings. I suggest that a review of both those guidelines is now needed to test the degree to which they still reflect consensus, hopefully leading to some sort of clarification one way or another, particularly with regard to the distinction between the welcoming assistance we should give to new editors learning the ropes and the different issues which I (and several other contributors to this thread) believe are raised by experienced editors who create many new stubs.
There is a lot more which I could say on this topic, and I will say them if Charles Matthews or anyone else wants to pursue the matter further ... but in the spirit of ncmvocalist's posting I will leave them be for now in the hope that everyone can move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say once again it is WP:AGF which is central to this. Boleyn was doing what she thought was right for the encyclopedia and didn't see a problem with small, unreferenced stubs. Brown Haired Girl took Boleyn's continued unsourced articles as an insult so proceeded to harass her and tried to make her to get the message and not to create more without a source or content. Above all I'd say a solution could be found where everybody is happy; it largely comes down to referencing and some levelof basic starter content. If Boleyn can take heed of the guidelines and BHG's concerns and generate articles even if shortish stubs with proper sourcing, (that means more than just a bare URL) and she is happy to do so I'm sure BHG, if she is really keen on wikipedia development, does not really want Boleyn to leave, and has some level of decency, then I think she would not continue to go on at Boleyn and stalk her articles. Take some time away from wikipedia Boleyn but I think it is unnecessary to depart from wikipedia when its obivous its something you enjoy. The key is to edit in a way you and other people are happy with. I do believe the extent of the mistakes she has made are highly exaggerated. and that overall the content she has added to the site is encyclopedic and can be built upon. The worst thing I think is the fact that one of the editors in this debate (not Brown Haired Girl) added more fuel to the fire by prodding and sending ANOTHER deletion warning to Boleyn, as if she didn't get the message which I thought was particularly cruel and unwarratned. The article, Arthur Ingram has since been expanded and is awaiting DYK. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So an unsourced, one line, biography stub was PRODded as unsourced, and as a result the article has had sources and information added to it and has now been nominated for DYK? That certainly sounds like a positive outcome to me. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While we have some users feverishly creating minimalistic, unreferenced articles, we have other users feverishly marking minimalistic, unreferenced articles for deletion (particularly due to BLP concerns). And I'm not talking about BHG, either. I think there is actually a project dedicated to rubbing out unreferenced BLP's. So what are the rules? Is it valid to add unreferenced articles? Technically speaking, isn't any unreferenced stub essentially "original research" if it lacks a reference? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping in a comment here in the middle, responding to the above comment. Three things. One -- In April, due to BLP concerns, there was indeed a project to delete BLPs that, after notice, lacked even one ref. That sounds like a "camel" of a solution -- a compromise that was not perfect, but was an improvement to what was then a disturbingly high number of non-reference BLPs. Second -- my own practice is to not add a sentence of prose without adding a footnote. Third -- the AfD policy does not require that there be refs in the article, or that there be refs in the article that reflect notability, but just that they exist. So, in an AfD discussion, it is not uncommon for the nom to say -- hey, well if those sources exist, you have to put them in the article for me to agree to a "keep", and for the older (if not wiser) hands to respond ... that's not how it works. Of course, the good souls go about putting the refs in the articles. When those editors come up for admin (and that's not infrequently a subtext), they of course almost invariably receive my support.
Bottom line -- our policies, for better or worse, allow for unreferenced prose. If questioned, however, refs must be supplied. Or the material is (after how long? not sure there is a standard) deleted. Is this a good approach? It may be a "perfection is the enemy of the good approach". I should point out that as to lists, some editors believe that they should (though they generally don't) have a ref for each entry. Which is of course curious, given how it is inconsistent with cats -- which can't of course have refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to Dr Blofeld above, I'll repeat that I didn't want Boleyn to leave, and don't want her to leave. I do think that having Boleyn staying and creating good stubs would be the ideal outcome. I'm pleased to see other editors (including Dr B) now taking up the baton of advising her on how to achieve that, and I'm even more pleased to see that she seems to have moved on a long way from telling them to go fix it themselves if they want to.
I also think that Baseball Bugs is right to raise the issue of a wider problem wrt to the role of stubs. Wikipedia's priorities have changed over the years, and it does seem that some very divergent views on the role of stubs have currency in difft corners of wikipedia. This really does need some attention as a systemic issue, rather just leaving individual disputes to be resolved on a piecemeal compromise basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Which being translated means that you at last realise that your attacks on Boleyn are founded in no policy as such (as I have said all along) but in an opinion you hold of what policy should say (as we all realised quite some time ago). I think we do need to discuss with you why you exaggerate the harm done by stubs, when they are not unreferenced BLP (which [[WP:V}} singles out prominently) but may contain unattributed material (which is not particularly desirable but not always subject to the first para of WP:V as is clear to anyone who actually reads it), or of the seed type that may duplicate material already in an article but allow for expansion of a topic. The latter type may be subject to CSD A10, but really shouldn't when there is a clear case for expansion. The difference between may and must is key in understanding where the growth points are: it is much more likely that Wikipedia is harmed by having too few stubs to expand, than too many. (None of this excuses any aspect of your behaviour, naturally. Those who dismiss it or accept your self-excusing version of a display of petulant aggression with gross exaggerations and "tendentiousness" are, I would say in your style, conniving in harassment.) Charles Matthews (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Charles, considering that you have repeatedly criticised my conduct, that level of vituperation from you doesn't help your case.
I am trying here to seek a win-win outcome to all of this, so I don't intend to intend to discuss these points with you while you are ranting ... but I'll just note that you grotsequely misrepresent my position in a number of respects. I do not "realise that your attacks on Boleyn are founded in no policy as such", and it would be helpful for you not to put words in my mouth; what I do acknowledge is that it has become clear that some clear and well-established guidelines are not supported by a number of editors, and I don't know how widespread that dissent is, which is why I suggest a wider review. In an appropriate forum I will be quite happy to expand in much greater detail on the problems of bad stubs, with plenty of evidence to support that, but I'm not going to bother trying to do that when you simply shout about "exaggeration" rather than looking for some evidence, and when you try to misrepresent my position as being opposed to stubs per se. If anyone is inclined to take that comment of yours at face value, then I urge them to take a look at my own article-creation over the last 4½ years of editing here: the number of stubs I have created probably runs into the thousands. There are external tools which help in finding such articles, though it takes them a long time to process my contribs list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • We had proposals in place the last time around to deal with this. They were quite reasonable, though people were worried about Boleyn being restricted in unreasonable ways and BHG didn't think those restirctions went far enough. All that said, I don't understand why WP:STICK isn't invoked here. If there is a serious problem, there is no reason why BHG needs to be fixing it. Let others try. It seems to have become a pretty clear case of badgering. Badgering with good motives, but badgering none-the-less. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe let the deletionist projects find them and deal with them? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • (hi Bugs!) comment - Where's the RfC? We're out of behavioral territory here (which is what administrators are supposed to be enforcing), and probably out of most policy space - most content policies govern what is suitable for individual articles, whereas this is a meta-question of setting policy: should we be creating placeholders / sub-stubs en masse for notable historical people based on biography databases, or should we wait for people to create viable articles? The content issue is similar to a number of historical debates: articles for all models of cell phones? articles for every town and geographic feature in the world? articles for x-y relations, where x and y is the set of all countries in the world? The result is sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on the circumstances... it's best to have a prior discussion before any mass creation or mass deletion of content, rather than making content decisions like this through the tenacity of individual editors or the success of their complaints about one another. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
        • RFC for what? Deletions of BLP's with no sources? I don't recall, but probably discussed on the BLP talk page. My point overall, though, is this: If you create an article, of any size, it can't be from thin air. It has to have a source. But if there's no reference given, then what is the source? The creator's recollection of something? Maybe that's OK for a given isolated article. They could start to create it and come back with references. But if you're mass-loading stubs, you have to be getting them from somewhere. Where? And why isn't in the article? And if it is, What's the problem? Ya follow? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I, personally, would request that Bugs stop going up other people's asses.
Seriously, man, that's sick. HalfShadow 01:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
That's way too Freudian. I think he was channeling LC when he posed that question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Supporting Bugs's point about sourcing, recent comment by Boleyn confirmed what I suspected, that she was sourcing the content from existing wikipedia articles and then looking for external refs to back up some of the article. That's an understandable approach, but it's dangerous, because it leads to the replication of errors ... and it's important to remind editors doing this that wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Here's an illustration of the danger, which I just encountered a few minutes ago whilst building a draft list of 1832 MPs: in the list of MPs for Winchester, William Bingham Baring is listed as a Tory, and the same label appears in his article. But a little scrutiny shows that in neither case is the party affiliation explicitly referenced, and F. W. S. Craig's British parliamentary election results 1832–1885 shows that Baring was elected a Liberal/Whig for Winchester in 1832 and 1835, but as a Conservative MP for North Staffordshire from 1837-41, and for Thetford from 1841 to 1848. I know exactly how that sort of error arises, through a good faith but mistaken assumption that if he was a Conservative in the 1840s, he must also have been so in 1832 ... but party-switching was much more common then, making such assumptions dangerous. This sort of mistake can linger for years in under-scrutinised articles on relatively obscure MPs, and even tho Baring was more notable than most MPs, rising briefly to ministerial office, it has remained in the article on him since this edit in Sept 2009, and in the Winchester article since this edit in Nov 2008.

