Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635

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

Noticeboard archives


Request for an "uninvolved" admin[edit]

Resolved: sock with a grudge Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that this or this did not need to be removed. It just seems inappropriate that an admin that is pushing hard on the COM issue, is removing comments by the subject or others that may not be in their interest. Thank you in advance for consideration. (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem other than logging out to make posts on ANI. Seems like you're either abusing the IP or are already blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
there's an interesting outburst of obvious socks since User:Freakshownerd's blocking - seemingly either him or sympathisers. User:Overturn_deletion_to_censure_Tarc! messes with an FSN DRV (and a CoM-like outburst on his talk page, now deleted), and User:K. Hausen Maem pops up with a boringly familiar misrepresentation of the FSN block saga. [1] Hm. Rd232 talk 15:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Should this be collapsed per WP:DENY? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, this is a part of a long-running pattern of abuse, so I'd hope that some light will remain shined on this. Note Overturn and censure Tarc (talk · contribs) (similar to the above, minus the exclamation point) from about a month ago. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone look at this please?[edit]

[2] This FAQ is unlike anything I would expect Wikipedia to have. Maybe it is needed? Cat clean (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Nevermind it has some helpful information. Cat clean (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It's unusual, but then again so is the subject matter of the article. Have you raised this on the article's talk page? Otherwise, there is no reason to bring this here. — Coren (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel there has been a lot of bad calls on adding this information on biographies so I posted at the Biography noteboard and some editors have been helping clean off the problems. I agree it is tough subject matter but that article uses some bad sourcing to add names. Cat clean (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


User has reverted many edits on List of Hellcats episodes and List of V (2009 TV series) episodes while putting very vague edit summaries. We have discussed the V episode list here. Furthermore, after I try to improve the ariticle(s) on many acounts, the user simply just reverts my edits. I can see this being an opinionated issue, and therefore the main issue with these revisions was only the overview table in both articles.

Begoon suggested many things regarding the issue, one of which was to open a discussion, which I did do: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Series Overview. After I did this, I went on from the V episode list to edit the Hellcats episode list, not knowing that the same user would be a (main) contributor there. I also went ahead and removed the overview (seeing this as far more redundant than the V episode list one). Suddenly we are now in a edit war over this episode list. In order to try and come up with some solution, I suggested that we remove that overview, after he reverted it, until there is more information and then discuss what we can do (maybe time could solve the problem). He reverted that, and another user, who was banned for similar activity on multiple other articles comes in and contributes to the edit war. Finally, I start a conversation on his talkpage, hoping maybe we can try talking again. However, instead of a response there, I get a warning for edit-warring on my talk page.

Are there any opinions/help that I (we) can get? ChaosMasterChat 18:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The user has now responded on his talk page and has reported me for edit warring. ChaosMasterChat 18:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that this user (ChaosMaster16) has been reported for excessive edit-warring (6 reverts under 2 hours) hereXeworlebi (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Just looking at List of V (2009 TV series) episodes you both look involved. I don't know who started this protracted edit warring, I'm not even sure what it's about. I see a short discussion on eachother's talk page about the edit waring, but no discussion of the substantive changes. The analysis on List of Hellcats episodes is harder because there's a user that's been making unexplained factual changes and has been blocked. But there are similar warring going on at that page as well.
This is better resolved at the edit warring noticeboard, and there's a discussion there now. You both need to discuss this and come to some sort of agreement. At the very least, can you two identify what it is you disagree on? (Cross posting this message to other discussion). Shadowjams (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

user:Xenophrenic and Tea Party movement[edit]

Resolved: content disupute - try WP:DR Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic is misusing sources on the Tea Party movement article. I originally posted the basic issue here but in the interim I have added some clarrification to the section to accurately reflect the sourcing that is being used.

Consider the following section which Xenophrenic prefers. It contains a patently untrue statement which is not backed up by the study which is being cited. (emphasis mine)

A number of polls have also been conducted to examine Tea Party supporters' views on race and racial politics. According to the CBS/New York Times poll, 25% think that the administration favors blacks over whites — compared with just 11% of the general public and are more likely to believe President Obama was born outside the United States. [77] 74% of Tea Party supporters agree with the statement "[w]hile equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it's not really the government's job to guarantee it."[79][80]

The highlighted sentence does not make the distinction that the survey was of Washington State Tea Party Supporters. The sourcing for the section does not really make it clear either, and to be fair Prof. Matt Barreto and Prof. Christopher Parker do an absolutely terrible job of pointing this out either. However from the actual poll you can clearly see that this is a poll of Washington State voters. I don't think that this poll should be used for the reasons stated at the NPOV messageboard, however if it is to be in there in any capacity then it must be noted from who the poll was taken. The implication from the text as Xenophrenic has selected is that the poll is representative of Tea Party Supporters throughout the US. I am awaiting some response on the NPOV messageboard regarding the issue in general, but in the meantime can we at least not misuse polling statistics to make an inference which is not supported by the study itself.

As Chistopher Parker stated himself regarding the other similar poll (this was a seven state poll also in the Tea Party Article) at link

Question to Parker - 5. Pulling it all together, what can we safely and confidently conclude about those who identify with the tea party movement and those who do not? Are their attitudes fundamentally different from other whites, from the American population as a whole, and if so, how so?

One way in which to view these preliminary results is that we should remain cautious, and not jump to firm conclusions. I say this, first, because the sampling frame I use differs from, say, recent polls conducted by Pew, Qunnipiac, the Washington Post, and USA Today/Gallup. Indeed, my results are relevant only to the states in which the survey was conducted, four of which (NV, MO, GA, and NC) voted for the Republican presidential candidate in at least seven of the last ten election cycles. Perhaps this is why my results appear at variance with national polls.

Editors on this page continue to use these polls and word them in a way to imply that they are representative of the entire movement. They usually claim that the sources that mention the studies don't make the clear distinction that Parker does above, but that does not change the fact that it is not correct. I understand that WP is not here to fix great wrongs but when the author of the study himself makes the statement it is only prudent that we correctly report on what they found, not misrepresent the findings for political purposes. Arzel (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Arzel (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is this not a content dispute? What admin action is being requested? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: banhammered Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This user immediately returned from a block for disruptive editing (particularly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) to edit war. He was block because he's pushing a point of view without any talk, and edit warring ad nauseum. See the most recent thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634#User:Amp873. Please note he's blanked his talk, so the warnings are in the history. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

On second view, it looks like the editor just plopped a lot of tags on the page, no block is warranted (I misread the diff, was busy elsewhere...). It's disruptive for sure, but probably not immediately warranting a block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to reopen this to note this user's most recent colorful contribution. We're really not dealing with a productive or useful editor here, IMO. I reverted the tag-blasting at Conscription too, for the record. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that might happen. I'm also going to move this section back down to the bottom. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

PS. Oh wow, didn't view that. Yeah I think the guy is just a troll. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

POV and potential vandalism on the Alvin C. York article[edit]

Resolved: Normal editing has resumed. --Diannaa (Talk) 03:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a new ip editor who has been making a lot of edits to the Alvin C. York article. Although some of the information this IP has been adding "might" be useful for the article this users lack of WP knowledge has caused a lot of damage to the article. I would like to request that this article be restricted for editing by experienced editors to reduce the harmful edits that have been occurring. --Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the article to where it was on Aug 24 so the anon user can add his material more slowly and get help with the wiki markup for their sources. Hope this helps. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This article has been on my watchlist for a long time, but I confess that I don't watch it closely because I don't have the time or interest to keep track of the various conflicts and POV issues that crop up there on a frequent basis. IMO, it would be a good candidate for the "pending changes" program. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and I agree that putting it on the pending changes list is a good compromise. This will allow the anon IP editor to contribute in a way that will allow more seasoned WP editors to constructively guide the editor. I have reviewed the edits and it doesnt appear to me that the editor is being malicious, they just don't understand the rules of WP. --Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I have filed the request for "pending changes protection" so any changes or additions can be easily vetted. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandal named Mr kabob requires blocking.[edit]

Involved users
Issue changed the name of the song to Mammaries, added the sentance "the song is about mammary glands" and changed the infobox to say "Mammories". Then Mr kabob proceeded to move the page to Mammaries (David Guetta song). The jist of the story is that I believe there is enough evidence in their edits to suggest that both the user and IP are one in the same. Mr kabob's talk page indicates a history of these kind of stupid edits. he/she has received warnings for introducing factual errors and unsourced information. Cab both please be blocked? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I've reported them for having a vandalism-only account. Let's see what the admins on call say, and that might close this very quickly. The IP, that's a slightly different matter--clearly their edits are not constructive, though. I've left a level-3 warning for improper humor on their talk page, not to far below your friendly welcome message to them. It is unlikely that any more action will follow soon, unless they continue with this juvenile nonsense, of course. Thanks Unique, and may I suggest closing this thread if Mr. Kabob's shop is shut down. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
There have been one or two edits from Mr kabob's account from some time ago that can be considered good faith, but most of it is vandalism. I've therefore blocked it indefinitely as either a voa or compromised account. The IP may the same user, in which case it should now be autoblocked.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 05:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Visa article flood of AFD nominations[edit]

BoP has indicated he is no longer pursuing AfDs of these articles. It is suggested that an RfC on this subject is still warranted, however there's nothing else for admins to do here at this time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:32, 30 August 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.