Both edits were good faith mistake by an experienced and careful editor, but it illustrates the dangers of relying on existing wikipedia articles as a source. Rapid-fire-creation of stubs based solely on existing articles not only replicates existing glitches such as these, but risks compounding them with further misunderstandings of various subtleties: the chinese whispers syndrome of content degrading as it is passed on down the line. That's why the use of reliable sources is not just an adornment to be added later, but is supposed to be the basis for adding new content. When that sort of error is made in an uncategorised sub-stub on an obscure back-bencher, it can linger for years; even well-linked and categorised articles on backbenchers often get only a dozen or so hits per month, and a surprising number of stubs which I created four years ago on 20th-century backbench MPs have seen no substantive content changes since then. The high error rate in Boleyn's sub-stubs on MPs is likely to persist for a looong time unless checked, and there is a very limited number of editors with access to the scarce reference books required to check these points for obscure mid-19th-century MPs. With this sort of obscure topic, the sort-it-out-later approach to sourcing just doesn't work ... and we have over 700 articles created in this way by Boleyn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I do think from a process perspective it's better to get a community consensus (or point to a prior one) than to tackle this as a solo administrator. I know we already have WP:V, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and also WP:CIRCULAR. Has anyone ever written an essay to the tune of "don't mass-create articles based on a single source"? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The thing that has surprised me in all of this has been that when we already have WP:V, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:CSD#A10, WP:STUB#Basic stub etc, there seems to be a view in some quarters that we do not have a prior consensus on this. I have been very surprised to be accused by a few editors of pursuing a novel interpretation of existing guidelines. I accept at this point that a wider discussion is needed to settle this issue, but now that Boleyn has confirmed what was apparent already, viz. that she was creating sub-stub articles without reference to any external source, I think we could usefully start by clarifying whether existing guidelines do (as I believe) explicitly and clearly deprecate that ... and if they don't already, whether they should be amended to provide more clarity one way or another.
It seems to me that the question you pose could be broken down into two parts: a) whether multiple stubs should be created solely on the basis of existing wikipedia articles, and b) whether and in what circumstances a single external source can be used in that way. (Personally, I think I would be in favour of A but opposed to B if it were to impede, for example, the use of the DNB as the basis for creating stubs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More light, less heat please[edit]

I've noticed several comments in this discussion that get very close to crossing the line here. I understand that tempers are high, but let's back down a bit on the incendiary rhetoric. Let's DISCUSS what the problem is, and how to fix it. If necessary, let's go to a RfC, but I'm hopeful that the participants will agree to discuss, and not accuse. SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Boleyn should be given mentorship by an admin who can coach them through the etiquette of acceptable article creation. BHG should try and keep her distance from Boleyn because its obvious she dislikes her editing style and so cannot be neutral in new situations. Furthermore BHG needs to bring up her concerns about stub creation elsewhere and also about CSD#A10. To prevent such reports in the future both users need to make use of the help available in terms of neutral administrators, third opinions and mediation. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly BHG should undertake (a) to avoid Boleyn, not to make personal attacks on her under any circumstances, not to employ admin tools against her under any circumstances, not to repeat the allegations of bad faith and "laziness" (absurd) in any circumstances; (b) to respect interventions by third parties in this matter, rather than ignoring them; (c) not to deflect from the conduct issues into theorising about what should be going on with stub formation. All this could be done quite simply as a voluntary self-restriction. Of course I should also like to see responsiveness to informal mediation, a complete cessation of the accusations that anyone who is try to mediate is somehow a proponent of "low-quality additions" to the encyclopedia, an appropriate apology to Boleyn, and a change in the apparent attitude that BHG has some sort of veto in all arrangements or proposals to do with Boleyn as editor. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to see pigs fly, personally. I think you should see by now that there's no call (outside yourself) to enforce such restrictions on BHG. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to remind both parties of the statement I made at the top of the section please? SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The primary parties (Boelyn and BrownHairedGirl) will be taking a break (which is incidentally in line with the advice I provided earlier rather than as a result of that advice), so at least for now, all conduct concerns are on hold. Everyone else here who has an opinion is simply going to be restating their opinions over and over, but nothing is going to change about those opinions. If there are concerns about stubs and the relevant deletion criteria, discussion should occur at (or be moved to) those policy/guideline pages. Other than that, this discussion is hold, and I don't think that keeping this thread open is going to accomplish anything useful in such circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Epeefleche[edit]

We've worked out our differences amicably; there won't be any issues going forward. User:Jayjg 01:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In May I raised an incident here where I was running into opposition when deleting unsourced items from Lists of Jews. While I was supported here by a large majority of editors, I ran into very vocal opposition from a small minority of editors, including Epeefleche (talk · contribs), who insisted that inline citations were not required for every item, and that one should not delete unsourced items, only tag them. The AN/I discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Wikidemon, WP:V and WP:BLP.

The issue spilled over onto other pages, including onto the WP:RS/N board, where Epeefleche asserted that at least one of the GAs I had written was "poorly worded" and lacked footnotes, and asked "How would Jay feel if an editor came along and deleted all of them, and all similar sentences in all FAs and GAs he worked on? Rather than tag them?"[1] I pointed out that everything in the article was cited, and that "Footnotes sometimes cover two or three sentences in a row, or even a whole paragraph. This is the standard way of writing good articles; one does not repeat the same footnote at the end of successive sentences."[2] However, he now insisted that a citation at the end of a paragraph wasn't good enough, that every single sentence in every single article needed an inline citation, and stated rather ominously "You really have to stop being lazy, and start adding refs, or else assume your material will be tagged or deleted."

Since then, I have slowly been tagging unsourced entries on the List of Jews in sports (and in some case, deleting unverifiable ones). Epeefleche, in turn, has been providing sources for some of these tagged items, but under protest; last month, for example, he again protested having to cite the list, claimed "the articles that you wrote themselves fail to properly ref each sentence."[3], and later stated "I also challenge you to attribute all items in the articles you created."[4]

Today I noticed that dozens of the sources in the article were merely to the name of a book, not to any specific page in the book where the information could be found, so I tagged them with {{page required}} tags. "Retribution" was rather swift; later in the day, he suddenly started editing an article I had written and recently submitted for Good Article Review. Whenever a citation covered an entire paragraph, or more than one sentence, he added various spurious {{fact}} and {{by whom}} tags to cited material, 16 tags in all. When I removed them as spurious, and warned him I would be taking him to AN/I if he continued, he restored them, and then continued to edit the article, including adding dubious sources that were literally poor copies of reliable sources already in the article (see Talk:Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom#Emunah magazine source/ On the Talk: page of the article he insisted that every single sentence in the article needed to be sourced, and opened his first section with the rather threatening title "Improving citations; Bar to promotion to GA until addressed". While pretending that he was simply trying to fix my "failures to agree to follow wiki guidelines here" and "poor editing" so that the article could achieve GA status, he was obviously actually trying to disrupt that nomination. I invited him to confirm what I said about citations at the Talk:FAC page, which he did not do. I, however, did, and there they (unsurprisingly) agreed with me: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Are citations required at the end of every sentence?