This is the "bilateral relations" mess in a different guise. I've updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations, and I suggest that people from the Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force help stem the flood and work towards some sort of standstill agreement as last time, before history repeats itself. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Just to get us started I'd recommend he be blocked for disruptive and pointy edits. South korea for example has numerous reliable sources on their visa policy. E2 visas (english teaching visas are constantly in flux and often discussed in the media here. It shows an utter lack of checking before hand and proves without a doubt that these are disruptive pointy bad faith nominations.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • First, I will assume good faith that it was an honest oversight that I was not notified of this thread. Second, I promise that every nomination has been done honestly and with no ill-intent. I am not being pointy nor am I being disruptive (not intentionally, at least). I honestly and truly feel that these articles are not encyclopedic and not appropriate. What I do find to be disruptive is any attempt to circumvent a good-faith AfD nomination. Basket of Puppies 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Were it a good faith nomination I would have expected you to do a cursory search on the topic before nominating it and you obviously didn't or you would have found the wealth of news articles I found in only 30 seconds. You can't make pointy edits then try and run behind AGF when there are such blatant cases.--Crossmr (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Please read. Basket of Puppies 14:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Looks like standard "not directory" stuff, including the South Korea entry. Good noms, though some may not like it. None of it has academic discussion or other consideration of the visa policies of any of the states (you know, looks at history, economic and political considerations, visa "diplomacy" etc...). I'm willing to believe that in some of these cases there is the possibility that such an article could be written by someone qualified ("Visa policy in the EU" is an obvious candidate) but that aint what these are. As Crossmr points out in the case of South Korea (this would hold true for many of the other country's) visa policies are "constantly in flux," which means that these articles will require constant maintenance (not now or ever going to happen) to avoid misleading readers. The upshot? Anyone seeking accurate info on the "visa policy of country x" needs to go to the various countries websites, embassies, and consulates. All these "articles" are is an often incorrect and out of date mirroring of information that can be easily obtained by interested travelers from the countries in question.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Not at all. In it's current state it's nothing but as I pointed out this is quite a notable topic and there is extensive media coverage. It can be expanded well beyond not a directory. Had he bothered to follow WP:BEFORE and done a good faith search for sources he would have found that.--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
          • There is a reason we have a process for batch AFDs (Template:AfD footer (multiple)). This is quite ridiculous. Could all of these discussions be closed, and perhaps one or two of these be nominated for deletion? If they are deleted, that might be reason to do a batch AFD on many of these. However, starting off with 50 AFDs with essentially the same rationale wastes an enormous amount of time. NW (Talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I discussed this very topic with an admin on IRC and was informed I should nominate them individually. I did exactly that. I am happy if they go into a patch process and my deletion rationale would be the same- nonencyclopedic information, random collection of information, not a travel guide, etc. Basket of Puppies 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Next time read WP:BEFORE specifically number 9. You would have quickly found sources like this one [3] a great article in the LA Times about South Korean visa policy lending the topic plenty of notability and allowing an interested editor to expand the article well beyond a "directory"--Crossmr (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
                • Crossmr, like I have repeatedly stated on multiple project and deletion pages, I am nominating these class of articles for deletion as they are non-encyclopedic. I recognize they may have references (nearly all primary, tho), but those references do not make them notable nor encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • No, I just provided a ton of non-primary sources for South Korea that prove it is both notable and encyclopedic. Those are dozens of sources in national newspapers in multiple countries. talking about social pressures behind visa changes, laws, etc. that is plenty encyclopedic.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "He"? Which "he"? There are a lot of people involved here, and the same is happening as happened last time. We have a mass of nominations, overwhelming people's abilities to give an individual article due consideration, resulting in boilerplate responses, back and forth, across (by my count at the time of writing this) 26 of the above AFD discussions. And the end result will be 26 (or, very probably, more) boilerplate discussions, which don't address the individual articles at hand in any rationale (even the nomination rationales are boilerplate), that some poor administrator has to close with respect to a specific article. As I said, history is starting to repeat itself. This is exactly what happened to bilateral relations before (and indeed to schools before that). We know where this leads, and we know that it doesn't lead to productive meaningful discussion of specific articles, but to block voting with boilerplate discussions. Because it has done, many times. Uncle G (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Agreed. By the way this stems from a discussion started on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Visa_requirements_for_Palestinian_citizens. There was a growing consensus that these articles fall under WP:NOTDIRECTORY and, more importantly, are impossible to reliably source and maintain. In fact considering that they are entirely primary sourced they probably fall under OR as well. I reviewed the past discussion and did not see a policy reason for keeping them - so it was on my mind to do the same as this. My proposal was going to be to wait for the Palestine AFD to close to see the result - then nominate a couple more for AFD before expanding it. Basket got there ahead of me :) I'd tentatively support the proposal to speedy close a portion of the current AFD's and focus on one or two examples to get this hashed out. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That'd be fine with me. Of course I have no idea why this deletion discussion had to happen here at ANI. It seems like a colossal waste of time for admins who are dealing with copyvio, vandalism and the occasional threat. Basket of Puppies 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, reading through the noms there are two types of article here. I'd actually tentatively support the "Visa policy of" articles (and support delete for the other type) This is a complex issue that needs discussion --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, discussion is needed, which is why I opened the deletion discussion. I am sure that ANI is not the place for this discussion. Basket of Puppies 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Because at least one of your nominations is clearly in bad faith. You didn't follow WP:BEFORE and are now trying to hide behind WP:AGF rather than admit you made a bad nomination. The news search was trivial and quickly turned up a ton of sources on the topic to allow an editor to write about the history of the visa policy, how it came about, what is driving it, social factors, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Never was a single one of my nomination is bad faith. Please read. Basket of Puppies 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
This one clearly was you mass nominated in quick succession and have shown no indication that you performed the steps in WP:BEFORE before actually nominating it. "South Korea visa policy" alone turns up thousands of articles and there is no way you gave those a look before nominating. We don't assume good faith blindly. You made a mass nomination in a controversial topic and there is at least one that you didn't research properly before doing so. I wonder how many more?--Crossmr (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
[4] Looks like Japan as well. Plenty of material there that could be used to make the article encyclopedic. Again talking about factors in decisions, pressures from different groups, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Basket of Puppies' latest round of deletions involved 163 edits in 14 minutes.[5] (the previous round involved 86 edits in 7 minutes). How long does the "due diligence" of WP:BEFORE typically take, per article? bobrayner (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Longer than that. It's not long, I found almost 3 dozen articles in about 30 seconds. A good faith search with a couple different keywords to be sure should take 20 seconds if it comes up with nothing. Thousands of results? I would say at least 2-3 minutes to give some articles a once over to see if you're headed in the right direction. It should have taken around 1-2 hours to good faith nominate 50 or so of those.--Crossmr (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

(arbitrary break, sorry if my previous post was unclear...)
Which policy requires academic discussion?
Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, information of international interest. If the articles would benefit from fleshing out, then flesh them out.
After the previous round of deletion attempts, people posted comments on the user's talkpage and elsewhere; but instead of seeking consensus, they just hammered away at "delete" again.
The original rationale for the first round of deletion notices was was that they were factually inaccurate, which is pretty absurd since most of these articles are directly based on authoritative sources (though if anybody would prefer a secondary source rather than a government website, that could be arranged).
Any given country's visa policy is very unlikely to change on a daily basis. They're as "in flux" as the typical sports team (or less so). Wikipedia still manages to have lots of reasonably-accurate articles on sports teams. And why is it OR, or difficult to source, when taking easily-readable data from a known primary source? It doesn't need any special interpretation. If government website X says that citizens of Y aren't allowed in, it's certainly not difficult to get that information onto wikipedia, nor would it be WP:OR to do so.
I don't care where this gets discussed, as long as it's somewhere centralised, instead of on a hundred different pages. bobrayner (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it, and agree that this adds lots of work and unnecessary shenanigans to the process. I'd strongly urge Basket of Puppies to withdraw the bulk of these and very specifically refactor the noms on two or three as test cases. If/when those are deleted, after detailed discussion on the merits, then a mass nom citing the precedent may be in order (or several noms of a dozen each, for example). You may have a point - and some of these likely warrant deletion - but the signal is being lost in the noise, here. Detailed and specific discussion is in order, and spreading that across 50-some odd pages ain't it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