He has now yet again tagged statements which are cited at the end of the paragraphs they are in.[5] Can I get some relief from this harassment? Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a little off the track, but I wonder if both you and Epeefleche would mind weighing on the discussion about sourcing, farther up the page:[6]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont really want to get involved and but I must say that I've also experienced some of this from Epeefleche. During an AfD where I nominated IDF Tick Tock for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF Tick Tock which led to this discussion between him and another editor. The he was engaged in the following debates with User:L-l-CLK-l-l at [7] and me at [8]. The jist of my issue with the user was that he was appear to suggest that myself and User:L-I-CLK-l-l where somehow less qualified to give a POV or that our POV was less valid due to our age. I mentioned that his behaviour was patronising and that I felt an apology was owed as I felt it was uncivil to disrespect others on the grounds of age discrimination. The response was to go on the offensive. I just feel that in light of what has been written above I should make the incident known to admin. I must note that the user has made lots of good contributions to many articles but in light of my experience, L-I-CLK-l-l and Jayjg's run-ins with these editors perhaps Epeefleche is a little heavy handed. Note also that he went out of his way to find an article in poor state that I am attributed: James Wright (music producer) and nommed it for deletion but missing out the step which places the discussion template on the article and then tried nominating the page for speedy deletion. I don't know if it was deliberate or not, Possibly in retaliation as suggested above. (its not even an article I edit, instead I merely moved it from its old name). --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Jay asked me out of band to take a look at this.
In the game of WP:OWN vs WP:STALK, who loses? We all do...
This is complicated, and without breaking WP:AGF it's not clear if either party actually has less than impure motives here, nor without staring at diffs for another hour is it clear if either is more precisely right on the sourcing / citing issue.
What is clear is that the two parties involved are not getting along, and the article is becoming a battleground for that conflict.
Epeefleche - I don't want to "blame you" here, but it's an article he started, and your participation there, even if well intentioned, seems to be becoming something unrelated to the content. Would you consent to moving on to other articles, or at least finding someone else you trust on source citations to help on this and restrict yourself to the talk page there for a while?
Jay - Do remember WP:OWN. If a neutral citations expert can be found, or at least one who isn't Epeefleche, please take their inputs seriously.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Violations by User:Jayjg of wp:own, wp:admin, and wp:civil, and wp:agf[edit]

  • Some facts:
  1. Jay had a difference of view with half a dozen editors, including me, between two and three months ago. He claims that is the proximate cause of a wikipedia MOS dispute he is having with me today. It isn't. At least on my part.
  2. His claim isn't simply wrong. It's nonsensical. In that discussion, half a dozen editors criticized Jay strongly for his deleting on a mass basis, rather than tagging, text he felt should have citations. These included Equazcion, Baseball Bugs, Wikidemon, Rich Farmbrough, and Greg. Jay was deleting text. Even when there was every reason to expect (which he never denied) that he knew the information he was deleting was true. He was encouraged to instead tag the text (or even move it to the talk page). He never expressed any appreciation of their concern.
  3. Note: While Jay was mass-deleting information, failed to take any constructive steps to improve the article.
  4. Oddly, Jay now claims that because months ago I suggested he should tag (rather than delete) certain content, my tagging (note – tagging, not deleting) unreferenced content months later, on a wholly unrelated article, is somehow retribution. That makes zero sense.
  5. Even more peculiar: Jay and I had a great deal of contact over the past three months. We made dozens of edits at articles in overlapping fashion, and had a number of talk page discussions. Almost all of his editing involved him tagging text. Almost all of my editing involved me supplying the refs he called for. All without incident.
  6. Now to today's events. I was making myriad improvements to an article. Fixing all manner of errors. The article, for example, mentioned only one of the two names of the institution it describes. A rather fundamental piece of information missing. I supplied the other name. The article violated a number of wikipedia MOS rules, wp:overlink (badly), grammar rules, ce rules, MOSNUM, mixed tenses, used "who" when it should have used "whom", used "until recently" which is not appropriate, said a living person was known as x (without saying "know by whom"), etc. I fixed nearly all of these errors myself. I supplied new, appropriate text. I supplied new refs. All my editing was geared to improving the article.
  7. I also pointed out that I felt that some sentences should have refs, using the fact tag. I didn't, however, delete one word of "his" material (Jay's approach). Even when unsourced.
  8. Jay's reaction? He expressed ownership of the article. He threatened me. Writing: "if you screw around like this with one other article I've written, it's straight to WP:AN/I". Violating wp:civil. Violating wp:admin, which requires that he model proper behavior. And he deleted the tags.
  9. He did not discuss the matter on the article talk page.
  10. In the face of Jay's hostility and reversions, I brought the citation issue to the article talk page. There, I explained at length the common sense reason for refs to be supplied; especially, as we are seeking GA status for the article. I emphasized how this is especially the case with quotes. I quoted for Jay the relevant guidance: "Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged ... should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And furthermore: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material.... The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." This couldn't possibly be clearer. I suggested that, to make it easy, we work together and address those instances where there were quotations, but not refs.
  11. I asked Jay to please stop being uncivil with me, being hostile, and edit warring.
  12. Some of his response was: "And what exactly would you know about writing FAs and GAs? I've written 13, how many have you written?" [The answer was that I've worked on a number of FAs and GAs; possibly more than he has. But the real answer is that his question was a completely inappropriate response to my pointing out the guideline that required refs for sentences with quotes.]
  13. I reiterated my above points. And closed with: "Let's work together to resolve this dispute about the article, and improve it to GA status".
  14. In response, Jay brought this AN/I against me.
  15. Jay's threats, behavior, edit warring, and retaliatory AN/I with regard to an MOS dispute are, IMHO, violations of wp:civil, wp:own, wp:agf, and wp:admin. And whatever guidance that I am missing, that covers bullying and using AN/I for an MOS dispute (one in which, as the above guideline quote demonstrates, Jay is without question wrong as to references for quotes), in an effort to bully and cow other editors into not speaking up. I would appreciate it if his behavior were reviewed in this regard.

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not really credible. You didn't like my tagging the refs you (I assume) added, so you ended up at an article which I created, and was almost the sole editor, one which I had just taken for GA review. How was it, exactly, that you found that article anyway? Are you really trying to claim it had nothing to do with the fact that I wrote it? You also threatened to start tagging statements in articles I'd written,[9] even though it has been explained to you that they were properly cited, and you went ahead and did so.[10] You suddenly claim you are interested in bringing the article to GA status, and are showing me what will stop the article from attaining it, but apparently have never actually been through that process (much less the FA process) before, much less having written a GA or FA. Why the sudden, new interest in bringing this specific article to GA status? Also, if you really only wanted the sentences with "quotations" cited, why did you tag all those sentences that had no quotations? And why didn't you just duplicate the citations yourself, since you knew they were at the end of the next sentence or end of the paragraph? And finally, I've been all over the Talk: page of the article. Jayjg (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Completely absurd. You have been tagging articles I work on for many weeks. Dozens and dozens of tags. Perhaps hundreds. I've done nothing more than dutifully supply refs where you have left tags. For weeks. In the vast majority of cases, they haven't even been to material I added.
It's frankly absurd that you suggest that once you passed some threshold of tagging – what was it? ... 300 tags? ... 7 weeks of tagging every other day? – that suddenly I would completely reverse course. And exact "retribution" by editing an article, improving it greatly, fixing all manner of errors, and requesting that the article comply with the requirement that sentences with quotes have a ref in the sentence itself. Utterly absurd.
And as to the talk page, you threatened me in an edit summary, and called the article your article in an edit summary, and completely ignored the article talk page until I started discourse there.
And then as you had threatened you brought this wholly baseless AN/I. About an MOS dispute, no less. Where you are without question completely wrong on the merits – something you seem to have an aversion to ever admitting. But read the guideline; I will quote it for you a third time, as you keep on ignoring it -- this is the entire basis of our dispute that triggered your AN/I ... the guidelines says:

The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation.

That couldn't be clearer. Your reaction when I quoted it to you? You brought this AN/I.
You also continue to have an illusion, which your raise here yet again, that you are uber-special and your opinion is one that others must bend to because you have worked on one dozen FAs/GAs. As I told you before, I've done so as well. So what? But more to the point – your trotting that out as a reaction to me quoting the guidance suggests that you misunderstand the issue. "Jay" does not get a "whatever I says goes" card if he works on 12 more, or 5 more, or 2 more FAs than the next editor. That's not the way it works. What matters is adherence to the guidelines. Which, as to refs in quotes, are indubitably clear. Your response to my quoting the guideline to you ... of ignoring the guidelines and saying "mine is bigger" ... is completely off-base.
You are IMHO doing a less than commendable job in adhering to your obligations under wp:admin. I'm troubled by the thought of how you might be treating our newbie editors, and how many of them we will lose if you take this haughty un-admin-like approach with them.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I wrote this article. I brought it to GA. A few hours after a GA reviewer agreed to review it, you start tagging it, and adding inconsistent citation styles and dubious sources. Now the GA reviewer has suspended his review. Well, that really helped the GA process. As for "my obligations under wp:admin", you're an experienced editor, with over 40,000 edits, so you well know that I neither used my admin tools, nor even threatened to use them. So, that dog won't hunt. Jayjg (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have some experience with wp:admin. Including discussing wp:admin at arbitration with regard to the behavior of an admin. So I'm well aware that wp:admin does not only apply to abuse of admin tools. I'm frankly surprised that you are not aware of that. Some of the relevant language of wp:admin is as follows:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner.... [and] to follow Wikipedia policies ... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility .... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for ... Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring... etc) ... Repeated/consistent poor judgment.

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You're the guy who recently told me that removing material that violated WP:BLP was "abusing [my] powers", after I stated it was an administrative duty.[11] I don't think you are a good judge of when people are or are not complying with wp:admin. Jayjg (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got to say that jayjg's account looks correct here. Epeefleche's account of the previous action is completely inaccurate, and ignores that many people could see nothing wrong with what jayjg had been doing (removing unsourced entries from lists). Epeefleche is completely wrong in their interpretation of the MOS - their latest point is talking about quotations, not general prose. (WP:CITE says " If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient.") Jayjg has been working on these 'List of Jews' articles for a while now, and there is not evidence that he went there to follow Epeefleche. It seems pretty clear however that Epeefleche only went to this article by following jayjg, and proceeded to tag-bomb the article, with spurious citation needed tags. Quantpole (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And since he did it just after the GA review started, the GA review has now been scuttled. Jayjg (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The reviewer gave the fact that this AN/I is taking place as the reason for delaying the review. I, of course, was not the one who brought this AN/I, so Jay's above suggestion that the GA review was scuttled because of me is perhaps somewhat less than accurate. Nor was it really scuttled; rather it was put on hold while the AN/I is still being discussed. But for the referencing issue, IMHO the article is now in GA-shape.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
An article can't pass GA if it's unstable, or has unreliable sources, or uses inconsistent citation styles. For example, if someone slaps 16 {{fact}} and {{by whom}} tags on an article just after it starts GA review, and adds sources of dubious reliability, and cites them using completely different styles, that's going to disqualify it. Jayjg (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Quant--hello again. I think what I said was completely accurate. Half a dozen editors, who supplied most of the discussion, said in "long" what I said in "short". Others largely weighed in with "there should be refs", which begs the question. But the discussion is linked to, for interested parties to refer to. As to my discussion of MOS--perhaps you misunderstand. In my edits and talk page discussion that immediately preceded Jay bringing this AN/I, I focused (and invited him to join me in focusing on) solely those instances where there were quotations. Jay's reaction? He told me that he had worked on 12 FAs and GAs, suggested I hadn't worked on as many (likely, false, but that's besides the point), and followed up on his threat by bringing this AN/I. Now, if your are focusing on the facts, and not just supporting Jay, I would hope that you will say ... "Gosh, you're right ... I apologize, retract what I said, and say the opposite". I'll be interested in your reaction. BTW--if you look at my edit history, the articles that I work on, the articles that I worked on that day, you will note a strong connection to the article in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe jayjg didn't react in the best manner, but you barge into an article in a very combative manner, writing long screeds, which are largely wrong. I see nothing in your recent contributions that linked to this article, so how exactly did you come across it? Your actions and manner in dealing with this were making it a battleground from the start. Quantpole (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ummmm ... I fixed perhaps two dozen MOS violations, grammar errors, spelling errors, etc., while supplying new info that touched on the basic--such as the name of institution the article describes. Barged in? Combative? You're tossing around characterizations, without substance. But the point of the matter is I've been a productive contributor to the article. And Jay brought this to AN/I because I suggested enforcement of the rule requiring that refs be supplied in sentences that have quotes. That's a bit beyond Jay "didn't react in the best manner".
As to how I come across the article, as you will note from my DYKs and articles created and my 46,000 edits of 7,600 articles, this article deals with both Jewish topics and New York topics, which you can see from my edit history is a crossroads of some of my top areas of interest. I've edited other NY and Brooklyn synagogue articles before, including another one today I believe before I touched this one ... the Union Temple article. I believe I went from that article to the Category: Synagogues in Brooklyn, thought of editing East Midwood (which I believe I edited before), it seemed in good shape, went back to the category and turned to another synagogue with which I was familiar (there are only a dozen in that cat) ... this one ... and edited away. So -- that's the answer to your question.
As to your characterization, i's completely false. Is it your prior relationship with me or with Jay that would have you so dramatically mischaracterize the facts? Anyone can see, from the edit history and from the talk page, that I have been civil with Jay, and he has been -- from the outset -- threatening and completely uncivil, and now brought this AN/I against me in reaction to me quoting him the rule that supported my edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no prior 'relationship' with either you or jayjg. The only previous interaction I can think of with you is here, and when the 'List of Jews' articles got discussed at ANI last time. Insinuating that I have some history or grudge is manifestly incorrect. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion on the matter at hand but can you keep your ponderings as to my motivation out of it. The only reason I looked at this was because I was aware of the previous discussions regarding the list articles, and saw your misrepresentation of what happened. Indeed anyone can look at the talkpage, and see your heavy handed approach, misinterpretation of policy and what I can only think as baiting behaviour (inserting spurious citation needed tags, and saying that it would not meet GA until your hoops had been jumped through). There may be a reasonable explanation of how you came across the page, but it certainly has the appearance of you following jayjg to it, and your approach once there has been far from collaborative. Quantpole (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If people wish to judge who has been "civil" with whom, they might want to read this recent Talk: page interchange:Talk:List of Jews in sports#Owners, coaches, sportcasters in the article but not in inclusion criterion. Jayjg (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Balderdash. Everything I said was accurate. The policy requiring a ref in or at the end of a sentence that contains a quote is not a gray one--it is perfectly clear. And your misrepresenting it as a misinterpretation of policy is bewildering. It says that plainly. The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation. How in the world you view a plain reading of that as a "misinterpretation" boggles the mind. So we know your mis-statment is not due to bad faith. And we know further that it is not due to biases against me (for the incident you cite to above), or for Jay. What is left? Because the language is indubitably clear.