Ok, before this gets sidetracked I propose the following:

That way we can have a cohesive discussion in a single place for each type of article. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose They're up there now. Defeating these is extremely trivial. Just have it out and be done with it. A quick news search for most countries will tell you if there are reliable sources there, if there are WP:DEADLINE covers us and mark them down as a keep. Also put the searches on the article talk pages. I've already done 2.--Crossmr (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Links to searches aren't helpful or meaningful. Their results vary according to who is performing them and where in the world they are. And their results vary over time, even at timescales measured in hours and days. If you want to make a good case for a specific article, then cite the specific published works that the searches turn up, rather than handwaving in the direction of a search and saying, in effect, "this turns up stuff". SAgain, don't repeat history. We've had people who said in discussion after discussion "If you Google it, stuff turns up." without giving any indication of what the specific stuff that turns up was, and why it was relevant to the article at hand, before, when things like this have happened previously. This approach is no less of a boilerplate argument than the others. Specific source citations for specific subjects, are needed to help the poor closing administrator find something relevant to each article at hand amongst the back-and-forth boilerplate.

      Search engines are (some of many) tools for finding sources. They aren't citations. Uncle G (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

      • I explained above what the specific stuff was. Probably about 3-4 times now. They're stories on the history and other aspects of what drove policies. perfectly encyclopedic. The search engines are simply there for convenience at AfD to say "Here is a list of news stories, these can be used to do this". They're only to show policy, we don't need to actually write the article during AfD. Probably this weekend when I have time I'll actually flesh out the South Korean article just like that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        • No. You made no such explanation, and you've failed thus far to cite an actual source in either this AFD discussion or this AFD discussion. A search engine result does not provide "a list of news stories". It's not even necessarily showing the same things to you as it does to other editors. You really need to grasp this point. What you are doing is not "showing policy", and it's not demonstrating that sources exist. Citing the sources demonstrates that they exist. Hyperlinking to a search engine does not.

          Handwaving vaguely in the direction of search engines is a no-effort means of AFD discussion participation. It doesn't demonstrate that sources exist. It doesn't cite sources. It doesn't even point to the same thing for the people reading as the editor trying to take the quick route around actually doing the work that an AFD rationale needs.

          Proper AFD partitipation is not a zero-effort thing. Citing sources is what is required for a watertight case. That means using the search engine (and other resources) to find the source; reading the sources that are turned up to see what they say and whether they are relevant; and citing them explicitly so that other editors can read them too. That is how one puts deletion policy into practice correctly. Nothing less will do. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

        • yes, I did. plenty of independent material on the subject including things like why certain changes were made, who pressured the government to look into visa changes, social concerns with visa changes, I exactly detailed the kind of information available in the news search and how it could be added to the article. While news searches sometimes return different content, they do not return such drastically different content that a link to a news search is useless. I put far more effort into my argument than he did his. I actually made a good faith search to even see if it was worth talking about. The fact was there were hundreds of links and I wasn't going to independetly link every single one, but if you'd like [6], [7], [8], [9], etc, etc. Those are just the first ones off the list. I've checked 4 AfDs and all 4 of them had tons of quality links available of which I only noted a very small sampling. Above I noted one of the quality South Korea sources, and if you'd like more [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], etc, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, note that "OMG it's reliably sourced so keep keep keep!" does not actually address the rationale for deletion, which is "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". Tarc (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I would argue that "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" does not require the deletion of anything related to travel (Wikipedia has lots of articles on tourist destinations, modes of transport &c and a good thing too). These articles aren't giving directions to cool bars in Barcelona, or advice on whether or not the taxis are safe; they cover concrete points of government policy which affect a large number of people. However, let's not get bogged down in detailed discussion if this is not the best place for it... bobrayner (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • As I pointed out above the sources I found are not travel guide sources. They're news sources discussing the history of various visa policies. Why they've been made, external pressures that may have caused them, social ramifications, etc. It should be possible for many countries to provide a history of how various visa policies have developed over the year and why they've developed. That's encyclopedia and has nothing to do with a travel guide.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - whatever happens, Visa policy of the People's Republic of China has to be kept as a start article. I have no idea what the nominator was thinking when he nominated that one. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Good proposal. Additionally, it might be worth issuing a haddock in the direction of the nominator for failing to consider whether bulk-nominating an entire category of articles without any prior discussion was likely to cause exactly this sort of drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support There's no excuse for mass-nominating this many articles as individual AfDs. Alternatively, they could just be closed as disruptive. I further propose that the administrator that BoP allegedly contacted be publicly identified for ridicule and trout-slapping. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the merging of all the articles into one large AfD. Please know that I nominated these articles only after discussing it with an administrator and several other editors on IRC on how best to proceed. I would be happy to disclose the logs in a secure manner that would not violate the public logging prohibition. The informed me that I would have to make a separate AfD for each article. I was going based upon the best information I had at the time. I did this in good faith without any intention or desire to be disruptive. Basket of Puppies 18:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    Why IRC and not on-wiki? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    Did you follow WP:BEFORE, specifically step #9?--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Discussing this coherently and in context of previous discussions on Talk:passport/Archive 3and Talk:passport/Archive 4 has been my aim from the beginning. The speed of nomination that many articles with a single reason was impossible for any user to follow and leads to many very similar discussions... L.tak (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: clearly no one is denying that several of these articles are notable; the issue for which they were nominated is the same for all of them, and grouping them together to discuss that single issue ensures a consistent decision and saves the community's resources. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what I am saying. The references are almost universally primary sources and the topics are not the least bit encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not what you were saying earlier, though; your reasons seem to have changed over time and "primary sources" seems to be a new one (not that it would justify deletion, mind). [15] seems to have intended as a way of saying that all those articles are factually inaccurate (and a large number of them got templated with a similar message). After people who had actually read the articles explained that they were accurate, Basket of Puppies seems to have concentrated on a different reason for deletion and ignored repeated queries about accuracy. As an aside, I doubt that much blame should attach to whichever admin suggested mass AfD; there was plenty of time to reflect on the negative feedback from the first batch of templates, before starting on the mass AfD. bobrayner (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've already shown you two above, (and just did canada as well) that demonstrates there are plenty of non-primary sources for these articles. While the sources in the articles are primary, there exists many non-primary sources which you could have easily found. The history of and public discourse over visa policies is certainly as encyclopedic as anything else.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support and recommend that folks get off BoP's back. S/he clearly thought s/he was doing the right thing. The encyclopedia hasn't been destroyed. This will all be ok. MtD (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support whoever told BoP to nom these by themselves gave her/him bad gouge. If you have a bunch of articles which don't belong in the encyclopedia and they share strong commonalities (esp. if those commonalities are what suggest they may not be appropriate for WP), then nom them together. If you think that a small subset will provoke disagreement enough to spoil the lot, then remove those and either nominate them separately or don't nominate them at all. E.g. Visa policy of China is probably both notable and necessary for an encyclopedia but Visa Policy of Luxembourg can maybe be lumped in with Visa Policy of Belgium. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
a short specification: that's why neither visa policy of Luxembourg nor of Belgium exist and we have the comprehensive wiki Visa policy in the European Union covering 33 countries in one go. L.tak (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
They certainly did before the common market and the EU, though. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have closed all the visa policy pages in favour of a single discussion, my personal preference would be an RFC that takes in visa policy and visa requirement pages for a single solution. Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


I believe the mess started here in January. Somebody insisted on removing said info from all passport-articles, and the only way to keep the information ws to spin it out into stupid stubs (y'know... one of those "compromises"). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, here we go again. I remember that! --Ozguroot (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
In principle, I'd be happy to see this information incorporated into a broader article.
However, doing it on a "Passport of country A" basis (ie. with a subsection "What paperwork is needed to enter countries B, C, D, and E") involves a many-to-many relationship between sources and articles; each of these pages is likely to need separate sources to show whether an A-passport holder can enter B, C, D, E &c and this could become impractical/unmaintainable (how many permutations between 200 countries?). :On the other hand, if arranged on a "Visa policy of country B" basis, it's more practical as most data points in the article can be gained from a single source - a website owned by the government of country B (or a secondary source derived from that). bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass AfD tagging of visa policy articles[edit]

User:Basket of Puppies has nominated Visa policy in the European Union as well as 40 different "Visa policy of XXX" articles, from Visa policy of Albania to Visa policy of Venezuela, for deletion (see Category:AfD debates (Places and transportation)). In each case, he has used virtually identical argumentation: "Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic." Regardless of whether or not the articles should be kept, splitting up the nomination for deletion into 41 different pages makes absolutely no sense. All of the visa policy articles are similar, and the arguments for and against keeping them are largely independent of the country involved.