An article should conform with MOS before it meets GA. How you interpret that as "jumping through my hoops" leaves me (nearly) speechless. This is wikipedia 101. It's not my hoop. It's the guideline. Which is clear. "Spurious" citation tags? Ridiculous. The sentence is clear. This feels like the big lie technique. I wasn't collaborative? Nonsense. Did you look through all my fixes, of perhaps two dozen errors, that were bars to it being a GA-level article? That's not disruptive behavior, my friend -- that is proper editing, improving the article, and helping it reach GA status. Precisely the opposite. My pointing out the MOS? That's not disruptive behavior either. It's the way we get an article to GA. "Far from collaborative"? You have it backwards. Jay was the one leveling threats, uncalled for, and not opening up discussion on the talk page. I was the one who opened up discussion on the talk page discussion. That's collaborative. I quoted the MOS rule for him. That's collaborative. He replied by telling me how many GAs he had worked on, and asserting (incorrectly, likely) that I had worked on fewer ... You think he is the collaborative one? Forgive me if that made me wonder as to the reason for your mis-characterizations, one tripping over the other. And your failure, when I pointed out your misunderstanding above, to say "oh, in that case, you were quoting the MOS correctly, and were in the right, and I apologize for incorrectly maligning you". You have this all backwards.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You added 16 citation needed tags (I believe). In some places you split paragraphs and then inserted a tag, rather than add the citation yourself. There were only 2 or 3 places where there were quotes, and even those it seems clear to me that the quote is from the book that is being summarised. Those two or three may be worth discussing, but the rest were entirely overboard and heavy handed. That's it from me for now, there is little point us carrying on in circles, and I would rather other people have a look and contribute. Quantpole (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I added tags. (BTW, Jay himself--as I'm sure he will be happy to tell you--has added perhaps hundreds of tags to articles I've worked on these past few weeks ... and I've not complained, simply calmly filled in refs wherever he applied tags, so in the scheme of things 16 (if that is what it was) is not a cause for alarm or at all heavy-handed). I discussed with Jay the rationale behind the refs, in a discussion I opened on the talk page. I then limited myself to the clear violations vis-a-vis the sentences with quotes, where the MOS without question requires refs either in the sentence or at the end of it. That's where the discussion stood. His response? To tell me how many GAs he had worked on. And bring this AN/I. The only thing at issue at that point in time were those sentences where we had a clear direction from the MOS.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have not worked on any of these articles but I find many of Epeefleche's edits bizarre. For example this: she changed Torah Umesorah – National Society for Hebrew Day Schools to Torah Umesorah–National Society for Hebrew Day Schools. Now, if MOS really compells us to change the hyphen (which seems odd in an encyclopedia where the #1 rule is ignore all rules), isn't the solution to ifx the hyphen in the title of the article being refered to? Here we have a paragraph on one specific topic (a hostile relationship between two men) with a citation at the end, but epeefleche felt the need to stick in the middle a tag asking for a citation. In fact, she seems to do this a lot, adding "citation needed" tags in the middle of paragraphs that already have tags.
I do not think that Epeefleche's edits are all bad and even think sometimes that she really just wants to improve articles, but some of these edits are hard to explain, except that they all involve calling into question in some way Jayjg's work. Now, none of us are perfect and all of us do work that can be improved upon but in my experience Jayjg is an impecable researcher, this is one person who really takes our content policies seriously and strives to write serious well-researched articles. I do not know why Epeefleche is on this vendetta against Jayjg but it is the only thing that I see that explains this pattern of editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • SLR -- don't you think this is going a bit off track? Are we really going to discuss the fact that MOS:EMDASH states: "Do not space em dashes"? And that you find that bizarre? Or that you find bizarre that when I first sought to comply with MOS:EMDASH, the edit gave me a red result, and as my computer was slow the faster fix was to fix the article (as I wanted it to pass GA) than to worry about the greater world of wikipedia, and not get to my next meeting? Would you find it bizarre to learn that I've received the "don't space em dashes" comment in GA reviews in the past, citing MOS? And that what I was doing was in the interest of the article passing GA review? Perhaps you would even be surprised to learn that personally, I prefer the look of spaced em dashes, and often fail to space them in talk page discussion, and that the only reason that I conformed it was to hue to MOS. Would you be surprised to know that I in no way thought that that edit was calling into question Jay's work (did he really write the underlying article? I had no idea -- nor would I have thought that the case). But that it was all about improving the article, per MOS, which is what GA reviewers happily refer to in my experience? (and no, they are not generally keen on the "ignore all rules" response to their request that MOS be complied with). And if you have really looked through my edits on that article, you have seen a host of MOS errors, grammar errors, spelling errors, etc., that I fixed (not knowing who made them). That is all geared to making it a better article. BTW -- I don't expect, that for some tens of thousands of edits now -- I've added any sentence with a quote that was bereft of a ref. That happens to comport with MOS as well. I think that this entire discussion of dashes is, quite frankly, silly. Are you taking me to task for conforming with MOS? As to whether Jay is a great researcher, I'm sure he is. That's not been a question. But I fear this conversation is straying far afield.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L[edit]

Tags can be used two different ways on Wikipedia. They can be used to alert the community to a ‘sleeper’ of a problem with an article that should, in one editor’s opinion, be improved. These are typically used by editors who lack sufficient understanding of the subject material to resolve the situation them self. In edit wars, tags can also be used as “neener-neener” graffiti to frustrate editors who are laboring on articles. We’ve all had this happen.

These two editors have now encountered each other in the alleyways many, many times. It strikes me that Jayjg rather enjoys driving along, planting little flags that say “This lawn needs fertilizer” and “This lawn is too mossy”. It seems too that Jayjg rather enjoys it when Epeefleche takes offense and tries to stand in front of Jayig’s car in opposition since that provides Jayig an opportunity to run over Epeefleche’s toes.

In short, this is an edit war between two editors who don’t like each other. That much is clear. Either we have an attitude transplant or we separate the editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where cooperation is required for the good of the project. It is clear that it is exceedingly easy for an editor to slap an article with a tag; doing so creates an attendant time-consuming duty on what we might call “shepherding editors”, who care about certain articles and who therefore want to have *clean* articles free of tags. Shepherding editors must (*sigh*) and address each tag as it comes along. It is clear that Epeefleche is the shepherding editor on these Jewish-related lists and has been willing to step up to the plate and do the heavy lifting.

It would be very nice if, instead of tagging articles, Jayig might instead volunteer to do some of the time-consuming duties of better citing entries in these Jewish-related lists. Perhaps, if he had to devote that much effort, he might lose interest in these Jewish-related articles. Or, perhaps not; the project as a whole would greatly benefit from having two shepherding editors hell-bent on ensuring these lists are accurate. If a time investment of that magnitude is not so palatable, then I wonder if Jayig would alternatively be willing to walk away from the Jewish-related articles so far as tags and deletions go; there are plenty of other editors who are capable of using tags when they see shortcomings and are at an utter loss as to how they might solve it on their own. Greg L (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. That last paragraph is really a challenge and a solicitation to Jayig. Can you edit in either of the two alternative fashions I suggested? I would appreciate a response. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*)

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

Concern: Request for fake third-party websites[edit]

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-sKy, an astute editor noticed that the page's author has requested fake third-party websites to make a topic look notable. There seem to be lots of issues here. How to handle this? — Timneu22 · talk 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much we can do. I don't suppose it happens much. The advantage is that such requests are likely to be discovered by wikipedians and cause us to take a long hard look at the article in question. We're more likely to identify bs if people post like this than if they simply fill the article with invalid sources that are never reviewed.--Scott Mac 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Given that any deletion discussion would result in people checking the references to make sure they were reliable (i.e. not plasterboard mockups), I agree that this doesn't need special treatment in general. In this particular case, where the author has already been found out, it's even less likely to escape scrutiny. I have notified the user of this thread, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, unless he gets his fake pages hosted by reliable organisations (e.g. on hte NYtimes pages) editors will easily see that the pages are indeed fake, hence not reliable, hence of no relevance to the notability issue. Arnoutf (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a bid on the request: "I am User:SqueakBox on wikipedia with over 50,000 edits to my name..." (User is already notified of this thread.) MER-C 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  • SqueakBox has apparently previously written a Wikipedia article for payment [12] [13]. Not immediately obvious who the artist was, so don't know if there's a problem with the article - it might be an impeccably sourced offering on a notable artist that just didn't have an article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks like it's Mario Zampedroni. The dates (The bid was on March 18 and the article created on March 19) and the fact it's an Italian artist fit perfectly. Now, how notable does that article look to other people? The phrase I'm reaching for already is "borderline". Black Kite (t) (c) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I was thinking more along the lines of this, actually... NW (Talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed. The only thing close to a claim of notability there is the six art prizes, and for all we know, that just means he was voted the top artist in his high school class. If not A7, I see a Snow AFD delete in that article's future. As to the original topic, the requester obviously doesn't understand Wikipedia's rules for reliability. He can pay to fake any website he wants, it wont be notable, and he can't fake real coverage in reliable sources. Resolute 14:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • And the six art prizes aren't referenced, apart from that it doesn't actually make a claim of notability. The one third party reference is just a listing and I can't find any decent 3rd party sources that aren't similar. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
            • ...and it's gone. That really wasn't a clever idea by a seasoned contributor. I wonder if he does refunds? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, OrangeMike has zoomed in with A7. Might have been better to leave it for a few minutes if a debate on SqueakBox was going to follow, but if those who saw it confirm it was A7, I suppose that's good. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • [14] sounds like those art prizes were just for coming top of the class.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • ...and that was the only (possibly) 3rd party ref in the article, and to be honest it looks user-generated as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I was going to drop SqueakBox a note suggesting that it would be prudent to withdraw that bid immediately. But I didn't find the article that Black Kite found above, and in light of recent events was wary that this might be someone impersonating SqueakBox outside of Wikipedia. (It's already happened, after all.) The assumption of good faith leads to the conclusion that SqueakBox simply mechanically bids on everything that contains the keyword "Wikipedia", and hadn't paid too close attention to the tender. (It's not even a request for a Wikipedia article, notice.) This would be reinforced by SqueakBox taking immediate action, as soon as xe becomes aware of this, to withdraw any bids for writing fake articles. I hope (and indeed expect) that we will see exactly this happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It appears that Squeakbox has also won a bid for another undisclosed article. It may be better for him to come clean about this one as well (he also has outstanding bids for 3 other projects). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It has been discussed before on the editor's talk page. [15] Anthony (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, and given that he said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" ... Black Kite (t) (c) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • It might be the case that bidders have no control over whether the projects they bid upon are made public. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Indeed; in which case he needs to make the other article (if it is a Wikipedia article) which he has won the bid for public. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
              • The other bid was for Roozz, which has already been taken care of. ThemFromSpace 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you for that confirmation. That statement there, as well as my own experience of SqueakBox, supports my hope that SqueakBox's immediate actions, upon learning of this, will be to reject any requests for fake articles. In fact, based upon past experience, I fully expect xem to do so in quite strong terms. ☺ So let's see. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately solicitation such as this isn't too uncommon. Our best defense is vigilance and we need to point it out whenever we spot it. As regards SqueakBox, I've spoken with him about this in the past and he has given his word that he will edit within our guidelines. Since that time I haven't seen any disingenuous editing coming from him, although I have found it odd that he continues to bid on freelance jobs. I suppose we can't prevent him from doing so, as long as he abides by our guidelines when on our site. ThemFromSpace 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • is absolutely acrawl with bids from employers to create Wikipedia articles. As an impoverished freelance writer myself, I admit I'm both fascinated and nauseated by the idea that people are doing this and getting away with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No problem with that, I would say, if the work is 100% policy compliant. If a really notable person wants some experienced editor writing a neutral, sourced article on him and gives some money to an editor for that, good, it doesn't harm anyone. Of course the case discussed here is an entirely different thing. --Cyclopiatalk 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Cyclopia; if the creator of an article abides by our policies (npov, verifiability, notability and so on), then the fact he got paid is a non-issue for me. On the other hand, an editor who wrote article not abiding by our guidelines would be a problematic user, even if he did that gratis et amore dei. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Isn't it time that one or the other of the proposals at WP:PAID were formalised, if this is so commonplace? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it's happening all the time. How many companies aren't tarting up their pages? What responsible PR agency would neglect a client's page? WP:N and other policies are all that is needed. Anthony (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It's happening, if the comments about the employee's manager are true, in the section of this page immediately below this one. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The spammer even identifies himself by name while explaining that his spam has been deleted and his manager is angry at him; but in this case, the spammer is apparently an employee, not a hireling. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • SqueakBox has withdrawn from the bid. See also what xe wrote on this matter. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Asterisk schools[edit]

There's a disturbing trend here. Look at my recent move log; three articles by three different people were about schools where the article title started with an asterisk. I don't think this is coincidence. Are these sock puppets? Maybe there's a page creation template wrong somewhere? What the heck is this? — Timneu22 · talk 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  • It could be an attempt to make it come to the top in an alphanumeric list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)Without venturing a guess on the broader question, my best guess is the asterisk comes from opening the edit window of the school district list here Comal Independent School District and copy/pasting from the bulleted list.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I also thought it was for some alpha list, but this isn't really AAA Taxis, is it? I like cube lurker's thought, but man I hope this stops soon! — Timneu22 · talk 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • (ec) Since nobody has asked either of the three editors, I can only guess, but two of the accounts were created in the same minute and the third one a short while later, and all three schools are in the same area of Texas. Could this be some sort of "computer summer camp"? —DoRD (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Something like it, I'd guess, as all are real names that a quick Google search shows to be employees of the ISD. Would either CSD as COI experiments or redirect back to the ISD article and slap COI notices on all five of them (two haven't made articles yet). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Also, WP:PRECISION isn't needed on these titles. Should I move them again? (Note that I don't have move-and-delete rights, so it's annoying for me to do it.) — Timneu22 · talk 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • this edit seems to provide the explanation for what occurred. Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Well done! There still may be a COI problem here, but I'm not sure it's horrible. These articles aren't promotional, and like most school articles they are lifetime stubs. — Timneu22 · talk 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • There might be a copyright problem here. It would be worthwhile identifying what WWW site was being referred to in this edit. Show me that the text has been swiped from someone else's copyrighted non-GFDL work and copied wholesale into Wikipedia, and I'll zap them. Uncle G (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The copyright violation removed in that edit was taken from, specifically [16]. That same site is being provided as an external link in these new articles, and they don't appear to be copyvios to me. Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) As for AF's comment, the district website shows that each of the people are teachers at the schools they edited. As elementary and middle schools aren't inherently notable, I suppose the articles should be deleted and the redlinks removed from the ISD article. —DoRD (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not against deletion, but A7 doesn't apply to schools. Should these be bulk-AfD'd? — Timneu22 · talk 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I'd PROD the whole lot, but if someone wants to speedy them, they'll hear no arguments from me. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 19:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I've {{prod}}ed them. TFOWR 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Since it was overlooked, I went ahead and notified all three about this thread. —DoRD (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Golan heights is not occupied‎ [edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Edgar181 (talk · contribs). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please block Golan heights is not occupied‎ (talk · contribs · count)? This troll is obviously the same individual as User:Golan heights is our (talk · contribs · count) which was itself blocked for block evasion. This troll has now gone and vandalised Belfast but has curiously not edited Golan Heights in this incarnation, only its talk page.

And no, I've not notified the user's talk page. If you look at the edit history, it will be obvious why a bit of quick squashing is needed rather than giving them more chance to troll.

There's something a bit odd with the bad English and the behaviour, it may be worth a Check user in the longer term to see whether this user is really someone else.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for the trolling, but having a checkuser take a look might be a good idea too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ed.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Administration action needed to stop an AFD edit war[edit]

Resolved: No edit war, just a very, very bad closure that was swiftly and correctly reverted HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Entirely uninvolved admin here agreeing with HJ's {{resolved}} tag. —DoRD (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell is voting to delete this so closing this ANI thread is a huge conflict of interest. Wikipedia can't be corrupt like this. MVOO (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is resolved. If you don't think that HJ Mitchell's resolvetion isn't valid, then consider this my own resolve. (X! · talk)  · @084  ·  01:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The AFD was concluded as no consensus.

Maybe there was an off-wiki effort because the no consensus closure was removed and a flood of delete votes poured in. Whatever happened, people are edit warring to remove the original decision and keep the 7 day AFD open. This kind of anarchy is no good.

I read the AFD rules carefully and there is no rule that says AFDs can be re-open. It says that AFD disputes are sent to Deletion Review.

So an administrator should seal the oil leak and shut down the AFD to it's original conclusion, i.e. no consensus. If you don't like it, deletion review.