I request that the administrators merge these AfD nominations into a singe page so that a reasonable debate may be held on this topic, and to ensure that a given editor's arguments about keeping or deleting the visa policy of a particular country will also be heard by people discussing the deletion of the visa policies of all other countries. — Tetromino (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  • We know. Look up ↑ . Uncle G (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass closing incorrectly as keep[edit]

Spartaz closed every one of the AfDs as keep, tho this is incorrect. I am certain he did so in good faith, but he accidently marked the AfDs as keep and the associated article talk pages as the same. This should be undone. Basket of Puppies 05:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • How should he have closed them? MtD (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I am not entirely sure I would myself have done as Spartaz did at this point, but I certainly am not prepared to say that he did wrong. For the sake of providing a pause to think about it, probably we should endorse how he handled it. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC) .
      • Given the volume of "keep" votes on the many AfDs, I doubt that Spartaz's action was either accidental or incorrect. Basket of Puppies, since the first and second attempts at deletion failed, would you like a third attempt at deletion in a different venue? bobrayner (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Don't taunt like that. It doesn't lead to mature, adult, discussion and reflects badly upon you. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Spartaz didn't do anything wrong, in my humble opinion. The (as a model, 'general' view) result is here: [16] Keep: 5, Delete: 1 - Should we continue to insist on deletion(s), Basket of Puppies? --Ozguroot (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Those keeps are all procedural, rather than based on the subject. The only problem with closing these all as "keep" is that this will inevitably lead to someone saying "keep per Spartaz" when the group nom is opened. Nevertheless, the solution to that is to ignore bad arguments, not to waste more time re-closing the AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Its nice to have this raised without letting me know. I already told basket of puppies that they were welcome to add procedural to the keep if it made them happy and that my comment made it clear that this was procedural. Bearing in mind I had to run scripts to close and that going for something other then keep, delete, no-consensus, merge or redirect would mean at least 3 times as much button pressing I can't really see that I can be blamed. This kind of this is partly why such mass nominations can be so disruptive, as they take long to fix. Spartaz Humbug! 12:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Basket of Puppies, since you supported having a single discussion rather than umpteen, instead of complaining at Spartaz' attempts to head off the inevitable train wreck, why not follow up on your very own "Support" above and work towards having a centralized discussion on what you perceive to be the problem here, whether it truly is a problem, and if so how to fix it? Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, a model to follow (or even to use) was linked-to right at the very start of this section. I didn't do that just to keep my fingers warm. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The AfDs should be closed as procedural keep or procedural close or administratively closed to clearly indicate they were not subject to a full 7 day long AfD but rather closed due to a procedural issue. I should not be the one to change anything unless there is clear consensus here, as I am involved and it would not be appropriate or proper for me to change it. Basket of Puppies 13:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Possibly, but unless it becomes a major issue at any subsequent discussion — which it won't, as anyone with xyr head screwed on will see that this isn't an endorsement of any position but simply a means for preventing the same train wreck happening at AFD as has happened so many times in the past (and one can easily point to me, DGG, and thumperward here if that truly becomes an issue) — this is a minor point. The major issue is your original one. You have a problem with these articles, and you'd like to discuss it. So let's work on that rather than what exact word should go in a speedy closure that's going to be superceded by the consensus discussion that you want to have in any event. Please focus upon trying to articulate your problem, in detail and with more than 1 sentence of bare explanation, with the articles. DGG, who has experience with this, or someone else, will no doubt help with the technical jiggery-pokery of setting up and formatting a centralized discussion, if you have problems. But this whole debate as to What Spartaz Should Have Done is a distraction. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Batch AfD setting up in progress[edit]

I am setting up a large batch AfD for the articles listed in this category. It's being done manually so might take me a few hours. Basket of Puppies 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Which ones are you plannng to do? "Visa policy of X"? Or "Visa requirements for X"? I assume the former (as that is what you predominantly AFD'ds). I wouldn't recommend doing both together (that's why I'm raising the point :)) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You still haven't indicated that you followed WP:BEFORE and from a quick perusal of the first 4 I selected, it's quite apparent you haven't.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually the fact that you've just renominated the two articles on china is ridiculous and can't be seen as anything but a bad faith nomination for which you didn't perform the required good faith search before hand, [17] had you done so you'd probably still be reading articles well into next week for that one nomination alone. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], etc. etc. Chinese visa policy is a often discussed, very notable topic, covered in many countries. There is nothing random about it, while you might not like the article as it sits, clean-up is not a reason for AfD. There is plenty there from which a history of their policy, controversies, influences, public opinion, etc could be constructed. I renew my original suggestion. We are not blind.--Crossmr (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I am going down the list in the category in alphabetical order. China starts with the letter c. Notice I did Canada before, the Republic of China and Croatia after. These continued accusations of bad faith are wearing. Basket of Puppies 17:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Crossmr, BoP has indicated in the past 24 hours that he has problems with all articles with this rationale: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. This way of re-tagging for deletion with a single discussion page enables him to expand on this and the community to discuss these concerns at one page. Let's have the discussion there... L.tak (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
This one concerns me: Permanent Resident of Norfolk Island visa It may be AFD material but I am not sure it matches the other articles enough to go in an AFD with them w/o raising issues... --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 22:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I know what he's been saying. I've been part of the discussion. unfortunately his reasoning doesn't make any sense given the extensive media coverage in many countries given to the various subjects. at this point his nominations are disruptive and pointy. Visa policies of china are clearly notable and encyclopedic. There is plenty to build an encyclopedic article off of. While he might not like the article as it is, AfD isn't for clean-up the subject clearly meets notability guidelines. He has a serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right now.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Then start participating in the discussion instead of taking pot shots and wandering away to leave people asking questions and not answer them. you've had tons of questions put to you above by different people which you've refused to answer. Including a very direct question of whether or not you followed WP:BEFORE. Stop nominating articles which clearly pass all our policies and guidelines. AfD is not for clean-up. An article titled "Visa policies of X" most certainly meets our notability guidelines in most cases and you are making no effort to distinguish between the ones that do and the ones that might not. You've admitted as much now by stating that you're just going through alphabetically. Since it meets GNG, you're arguing for clean-up and AfD isn't the place to do that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Honeslty Crossmr, the only person acting in bad faith here is you. He has every right to make his case for deletion, and you have every right to make your case to keep, and everyone else has every right to weigh in as they see fit. Letting the community have its say will produce much more useful results than your attempts to harangue Basket of Puppies. Resolute 22:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Nominating an article for deletion isn't a right. Could I go nominate Barrack Obama for deletion without anyone saying anything and questioning by motives? Why? Because the subject clearly meets our threshold of inclusion. It would, and rightly so, be closed immediately as a bad faith nomination. I've seen plenty of AfDs closed as such.--Crossmr (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

how many hours/days are we going to let articles sit there in a state of half-completed AfD? He started this 7-8 hours ago, and if he can't write his deletion rationale in that kind of time, the notices should be removed. He managed to nominate everything in 14 minutes last time.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Why don't you take a break, man. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Crossmr, just stop. By constantly attacking BoP and his motives, all you're doing is making it apparent that you're the one who has issues with following policy. And frankly accusing BoP of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT is pretty ironic given that you were already told about three times that the reason for nominating has nothing to do with notability, and you still continued to accuse the editor of bad faith actions because the articles are notable. Notability isn't the only reason to take an article, or indeed a large group of articles, to AfD. Feel free to make your case for keeping the articles on the AfD page, but do not continue to attack others and assume bad faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    actually, if you read above, one of his reasons was that there only existed (or were used) primary sources. He's said that at least once or twice. I've provided tons of non-primary sources for 5 different countries. His claim now is that it's an indiscriminate collection of information (which doesn't seem anymore indiscriminate than the thousands of lists we have out there, the scope is decidedly smaller than others), and that it isn't encyclopedic. The last argument is straight off WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which isn't a compelling argument for deletion. So it comes down to indiscriminate collection of information. Which it might very well be, but that is a content issue, not a deletion one. there clearly exists sources which make the topic notable, so even if the articles were stubbed, the topics themselves meet the threshold for inclusion and continually trying to force them to AfD doesn't make any sense.--Crossmr (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    That said, I will take a break from this discussion and make my comment on the centralized discussion when it's created.--Crossmr (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Seb_az86556 started removing the notices because of absence of the discussion page. Although I think this is correct in principle, it is not getting us any further here and we will be discussing procedures for yet another day... I suggest the following:

  • revert/rollback the removals of the AfD messages
  • give BoP a notice on his talk that he should provide a rationale asap (within 12 hours from now? we have no idea which time zone he is in) to move this discussion forward.