I personally believe it is not a no consensus but a keep because the article, Health of Dick Cheny, meets WP:GNG because it there is significant coverage year after year, the coverage is reliable, the sources are ironclad like CNN, it is independent of the coverage (the sources of his heart attack is not Just because the article is not perfectly written does not mean it gets deleted. Otherwise 70% of Wikipedia gets deleted. MVOO (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a mistatement of the actual situation. Yes User:RN, closed the AfD then changed his mind about the closing and reopened it himself[17] and noted so himself[18]. You then came in, voted keep[19] and then tried to close the AfD as no-consensus[20]. This is a blatant violation of policy as you should never, ever close an AfD that you yourself have voiced an opinion in, nor is it appropriate for you to try to do a non-admin closure on an AfD that an administrator choose to allow more time for comments. Nor is anyone edit warring over it. A different admin, User:Courcelles, reverted your very inappropriate attempt to close it which goes against the guidelines of Non-admin closure.[21] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. As would nay administrator in their right mind, especially when the editor attempting to force the discussion to a halt at their preferred point is the creator of the article that is the subject of the AfD! Admins are perfectly within their rights to change their mind about their own actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles is against the article and wants it deleted. So he is complaining and reverting my implemention of the original closure. HJMitchell is citing something but despite my request, refuses to show the policy which permits it. On the other hand, I showed him the policy that deletion review is the place for disputes with the original AFD closure. The original closure was done by an admin and was no consensus. MVOO (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, and I am totally neutral in this, the administrator who closed it also reverted his closure which he IS allowed to do. It is "your" article, you !voted in the AfD, and you had absolutely no business trying to close it again. At most, you should have asked the RH if he was ready to reconsider closing it, but your obviously biased attempts to save "your article" are not helping anything at all, and very likely to lead you to getting blocked for disruptiveness. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Please cite policy that re-opening AFDs are allowed. I read it and it said that if you don't like it, go to deletion review. I am merely upholding the original decision. MVOO (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I was so polite that I didn't even vote in the AFD. The people who are disruptive are HJMitchell who closed this ANI thread and he also wants to delete the article. Please inform him that his actions are bad. I did not try to save the article because I tried to be very neutral and not edit it or vote for it until AFD closure. Then it was closed as a no-consensus before the shannigans started. MVOO (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Please, read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Deletion review. An admin can change their mind. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I will, thanks. MVOO (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Sorry, but my diff above shows clearly that you did vote in the AfD immediately before trying to close. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also, please do not strike someone else's comments, for it is considered rude, and try to avoid edits such as this, that will only get you blocked. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if it is rude but it is wrong to close a thread to stop discussion. HJMitchell wants the article deleted and when I said it is against process, the correct thing to do would be discussion, not closing the thread. Please do not show favoritism by threatening me but not threatening HJMitchell for conflicts of interest and trying to win a debate by closing the discussion. MVOO (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.... all that happened is that I closed it, asked for a second opinion just to be sure, after which I reversed my decision - within an hour. That's it. No drama, cabals etc. involved. Ryan Norton 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Alright, I don't have much to say about this, as I voted, I obviously couldn't close the AfD, but I did revert MVOO's close, as it is obviously inappropriate for someone to vote, and minutes later close the discussion. (I did this before I noticed he had created the article.) Deletion process says that a non-admin close may be reverted by any administrator, and was justified both by the contentious nature of this AFD and MVOO's clear conflict of interest. It needs a truly impartial admin to close the discussion, and then it can go to DRV if desired; RN was perfectly within his rights to revert his own closure. Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested outcome[edit]

This is a huge mess. The best outcome (which pleases nobody) would be for RN to state that his re-opening the AFD opened a huge can of worms and to defuse it, he should restore his original decision. He could then remind others that AFDs can go to deletion review but that would prolong the fight. Instead, the other editors can try to improve the article for a week or two and then after a normal period (see other articles to gauge), a 2nd AFD could be submitted. These suggestions are to calm the situation. I would judge that resolution as fair even though I actually favor something else. MVOO (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that is not the "best outcome", it is the outcome you personally prefer because you want the article kept. His reopening it was perfectly normal and acceptable, and it did not open a "huge can of worms", he simply decided to allow more time for opinions (in essence relisting it). You are the only one upset by it, for presumably obvious reasons because new comers to the discussion are clearly leaning it towards delete. A second AfD is not needed, nor is DRV. These suggestions do not "calm the situation" as, again, the only upset party is you because your article is still in a "fight". The best outcome would be for you to calm down already and stop trying to assign any wrong doing to the reopening of the AfD. It was done within policy and seems acceptable to everyone but you, the article creator. It would be prudent for you to drop the stick, stop claiming hysteria/fighting/massive edit warring where, in fact, there is none, and simply allow the AfD to continue on its course. Also cease making these unnecessary attacks on a variety of other editors trying to claim some "cabal" or conspiracy to get the thing deleted. Everything was done to policy except your attempt to close an AfD you are personally involved with and had voted with, an action you still have yet to either acknowledge nor apologize for. It would have been polite of you to mention that you also went to Jim Wales to ask him to save your article[22] (and to tell him of his ANI thread). In either case, it appears the AfD has now been closed by a completely neutral admin who deleted the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
People hate the word "cabal" but the fact is very clear. One of the administrators who voted "delete" then wrote to another administrator asking him to take care of it. That person (Tim Song) then promptly deleted the article. Only Tim Song was asked. Courcelles clearly knew who to ask to have the article taken down. Who gives a shit about Dick Cheney's heart attack in Wikipedia (or some stupid TV episode or obscure author or tiny high school)? What is worse then that is this whole mess shows how there is a lack of transparency and order in Wikipedia. Please can say "step back" but the really wise would learn that an admin can be heavy handed and not do things honorably in Wikipedia but take that attitude in life and you might get bit in the arse. Unless you become the head of a little fiefdom, like a city zoning head, and then you only have to worry about the mayor. MVOO (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
To add, the "flood" of votes most likely came because you posted about it here, FAR more people watch this page then participate actively in the AFD discussions, so drawing attention to the AFD got a lot of people who normally may of never seen it to vote. — raekyT 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I never saw the AfD till MVOO brought it here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
From a glance it looks like in the time between the reopening and this thread the AFD got 3 deletes and 1 keep (MVOO), afterwards it got another 4 delete votes. As I said on Jimbo's talk page, if you don't like it do what you kept stating should be done here...take it to deletion review. Mauler90 talk 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

It's stick-dropping/stop-dead-horse-beating/let-it-go time. (X! · talk)  · @120  ·  01:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT block on a corporate spammer[edit]

User:InformationNC is an admitted COI account for an employee of Cedar Fair Entertainment Company (NYSE:FUN). A new spam article of his was deleted, and he demanded that it be restored (his manager is very upset!) or he will sue us. I gave him his second no-spam warning (he'd already gotten one for multiple edits to the company's article), and blocked him under WP:NLT. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right on. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If you felt like being sassy, you could have told him to go the manager of our complaints department, Helen Wait. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This looks like just a hoax attempt rather than corporate spam as such. Neither of the two new theme parks the account created articles on appear on Google anywhere, including Cedar Fair's own site, and a new Cedar Fair park would certainly be big news covered by media outlets if it were real. In any case, a legal threat is a legal threat, so good block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued unrelenting personal attacks by Sweetpoet[edit]

Resolved: Sweetpoet blocked indefinitely by Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Mauler90 talk 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As one can simply see by checking this user's block log, and their talk page, they have a history of personally attacking others. They continue to do so even as I type this report. I am reporting this user as an uninvolved user. I was alerted to them when as I have an Dougweller's talk page on my watchlist, and noticed them post there with a long insulting screed calling Doug an idiot, stupid, insane, a creep, dopey, a stalker, a troll... the list goes on. This needs to end now.