Can someone who can do multi-revert do both (also the talkpage notice because BoP and I have started off not very well yesterday...)? Looking forward to really discussing this and hearing rationales! L.tak (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

These can easily be reverted once there is a discussion-page. These templates have been sitting there for more than 6 (some of them 10) hours with a deadlink. I don't think that works. I am not opposed to the batch-nomination, but whenever there's an AfD-template that has no link, it should be removed after a reasonable time. 6 hours should really be enough to create the relevant page. (by the way, I gave the same rationale, albeit shortened, in the edit summary) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think its clear that there is general opinion sentiment against deleting the articles either singly or in random groups without a prior consideration of how to handle it. I continue to endorse Spartaz's earlier action, and urge him as someone reasonable to do what he did before, close the present AfDs as speedy keep. Basket of Puppy 's action in doing this is clearly disruptive and pointy, as he went ahead with this in spite of everything that was said above, and I suggest blocking him for a while to permit rational discussion of the problem, which I think can be best done by an RfC at the project page. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I have had my eye off this ball dealing with the JIDF/David Appletree situation but I agree that AFD really isn't the place for this discussion. I endorse the need for a RFC to thrash out the whole approach. Pages on visa regulations for specific countries are likely notable in most cases - the fact that someone actually writes a book about them that is reissued every month is significant but I do have concerns about the indiscriminaty nature of plain lists of visa rules. Personally, I have severe issues about visa requirements for citizens of country X pages as they are inevitably indiscrimate with a strong dash of SYTH and OR thrown in - all the trade documentation relates to the country travelling to, not the country going from, and I speak as something of a subject expert as my RL job is, amoung other things, teaching visa regulations to airlines so its something I have worked closely with for 23 years. That said, I don't feel that the arguments are clear cut enough that we can just say enough and AFD the lot and purge house. Rather we need a proper discussion about how to systemically organise our articles on these pages and that requires a centralised discussion somewhere. Maybe something I can look at when I get some time if no-one else takes this forward. Spartaz Humbug! 09:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree, the one up above about visa requirements for citizens of the country probably isn't appropriate. It's just a reverse collection of what would be included on "visa policy of country x" which is unnecessary. That said, I've demonstrated on the south korea article that several visas are extensively discussed and as such the visa policy articles are certainly viable in some, or likely all, cases.--Crossmr (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That's probably the key issue for discussion. Personally I see no point creating articles without anything to add except visa lists as they go stale quickly and become unreliable if not maintained but some form of sourcing and discussion of the subject generally will be very useful and make a decent article. This depends on sources of course. Spartaz Humbug! 12:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up example[edit]

As I mentioned above, there is plenty of room here to make encyclopedic articles. I've performed a very basic clean-up of Visa policy of South Korea. It is by no means complete, and at this point is just a stub example of the kind of thing I had in mind. There are dozens of more sources just on E2 visas so that section can probably be expanded to 2 or 3 good paragraphs to include information on how law makers, holder, other countries, etc have reacted to the visa and the changes and decisions that have been made to the visa over the years. I'm digging around now to try and find a citation for when it was first introduced.--Crossmr (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That definitely looks way better without the unnecessary list of countries. And, you're right, it looks like it has a much better claim to notability now than it did before. It's a lot easier to see and check. SilverserenC 19:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Hence my point that this was a content issue and not an AfD issue. there will still be plenty of primary sources as all visas can be discussed (individually or in groups) but those visas can then be propped up with additional information from the media. Some countries may require foreign language editors to help us out though. there might not always be extensive information in English on some visas.--Crossmr (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I added some more to the E-2 visa and added an image of an actual visa, as well as information on 2 more visas. a total of 25 citations are now in the article with only a couple pointing to primary sources. if that doesn't show notability and viability of an article on visa policy I don't know what does.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Crossmr, this is a good and valid type of article now, where it was just a list before (but still an encyclopedic list for wikipedia). The complicated thing is to find the sources for the policy on when to grant certain visa-durations and length of visa-free entry (passport security features, political reasons, reciprocity, does that go via bilateral agreements, is the list a derivate of something else etc), which are issues which I think should fit there as well. Whether the list which was in the wiki before is kept as argument/illustration of the policy in the main article or whether it becomes a "list of" article is a matter of style (and I have the idea the latter is preferable...) L.tak (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The article will get quite long as I write up each individual visa so putting the visa free list on there would be excessive. it easily could be spun off as a list of, it's just an encyclopedic as any other list, can be fully sourced (two references I used already show all the lengths). As for the lengths, yes, they're usually reciprocal unless one party is trying to do something to spur tourism or the like. The only reason canada gets 6 months in Korea as far as I know is because koreans get 6 months in Canada (as do a lot of other countries)--Crossmr (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving up[edit]

I am giving up trying to go forth with my good faith nomination of these articles. I have been accused of bad faith, threatened with blocking, repeatedly harassed and exposed to a litany of accusations on my intentions. I began to batch AfD process but had to stop due to Shabbat. When I returned I had been mass-reverted. All I can say is I firmly believe these visa articles are not the least bit encyclopedic, but my good faith attempt to make this known has been met with every trick in the book. Good faith has been tossed out the window and accusations and threats have been allowed to go unstopped. I am sorry I tried to help this encyclopedia and improve the project. Basket of Puppies 05:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Hardly anyone objected to it in general, but rather to how you went about it. And I'm sure they didn't tell you about Shabbat on Friday morning; it's been around for millenia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
come on BoP! don't be a victim here. Many people supported discussing the item, but more than pointy one-liners we have not seen. In the middle of the last discussion on how to do this, you suddenly started re-nominating again, which was excepted for the sake of the start of the discussion. Then you suddenly leave (where you said before: it might take me several hours, no mention of shabbat). Already before the first proposed deletion 2 days ago I showed the possibility the discuss your issues. Taken together this is a case of Wikipedia:Ididn'thearthat to me. You leave me nothing than to end with a citing the text you used before going on IRC (also without telling) here: It appears you don't understand. I don't know how else to explain it. (...) Which is why I am giving up as it appears you just don't understand. Moving along... Rgds L.tak (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No way. (And yes, that's all I can say, I'm afraid. The two above have already addressed my concerns.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:56, 29 August 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.

Legal threats[edit]

  • Legal threats have been made by an IP user in Talk:Muslim Zionism: "thank you for respecting his choice and erasing the link concerning him, before any pursuit or judicial approach." Marokwitz (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that it will make any difference as there seems to be more than one IP involved. However, I am wondering if we should remove mention of Morad El Hattab from Muslim Zionism on BLP grounds. The complaint is that he is hasn't been involved in this issue for several years, and is just a Muslim wanting peace, not a Zionist. We don't need it in the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) Mr El hattab is not Zionist but just a Muslim hoping that the peace can one day exist between Israelis and Palestinians". Call me pedantic, but I've removed the section under BLP policy as it lacks any sources referring to him as a Muslim Zionist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Big Time Vandalism 2[edit]

Resolved: nominate for deletion if you must. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For a while now i've been feeling usure about User:STEF1995S's articles regarding the RT 100. He created a few related new articles (such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) which are literally based on nothing (there's no reliable source in there); also, he "updated" the main article with false chartings (again without having any sources). I and a fellow Romanian writer warned him several times (1 & 2 & 3), but he's not going to stop. There's no point in his work - he created several articles for tops that don't even exist. We've reverted his edits several times but he just keeps on returning and "updating". Someone's got to stop him, please! Lucian C. (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than your opinion, can you point to something concrete that shows that the facts s/he is entering are false? I'd like at least a diff and a contradictory source. I do see where KWW ask him/her to improve sourcing of that material. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
They do appear to be referencing a website for years (pre-2009, back to 1999) which the website doesn't on first inspection actually have data for.
That is sort of suspicious. Not concrete, though. Actual evidence of false info would be better... Georgewilliamherbert (talk)
In Romania we have just an official chart - Romanian Top 100 - and there are no other tops such as dance/rock/r&b; anyone can google it and see there's no such thing. Why should i try bringing counterarguments if there's no argument to prove his work's real? 90% of his articles are sourceless and where there are indeed some references, they're upon the RT100 website (where you can see the real thing). STEF1995S extracts the dance/R&B/rock tracks from this top and makes his own charts. It's pointless even discussing about it. Lucian C. (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
So Toddst1, you're asking to proove that something DOESN'T exist? The only site that mentions one of his creations [let's say the pop chart] is Wikipedia - [25]. Even if there was a chart [there isn't, but I'm just saying] it wouldn't meet the criteria for notability [still, it doesn't exist]. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I want this problem to be resolved, not buried in the archieves! Lucian C. (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? You can put'em up for deletion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
And let User:STEF1995S just get away with it? He hasn't even been warned 4 all those things. (he's gonna return with all those "updates") Lucian C. (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's not be concerned (for now) who gets away with what; you might have noticed that I explicitly invited him to join this discussion. Meanwhile -- what do you think is the best way to deal with these articles? Delete? Sort it out by editing? Or something else? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
You're the administrator, you tell me. The articles must be deleted; let's pretend that right now i'll start writing an article about the flying snake - would you try figuring out if there is indeed such thing or delete it? Lucian C. (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that blocks are preventative, not punitive. No one is interested in blocking a user because you don't think they should "get away with it". WP:AGF means that we assume good faith unless it's clear that the edits were not made in good faith; if you feel that this user should be blocked, convince us (or at least an admin) that it is necessary. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way, to clear up any apparent confusion, neither myself nor User:Seb_az86556 are administrators. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This issue does not require admin attention at the moment. If you think the articles should be deleted, nominate them for deletion yourself. —DoRD (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
And by the way, I would indeed figure out if there was a flying snake; after all, there's a flying fish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I worked hard at the Romanian Singles Chart related articles, and he just came one day to "help". He has created constantly charts that don't exist or make up peak positions for songs - he has replaced DeepCentral's "In Love" with Shakira's "Gypsy" as a #1 song several times, also wrote that "Telephone" by Lady Gaga was #1 ... He has added unsourced or fake info several times on other articles also: [26], [27] - "Loba" was never #1 [28], [29] - "Alejandro", "Morena" and others didn't reak #1 [30]. I have repeatedly asked him not to update the Romanian Chart properly, but he used sources like charly1300 or a chart that was only shown on TV. I think we got beyond good faith edits when he continues to do things that he knows aren't OK. Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Questionable User[edit]

The user named Hhht123 seems to be editing the John Cena article in good faith, but has no idea how to properly edit an article, he continues to break infoboxes and images and is ignoring my advice and others on his talk page. He's technically not vandalizing, but he's not helping things either. He was previously the IP user before registering under Hhht123, and has been trying to edit the John Cena article for the past hour, breaking things left and right. His most recent edit constitutes vandalism though.  Fyyer  15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You should inform the user that you've started this thread. Not knowing how familiar the user is with Wikipedia it's hard to tell if the comments on his talk page (eg: stop breaking the article) are getting through. Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what the MoS is, how templates work, what the user is doing wrong and more importantly how they can contribute? If they continue on with vandalism edits, then I think a formal warning would be fitting. Hazardous Matt (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You know the {{welcomeg}} template works pretty well. Instead of just pointing out what the user might not be doing 100% correctly, welcoming him/her is appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you didn't notify Hhht123 about this discussion, I did so for you. —DoRD (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
He seems to be done for now. Yes in hindsight {{welcomeg}} would have been better, but during the process I was under the impression he was ignoring his talk page completely due to his continued persistence and lack of reply to Discospinster and my message on his talk page.  Fyyer  16:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Why did you make that assumption? He had been a registered user for 15 minutes when you sent him this message and for less than an hour when you submitted an ANI report. Completely uncalled for. --Smashvilletalk 16:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the only thing uncalled for was that my message to him wasn't specific enough. On the other hand Discospinster's message was pretty clear as you can see here which he made at 9:27. His good faiths edits compromised the format of the page, I tried messaging him, another user tried messaging him, he continued to do it once more and then vandalized a different page. Since he gave no reply to neither users message on his talk page, and instead continued to edit it, I offered to bring it to the notice of some administrators. As I said before he was messing up the format for over an hour (8:11 to 9:32), and instead of letting it continue, I offered to bring it to this boards attention. Coincidently, he stopped. Let me know if you have anymore questions.  Fyyer  17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This essay may be of some benefit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Two editors deleting a talk page comment[edit]

I've found a pair of editors bullying another editor by removing his/her talk page comments. These editors are part of the discussion thread containing the comment and have been warned that as such, they should leave it to an impartial 3rd party to review the comment. I'm an impartial 3rd party (not part of the thread, etc), and it's my opinion that this particular comment contains several useful points that should be addressed. And as far as offensiveness or incivility goes, it falls far short of any standard that would require its removal. I'd block the editor responsible for repeatedly deleting the comment - especially given that he/she was warned, but I see no harm in bringing it up here first. Rklawton (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. DocOfSoc and I were in a content dispute on a BLP and whether the subject should be called "Jewish". His language was a little heated, but we resolved it. Then, NeoNeuroGeek (a new user) launches a tirade against DocOfSoc about whether he is a real Jew. He, not unreasonably, removed it. Rklawton then blunders in, reverts the removal with some wikilawyering about "involved" but does nothing to cool NeoNeuroGeek. Since it wasn't me NeoNeuroGeek was attacking, but my erstwhile opponent, I felt disinterested enough to remove the post and have a gentle word with the newbie about our expected decorum here [31]. Next thing Rklawton's spitting block threats here, with, despite me posting to his talk page, no attempt to resolve anything. This just looks like trolling to me. Calm down, sir, and get your overly-dramatic tanks off my manicured lawn.--Scott Mac 19:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone wishing to follow the thread can do so in sequence, it's short. Not only is Scott Mac mischaracterizing my comments/summaries (I explained the problem and what I'd do to resolve it if the problem persisted) he's being rude, too.