Now, as this user has been blocked several times for the same, as noted above, something like a week-long block may be needed. Perhaps longer, as they don't show any understanding that what they have done, and continue to do is wrong, or any remorse regarding it. They indeed show no signs of stopping.— dαlus Contribs 00:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a slight, further note, apparently this user was given a 'last chance' to get their unacceptable behavior under control. Seeing as how they haven't, and from further messages that they do not care for our policies, here, I propose an indefinite block for this user, given their history and willful disregard for our policy on such personal attacks.— dαlus Contribs 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

and I never WILL stop, as long as I'm provoked by RELENTLESS IDIOTS AND STALKER-TROLLS, such as I made it clear to a number of editors and Admins that I SIMPLY DON'T CARE ANYMORE REALLY.... And also...this matter on my talk page was ALREADY REPORTED and discussed.... And they said to just leave it alone. You decided to chime in like a creep and give me your self-righteous (and inaccurate) lectures... I pointed out that user talk pages are NOT exactly the same as any other page, and verbatim WP policy that a user has a right to remove or retain anything he wants on his own user page. Maybe you need informing.......I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS NONSENSE.....BLOCKS......UPTIGHT PSCYHOTIC STALKER-ISH EDITORS.....SLOPPY ADMINS.....AND ARTICLES REALLY. For real... So block away... I have more time for other things. But this is the thing.....when nutballs like Novaseminary, Glarfaklas (or whatever his name is), and now this Daed Head creepazoid, come to me and harass me with garbage, I'm only human.....and I'll tell them off for it. WP policy or no.....cuz as I said, I'VE HAD IT WITH THE BS......and I don't really care much anymore. peace out....Sweetpoet (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I suggest your insult caling me a stalker and a troll. Such, as explained, is strictly against policy. If you don't like our rules here, the door is on your left. Otherwise, continue to insult me. It is only another nail in your coffin.— dαlus Contribs 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
ok, you're extremely slow... (as well as an obvious stalker and troll) How's that for an insult? And again I care nothing about blocks at this point. I kinda made that clear... and I'm sure it'll happen anyway. Cuz it's obvious that no Admin will see your harassing of me on my talk page all the time, and will only focus uptightly on my name-calling. Not caring one iota what is provoking it. I'm telling you Doug and Ed.....NOVASEMINARY IS PURE POISON.
So what you're doing now is only provoking and goading me to go off further to get me blocked. I know it...... You're probably some MEAT PUPPET for that psycho Novaseminary. And I'll say this one more time (to you and to Admins out there who don't see full scopes of things many times)....I...DON'T....CARE....ABOUT...GETTING...BLOCKED...REALLY.
WP has some pluses, no doubt, but it has too many annoyances, maniacs, nit-pickers, morons, and weasels, and demoralizing deal with anymore..Sweetpoet (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(xpost to ANI and user talk pages)
Daedalus969, you're correct that he's crossed the line in terms of comment contents violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - however, you also could have disengaged from this at any time, and have instead continued to provoke him. I don't think you intentionally baited him, but that's the end result. Please disengage.
Sweetpoet, you've crossed the line in your interactions with Daedalus. Please immediately stop insulting him and others here. You aren't allowed to tell him off in this manner. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. We expect you to act like an adult and to treat other Wikipedia participants with respect. They are human beings, too.
If you are not willing to do so, and won't tone down your interactions with other users, please walk away from Wikipedia rather than force us to block you indefinitely for abusing people. That's not a desirable outcome, but ongoing abuse is not OK either.
This is up to you. Hopefully you can edit in a constructive and civil and collaborative manner in the future.
To both of you: for the next 48 hrs, I am placing a temporary and limited interaction ban on you two. Do not comment on each other's talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia in any manner. Please think very carefully about any responses you make on ANI in this thread.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh, wow, Q.E.D., this editor needs to be blocked now. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Would recommend a 1 month block for User:Sweetpoet, definitely over the line. Mauler90 talk 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think Daedalus intentionally baited him but the effect ended up being similar. Giving one final chance to back down is IMHO appropriate. Another admin can of course do what you will given what evidence you see here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Sweetpoet's interaction with dαlus was not the only inappropriate personal attack Sweetpoet made within the last several hours. In response to my proposal to merge Separated brethren into Unitatis Redintegratio, Sweetpoet again devolved into personal attacks similar to, though nowhere near as egregious as, those discussed in the last report and in this report. Here is the diff (note that he says I am "unstable", "change (my) mind on a whim, and can't be trusted"). How many more chances should Sweetpoet get? He has made inappropriate attacks right here in this report, for goodness sakes. Rather than take the chance to back downb, he seems to have gone the other way. Novaseminary (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears that Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Sweetpoet (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely, with talk page access revoked. I agree, this was getting too far, regardless of what Daedalus969 did or baited. MC10 (TCGBL) 02:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Marking this resolved then. Mauler90 talk 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange goings on with Eliteimp and[edit]

Resolved: Editor blocked 1 week, clearly a member of WP:BITECLUB SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I'm involved then I can't use my prodigious admin powers, so I am bringing this here.

Yesterday, I was involved in a discussion over inclusion or exclusion of negative but sourced information on a BLP. I was in favour of including it, which article this was is by-the-by. Following this an IP user ( tried to get me to intervene at Brian McGinlay, where there was also a dispute over some negative details (diff). I declined to do so as I felt it was improper canvassing; I may not have been as polite as I could have been, but I'm not interested in being toyed with. The IP responded by citing WP:BITE and calling me a "fool" (diff; I was obviously shocked by this and I gave them an NPA warning, which they blanked, as is their right. I wondered whether anyone familiar enough with Wikipedia to cite WP:BITE can be said to be a newcomer, and then I blanked the section on my talk page as I considered my involvement in this matter to be at an end.

Today, User:Eliteimp undid my section blanking and berated me with the edit summary "rp", which is a standard abbreviation for "reply". This is odd as I had not previously addressed Eliteimp. Then the IP replaced Eliteimp's signature with their own. At the BLP noticeboard, they have blamed a "shared computer" (oh, that old excuse: Wikipedia:My little brother did it). Off2riorob and Tmorton166 both kindly commented on how both the IP and Eliteimp are active on the BLP noticeboard, and how the IP has been attacking other users. Note that at Talk:Rangers F.C. the IP recently supported Eliteimp's position, and the times of the edits by the IP match the peak of editing by Eliteimp.

I think the IP is only here for disruption and that it is the sockpuppet of Eliteimp, or else Eliteimp's account is compromised. I have not opened an SPI as I think this so clearly passes the duck test, and also because the issue is not only sockpuppetry. Fences&Windows 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, support Fences and windows comments. Strange goings on indeed, loudly quacking and uncivil to boot. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Some extra background. I ran into this user over edits to Hugh Dallas, Gordon Strachan and Brian McGinlay; he/she was adding material with inappropriate wording & unsourced allegations. We had a fairly polite spat over the content and I asked for outside help from DGG because I was unsure of the best approach (and if I was even correct in my actions). On his advice I took some of the issues to BLP/N which is where Off2riorob become involved. After that petered out things seemed fine for a bit till yesterday an IP was back making similar additons & rollbacks which then extended to other BLP cases I have been trying to help with. It has not concerned me up till now - the use is addign some good content/sources and, to my mind, is just a bit over-zealous in wanting to add allegations of BLP articles. But with the addition of these edits by Eliteimp I am less sure the user is acting in good faith. One final comment: at the time when I asked DGG for help (in good faith) the IP user was a bit put out by it - citing (IIRC) WP:CANVAS. I responded by telling him I would encourage him to bring in other uninvolved editors to provide a wider consensus - this may be what prompted the message to Fences. Uh, hope that is helpful. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 16:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Block - The contribs of IP and Eliteimp have a similar language and style, and same preoccupation with UK football. Passes the WP:DUCK test. Support block for edit warring, personal attacks, and sock puppeting. LK (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree this new found information regarding the IP user and User:Eliteimp is very very strange. The IP has used various addresses in the past couple of weeks User talk:, User talk:, User talk:, User talk:, User talk: Ranging from referenced additions to blatent vandalism. And is certainly not a new user.
I did find it odd that someone who has taken such an interest in Wikipedia all of a sudden has not created a user account (are they trying to hide something or not let users track their additions) and in these differing addresses the person is somehow using the same computer as User:Eliteimp? Odd. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Block We are far to patient with these trolls. There is a clear pattern of disruption here. Block Eliteimp until/unless we get a promise of civility, and a no-contact agreement. Block the trolling IP's outright and give them the standard offer. I am not for punitive blocks, but we have to stop problem editors in their tracks, put them on the right track, or block them. --Adam in MO Talk 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd agree with a block. (It seemed to me a little odd when it was questioned whether I was biased over a sport I care nothing about & people I never heard of.) Personally , I consider the repeated additions of the negative material clear evidence of malicio