[32], [33], [34]. Rklawton (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've restored NeoNeuroGeeks comments with some elements redacted. My concern was that it was not a vitriolic attack on Doc but that the editor clearly felt hurt by the comments they read and made comments in the heat of the moment - we all do it. Please don't unilaterally remove comments like that in the future; it is better to politely ask the editor to retract the attacks (pointing them at the relevant policy) and, if they do not, ask an admin to come in and explain it more explictly (and redact the commets). The other way risks alienating someone further :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. What do you mean "unilaterally"? Every time one clicks submit it is unilateral. I stand by my action, I removed the comment, and left a very polite note on the newbie's talk page, explaining our civil ethos here, and assuming that his post was made in ignorance of that. Rklawton's actions were totally unhelpful: restoring personal attacks, with no attempt to talk with the newbie, indeed no attempt to explain anything to anyone outside of threatening edit summaries. How was that going to help? Drama-stoking at it worst. Liable to allow the heated rhetoric to escalate, while slapping those trying to dowse the flames. If he didn't like my way of doing it, he should have substituted his own, or at least done something constructive. --Scott Mac 19:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant nothing by "unilateral" except in the sense it was just the two of you :) and, yes, your note was constructive. Rklawton should, perhaps, have removed the PA's (or reported them to be removed) or encouraged you to report it. But he was correct in restoring the comment. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Two isn't unilateral, by definition. Had Rklawton refactored and replaced, or had he taken some other course of action, that might have been correct. What he did was extremely disruptive. The correct thing to do, if you involve yourself, is to try to defuse a situation - you may wrongly judge what will do that, but any good-faith attempt is a start. Rklawton's action were in no sense of the word correct, as there was no strategy to help the situation lying behind them.--Scott Mac 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not obligated to solve your problems. I saw the need to prevent two editors from abusing a third by removing talk page comments that were marginally offensive at best. In general, we don't remove comments from talk pages and we don't bite the noobs. I restored it with a reminder and restored again with a warning. As an experienced editor, you should know better, and the comments above from 3rd parties bear this out. Rklawton (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I stand by my actions - and in my criticism of yours. But since the thing is moot now, I'll let it go. Unwatching.--Scott Mac 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Scott, if I wasn't clear - don't read anything into my use of the word unilateral :) it was cultural/personal use & I realise that in this forum it came across differently. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me make an observation that, as an uninvolved user, I believe that the warred over comment is valid and does indeed raise some very good points. Yes, the language is a bit heated, but it is certainly not in the realm of anything that would require removal of said comment. It appears to me that the removing users have rather vitriolic opinions of Schlessinger and perhaps should disengage and not edit the article because of such opinions. SilverserenC 19:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Wrong. I know nothing about her and have no opinion. I got involved when I picked up she was unhappy with the article, I reported it to BLPNB, and began removing unreferenced negative stuff.--Scott Mac 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That was referring far more to DocOfSoc than you. Though you should have also not removed that comment. SilverserenC 19:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment please note that Scott Mac is jewish, so this is a WP:COI issue.--Caravan train (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Eh? Not Jewish - never have been - keep your knife off my penis, thanks. (Not that I'd think any less of myself were I Jewish.)--Scott Mac 19:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC) stricken with apologies.--Scott Mac 21:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Are comments like these appropriate for the project and this board? --DavidAppletree (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, Scott MacDonald. That's an awfully Jewish name, isn't it? The WordsmithCommunicate 19:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This Caravan train account does not pass the WP:DUCK test, if you look at its edits. Enigmamsg 20:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean. It doesn't quack? Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It means I'm saying the account is a sockpuppet and should probably be blocked. Enigmamsg 21:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It is a bizarre comment out of left field from an account that's never edited here before, nor has this account edited any of the same articles Scott has during the two days of its existence (or the AfDs). I should AGF and say 'this is a new editor who doesn't understand our guidelines', but that would be hypocritical of me. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am finished with the Laura article. Period. Please see further comments on my talk page, where such comments belong in the first place, NOT on an article talk page, the newbie obviously does not know this[redacted]. Namaste. DocofSoc
  • Personal attack redacted. Cut that out. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsuccessfully tried to inject some humour. So yessir! Exalted Sarek ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait. A person is not allowed to remove personal attacks made against them? That's a first, as far as I'm concerned. And then a totally uninvolved person is not allowed to remove personal attacks made against somebody else? Since when? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
There was no personal attack. There was one or two words that two editors who were directly involved in the discussion thread construed as a personal attack - and deleted the entire otherwise useful comment as a result. And that has a rather a chilling effect on article discussions and isn't appropriate. Rklawton (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
If it feels like a personal attack and quacks like a personal attack...New user's comments were in no way valid or useful. Misconstrued and full of fallacious assumptions. As an admin, there should have been instruction to newbie, as I had requested, who had violated the 3RR by reverting what ended up being the final outcome, that I had done correctly in the first place. (clunky sentence, LOL) A 2 day newbie should not be editing locked articles. Mysterious to me. A deja vu nightmare, like SRQ was back.. I was totally surprised at the lack of support. Sigh...Fast forwardDocOfSoc (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I didn't support was deleting comments from a talk page. It's a talk page - there's rarely any need to edit out other people's comments on a talk page - especially comments that are on topic. Instructing, advising, warning the newbie are all fine. Removing a whole comment because one part of it may be questionable is not appropriate, especially when that removal is done by people personally involved in that threat. But I said that already in the restore summaries. Rklawton (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Being called racist is not a personal attack? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you want an administrator to do something here? Jehochman Talk 04:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
This might be a bit pedantic, but the comment was called racist, not the commentator. Hence the attack is on the comment, not the person.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it is a difference that is not essential. Calling somebody's comment racist is effectively calling them a racist. What admin action is requested here? Jehochman Talk 21:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anything is needed - it was a one off incident and the users involved ended up with various warnings. I redacted the racism remarks. It can probably be marked resolved --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 21:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility of Y (was Double Standard subsection)[edit]

Admin Y has admitted the referenced mistakes. Further discussion at this time seems counterproductive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 30 August 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.

  • note: I have changed this from a sub-heading of a resolved thread to a new section as per suggestion. I have not moved the discussion to the bottom for ease of those already involved in the issue.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Administrator Y calls someone an asshole and even threats the user to report him and all he gets is a warning. What's even more interesting is Y's edit was even reverted (as vandalism) by Toddst1 too. Hmmm. Double standard? Todd wasn't aware, ignore this. Tommy! [message] 23:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edit you are referring to but Y (talk · contribs) is not an administrator, and was properly warned for WP:CIVIL. If there have been further issues, I am not aware of them. Jerseykydd has had a recent WQA, recent EW block, recent edit wars and continued civility issues - significant disruption, hence a block. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Umm [35]DoRD (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't like starting problems, but when I see stuff like this it makes me a little annoyed. See Y's talk page for warning. Tommy! [message] 00:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I was not aware s/he was an admin. User rights does not show the change. I probably would have responded differently. In that case, perhaps further discussion about Y is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Well it seems like it's settled so I don't know if any further action is necessary. I was just pointing this out. Tommy! [message] 00:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Unless there's evidence of more than calling someone an asshole once, I don't see why this is worthy of more than a warning, admin or otherwise. The user above was not blocked for a single incident, and there was a good chance they would continue to be disruptive, hence the quite right block. It's a little more disappointing when an admin makes personal attacks perhaps, but there's no reason they should be blocked outright for something no other editor would be blocked for, especially given than blocks are preventative, not punitive, and the incident is unlikely to recur. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
What he said. I don't know the background with User:Y (though I agree that the language is unacceptable for anyone, no matter what was going on), but for me the clincher with User:Jerzeykydd was this recent evidence of similar behavior. A one off personal attack/violation of civility policy is bad; a habit of it is worse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
All valid. Thanks Tommy! [message] 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, you're all discussing this edit by Y, correct? SilverserenC 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Tommy! [message] 00:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This seems concerning... And am I wrong but is there quite a bit of mis-use of rollback going on as well? [36] [37] [38] [39] [40].   Thorncrag  00:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd lean no. I've reverted vandal edits like that, particularly POV pushers who've been warned. Some of those users are blocked too and the last diff, he used an edit summary which is okay. Tommy! [message] 00:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I dunno...this one is concerning to me. Yes, the About linked to a page that hasn't been made yet and we often don't want to do such a thing, but it is certainly not something you would use the rollback tool for. That's not its use. SilverserenC 00:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
None of the diffs I posted were blatant vandalism (the only acceptable use of rollback) and there was no edit summary justifying its use. Rollback is not permitted for POV-pushing either--at least not without a suitable edit summary.   Thorncrag  00:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I'd expand that with more along the lines: rollback should only be used on edits with bad intent (IAR)-- that's me, and it's worked out well. Anyways, Silverseren has a point with that one.. Although that is a red link. Rollback, no, but not constructive, although it was done in Good faith, I'd say. Tommy! [message] 00:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As has been pointed out before in terms of rollback, if you are using it to revert an edit, then it is automatically implied that the edit you are reverting was done in bad faith. Otherwise, you shouldn't be using rollback and should instead use a normal undo with an explanatory edit summary. Y's use of rollback in most, if not all, of the diffs given above are not on edits that have obvious bad faith. As Thorncrag said, POV pushing is, regardless, still not something you should be allowed to revert with rollback, as POV is inherently opinion based and not overt bad faith. SilverserenC 02:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll alert Y of this thread so he can comment. Already done I guess. Tommy! [message] 02:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey you guys - I wasn't really going to participate, but it seems that Tommy wants me to comment. Responding to Thorncrag's five diffs, the answers are as follows: #1 is technically improper, but substantively meaningless; #2 is correctly characterized as improper use of rollback, and ## 3, 4, and 5 are reverts of edits obviously made in bad faith. -- Y not? 02:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Technically improper" does not a rollback make. And I do not see how #4 is made in bad faith, unless there is some hidden history going on there. Making an About link to another (as of yet unmade) article is not a bad faith edit. (I do see #3 and #5 as things that would be proper for rollback). SilverserenC 02:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, #4 guy put up an attack bio of a competing candidate in the Florida Republican primary. He got deleted, rolled-back, and yelled at. -- Y not? 02:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If a rollback has to be explained after-the-fact, then an edit summary should have been used to justify its use. Plain and simple. WP:ROLLBACK.   Thorncrag  03:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't lecture me in this condescending a tone. -- Y not? 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC) is he lecturing you in a condescending tone across the internet? There's no tone, it's just words. SilverserenC 03:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you're really interested in my explanation. -- Y not? 03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
@Y: Given one's propensity towards incivility, I would think that one would not want to escalate a simple AN/I thread into more than it need be.   Thorncrag  03:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
One wouldn't, would one? I came here to courteously answer the questions you posed, against my better judgment and in violation of my solemn oath never to participate in any ANI threads - why am I now being threatened with having this thread "escalated"? I'm at a loss. Good night. -- Y not? 03:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As an administrator, you cannot take a "solemn oath" not to participate in noticeboard discussions. You are answerable to the community for any actions you take in whatever valid venue they are brought up in. If you disagree with this, you should consider turning in the mop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I am deeply concerned that an administrator would not be capable of taking suggestions posted about them on an AN/I thread into consideration without interpreting it as a "condescending tone"—even if they are from lowly editors. I am also deeply concerned that an administrator would essentially bait another editor with what is clearly uncivil behavior, by any reasonable standard. It is also deeply concerning that an administrator would demonstrate—what I understand to be—a clear misunderstanding of the usage of rollbacks, one who is charged with enforcing its correct usage from others. I am sure that I speak for everyone in saying that we appreciate your civil contributions to Wikipedia, but in the complete absence of any acknowledgement of wrongdoing, but only further rationalization and terse quips, you are making it difficult for us lowly people to just drop the issue.   Thorncrag  04:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

raising concern for another related incident I am participating in an AfD for the article anti-laser which was proposed by Y. I am concerned over Y's treatment of the AfD and the user who created it. I have voiced my opinion in AfD that the article be speedy kept due to sources, but what raised a flag for me is Y's tone. In the AfD Y clearly says that he/she has spoken with the creating editor on their talk page User talk:Chrisrus/Anti-laser, but I find no evidence of this. What found when exploring this was that Y spoke one line of "Dude - I already created the userspace page for you! Develop there!" at the talk page of Anti-laser and what Y DID do was dump the complete article to the editor's talk page with no further explanation of the issues raised with the article. Beyond that, a user's TALK PAGE is NOT where user space articles are typically created in the first place. This has prompted me to examine Y's contribs where I found this discussion. Maybe Y needs a wiki break? Y seems ill-advised of some rather key policies and is exhibiting behavior I feel is unfit for an administrator. I have not discussed anything with or spoken directly to Y on any of these issues and have never interacted with Y outside of this evening (to my knowledge).--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This should be marked as resolved - admins are allowed to be incivil and can "technically" misuse their tools. Nothing more to see here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Sarcasm is not helping. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Admins are allowed the same wiggle room of AGF as any editor, but incivility and misuse of tools should still be properly debated. With a picture forming of habitual misuse and incivility I would caution that such a debate not be closed before all points raised can be addressed as part of the whole.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree that some of the diffs here are somewhat concerning, including this one provided by Seb az86556 above. If an administrator's attitude is that it's acceptable to "deploy incivility from time to time", then that's certainly worth further discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
In a way, sarcasm isn't helping the discussion, but it might help some of us who can foresee the conclusion to this discussion; that being said, yeah, it might not have been appropriate, but I don't think it's as bad as "asshole" with the subsequent justification and snoppiness. FWIW, I apologize. Haven't seen any apology from Y yet though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a new subsection should be created below. I think it's somewhat misleading now to be discussing this in a section entitled "double standard", when it's been established that there wasn't a double standard here, and this is really a separate issue. It may in fact be worth starting a new AN/I thread for this user since this discussion is really piggybacking off a resolved thread about another editor. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is likely no action that will be taken, but I would like to see some hint that Y understands admin powers are not a license for incivility, POV pushing, or liberal use of rollback and that continuing this behavior and possibly escalating it can hurt the project and substantiate proceedings for action against him for abuse. I would be very satisfied with seeing a little reflection or understanding that the issues presented here are real and not to be taken lightly. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that admin powers are not a license for incivility, and I do understand that I use rollback more liberally than most of you would like (though honestly a revert is a revert and should be judged as proper or improper independently of the mechanism used). I had nothing to do with POV pushing. I'm guilty of an improper revert on Jeannette Rankin and I did call that user an asshole while under the influence of anger on account of his pattern of behavior. Is this the acknowledgment you seek? Would this be as big a deal if I weren't a sysop? And where's the lynchmob calling for a block on Jojhutton (talk · contribs) for his six reverts on Jeannette Rankin? -- Y not? 14:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Speaking of the "other editor": if Jerzeykydd is blocked for three weeks for this[41] (the two other diffs are not "demonstrative" of anything as they are), and Y himself brings this up as "harsh"[42] - it becomes about Y? We know what Y said. His comment is why this thread has been "expanded", and it certainly should be moved to an unresolved thread... Doc9871 (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    By suggesting that there is a "double standard", the section creator was suggesting that Toddst1 was at fault, which I believe has been disproved now. Any continued conversation about Y's actions, as opposed to Toddst1's actions, should take place in a new thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If some diffs (rather than general accusations of misconduct) showing a "pattern of incivility" by Y aren't provided by the accusers, and a proposed outcome for this thread isn't put forth: I'll bet I can guess where this is going. This is still a "piggyback thread", IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Y should take everything in this thread under advisement and post a note saying s/he has done so. If that happens I don't think further action is needed unless the problem recurs. We're all supposed to be civil at all times but an occasional slip or a patch of bad judgment is pretty far down on the list of situations calling for protracted drama. Y, please try to do better in the future. (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Redacted my previous statements. Y added to the user's talk space, but not talk page. I stand corrected, but still strongly disagree his/her stance on incivility and tool use.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I really think this has been pushed too far. I belive in WP:IGNORE, which is a policy vs. WP:ROLLBACK, which is a guideline..Policy has more precedence than a guideline. For the love of god, Huggle's own interface allows users to revert and then choose a specified warning. The only revert I see a little, and only a little, troubling is Silvers's concerning diff he pointed out. But again, as a I said, it was a red link. I think we're making a bit much out of this, honestly. This is about Y's (outburst) of incivility. Tommy! [message] 12:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I recommend having this thread closed and I hope Y feels admonished for that comment; it was way out of line. As far as rollback use, see comment above. Tommy! [message] 12:55, 30 August 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.

Concerns about userpage User:Ivan Ješík[edit]

The above user page contains detailed information that could conceivably be used for identity theft or fraud against the user. Does Wikipedia have regulations about this if the user voluntarily posts the info? Quasihuman (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. It looks like they tried to create an article on themselves and, when it was deleted, have simply bumped a hell of a lot of personal details into the user page. Given that we cannot confirm if this person is who he is claiming to be I think it should be deleted ASAP --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Cut n dried WP:NOTFACEBOOK, user has never touched a page other than his own. Toss it. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe, uh, ask him nicely to consider removing that sort of info from his userpage before taking it to ANI? I agree with Tarc, though, 1300 userspace edits and 0 mainspace means a lack of understanding about Wikipedia's purpose. fetch·comms 15:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
He has been asked to remove it, see his talk page. Given the presence of bank account numbers and copies of personal documents such as birth cert etc., I think this should be deleted (along with the history). We simply cannot know whether he is who he claims to be. It is hard to conceive of someone being so careless as to post that kind of info. Quasihuman (talk)
I've left a note on Anthony Bradbury's talk page (who warned him on his talk page) asking for a clarification of WP:NOTMYSPACE, item 1. In my opinion, this gives us the license to remove that information. The user has made 1,306 edits, five of which are deleted (probably to Ivan Ješík), and the rest is all on his user page (well, 0.54% is to his talk page). The guy lists who he's borrowed money from, his car accidents--and the section User:Ivan_Ješík#Relax, is that about when he had sex? (That's what "relax" often means in the old world). Seriously, this is ridiculous and makes a mockery of the project. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I've blanked the page and created a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ivan Ješík, which is a more appropriate venue than ANI for discussing the deletion of a userpage. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
As I've noted there, I've deleted the article and restored it without the history. I'm wondering if a block is in order, though. Every single one of his edits has been to his userpage, barring a tiny number to his talk page. All his deleted edits are from him move-warring with admins over trying to put his userpage in the mainspace. The guy is obviously not here to help the encyclopaedia.