Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Sfan00_IMG Again[edit]

i) It seems that whenever I make attempts to 'help' clear image backlogs, I manage to cause any number of complaints, most recently.

It would be much appreciated if the administrators here ( which would have to perform the relevant media deletion) could provide additional commentary either way on the issues raised above.

ii) At the moment I'm in the process of reviewing the most recent-batch of tags (for no-license), and I'm finding some that could be rescued. I'd therefore like to suggest that in time CSD is deprecated in favour of a PUF system, so that there is an appropriate disscussion process for ANY media deletion.

iii) Once the current review is completed, consideration is given to some kind of limitations concerning User:Sfan00_IMG on the grounds that the linked items appear to show that I'm either repeatedly misunderstanding things, or as stated lacking in competence or qualification to carry out something that should be simple to do like checking images. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take part in the RFC. It's not a witchhunt, and if it looks like one that would be my fault, not yours, as it shouldn't be turned into that. Your efforts are valuable and should be valued, even if other editors, myself included, sometimes forget this. NFCC cleanup is a task that needs doing and few want to do, and your efforts here are useful to the project. There are issues about some collateral impact, but this doesn't change the basic value of maintaining NFCC, the only issue is how best to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
How does one create an RFC against another editor and then try to claim that it's not an attempt to have action taken against the other person? If you really mean that, then close the RFC. Corvus cornixtalk 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a Request For Comment, not WP:LYNCHMOB. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ya, keep telling yourself that dingley. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
But you're asking for a user's behavior to change, then claim it's about process, not about the user. Corvus cornixtalk 23:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversial move made without discussion[edit]

Could an admin move Chicago Fire SC back to Chicago Fire (soccer) and lock the page from moves so that a proper move discussion can be had? 3bulletproof16 just moved the page without discussion and then made null edits to the original page so that the change could not be undone. The move is clearly controversial considering the very first section of the talk page consists of multiple page move requests and should not have been done without a proper discussion. 3bulletproof16 clearly knew the move was controversial or else he wouldn't have made the null edits to prevent it from being undone. I've notified 3bulletproof16 of this discussion. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he moved Chicago Fire S.C. to Chicago Fire SC -- it hasn't been at Chicago Fire (soccer) since August, which was one of the move requests you mention at the top of the page.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Argh. Sorry about that. Long day. I'll walk away with my head in shame. ;) --Bobblehead (rants) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The move does not seem that controversial, but I do dispise movers locking reverts by actions like this. For that reason alone I am tempted to move it back. EdokterTalk 22:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the redirect, then restored it minus the move-blocking revision. Seemed like G6 applied. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I forgot the simplest things... EdokterTalk 22:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Coming from WP:FOOTBALL, I'd confirm that the move is controversial, the use of punctuation in association football team article names is quite a sore topic. This should be reverted and go to WP:RM. GiantSnowman 22:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I misread the chain of events in my watchlist. He moved from Chicago Fire S.C. to Chicago Fire SC then made the null edits to Chicago Fire S.C. and Talk:Chicago Fire (soccer) to prevent moves to those articles, but as Giant said, the use of punctuation or not is controversial. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually as SarekOfVulcan noted, the page move from Chicago Fire (soccer) to Chicago Fire S.C. had occured in late August I believe apparently per this discussion I was never involved in that process. However later in November the page was moved to Chicago Fire SC per WP:NAME following the precedent set by other similarly named articles.[1] I just simply moved it back. I really couldn't care less if the page is moved to Chicago Fire (soccer) so I'll leave that up to you and this discussion. --UnquestionableTruth-- 01:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As a quick follow up, looking through I can't find any instance where any initials are used. --UnquestionableTruth-- 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Could somebody knowledgeable have a look at CyberDefender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There are a lot of bad edits in its history, and an extensive edit war, where criticisms are being added and deleted. Corvus cornixtalk 03:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was either uncited promotion or unreliably-cited attack page, depending on which revision you looked at, so I speedied it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo yet again...[edit]

Resolved: No admin action required at this time. 28bytes (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so the last time we discussed this guy (see here), we were kind of hinting that HW may be headed for a block. So guess what happens? Twice in the last half hour, he has called me "incompetent" in so many words and demanded that I "stop wasting [his] time[…] with your latest manufactured drama". Between those and this recent edit where he called me incompetent and inaccurate. His repeated attacks on me have gone way too far. Several of them can be found here, copypasted from the last ANI:

  • Unwelcome and rude (admittedly, he's right on this one)
  • Unwelcome and unwelcome — he told me "read the edit summaries" which in no way explained how he thought the sources in question were acceptable
  • paranoid ranting
  • Unwelcome ranting after I pointed out that he seems to stalk me at AFD and !vote "speedy close" on lots of things I nominate
  • unwelcome ranting after I politely asked why he undid one of my redirects, and then followed it up with an equally polite explanation that I had made a mistake that time. I also politely asked why he never discusses anything with me, and he still bulldozed it.
  • unwelcome, also stemming from my redirection of a very short article, which he undid without any sort of discussion
  • unwelcome, admittedly this one was a bit uncivil on my part
  • Unwelcome, gross exaggerated after I kinda snapped at him for seemingly wikistalking me and calling all my redirects "disruptive"
  • "You are no longer welcome to post on my talk page" after someone politely asked him to archive his ginormous talk page; the same editor tried to instigate an unrelated discussion about IMDb but HW bulldozed their edits and called the user rude.
  • "Unwanted" after another user acted in good faith and archived his talk page (which, for the record, is 465 KB)

KWW was implying that HW would be blocked if he continues to attack me ("if you keep going the way you are going, I think it is pretty likely that you are going to see multiple blocks in your future as well."). Repeatedly calling me incompetent and paranoid is obvious attacking. I have no idea why he continues to do this when I've finally become much more civil with him, but an attack is an attack. There is no way this is not a breach of WP:CIVIL (not to mention that in one of the two most recent diffs, he refactored my comments on his talk page). All we do about this guy is talk in circles and get absolutely nowhere with him. I thought he crossed the line last time, but this time he's showing for certain that he has no intentions of stopping his incivility towards me. Surely he must deserve a block for this one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How many times does Hullaballoo have to ask you to stop engaging on his talk page before you listen? He is already engaging with you on the AfD, why do you require he do so on his talk page as well? 28bytes (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
At least he's talking to me this time instead of slamming the undo button. The main issue isn't his talk page; it's his repeated incivility towards me even when I try to be nice. And that AFD had nothing to do with his last outburst. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec x 2) TPH, you edit-warred to restore a speedy-deletion tag, not just with HW but also with an admin. That is not okay, and you've been warned about that kind of behaviour in the past. Might you take a step back? You're generally an excellent editor, but I'm concerned you are perhaps experiencing some burnout. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Which is why I stepped away from the article after HW undid me instead of carrying on the edit-war. Still, give me one reason why HW should not be blocked for all the insults he's fired at me, even when I've tried to hold a civilized discussion with him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, I agree he should not have restored your original comments to his talk page after you refactored them, although I'll AGF that he had composed his reply and was about to post it before you refactored them. But would you be willing to just stay off his talk page entirely? Seems like that would solve the problem. He's willing to engage you in discussion on the AfDs themselves, that seems like that should be sufficient, no? 28bytes (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
He's insulted me at AFD too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Which comment specifically? 28bytes (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of The Velvet Underground: The Millennium Collection —"despite the nominator's palpably false assertions" and "as would be evident to any reasonable editor acting in good faith" (result was no consensus)
  • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Howard_Perdew_(3rd_nomination) — "Once again, the nominator hasn't done a minimally competent job of Google searching[…]Once again, the reason the nom can't find sources seems to be that he isn't bothering to look" (article was deleted, FWIW)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezra Edelman "speedy close, trout slap the nominator for acute and chronic noncompliance with WP:BEFORE" (For the record, HBO Sports was redlinked when I found the article.)
  • In short, he's stalked me at several AFDs just to scream "speedy keep, nominator can't use Google and is clearly incompetent" or words to that effect. He flings accusations of bad faith left and right when I've never done a single thing in bad faith in the 5 years I've been here. The Howard Perdew one is particularly egregious since other editors later pointed out that HW's findings were not good sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything in those AfD discussions that I'd call an attack, although I do see some obvious frustration that these nominations were made without due diligence. I'm sure it's irritating when HW shows up at an AfD you've initiated and points that out, but it seems like one good way to avoid that would be to actually do some diligence before posting the nominations. I can sympathize with why you want to get rid of some of these articles; sometimes the sourcing is quite terrible and the articles are tiny, ugly stubs... But if you don't put in the basic research to determine whether the subject itself is notable (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ezra Edelman, where the subject won some Emmys), then you're going to have to expect the nominations to get opposed on that basis from time to time. 28bytes (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflicted) 28bytes, you're the one who needs to step back on this one. Were that simply the case, then HW would show up at all AfD discussions, some of which are patently weaker than those mentioned, and throw out the same insults, which I find offensive, and I'm not the one being insulted. Do you have a dog in this fight?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Do I have a dog in this fight? You tell me. Honestly, I think TPH and HW both do a great deal of good work here, and I don't want to see either of them blocked. If you can suggest a better way to avoid that than what I've suggested, go for it. 28bytes (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflicted again) Really, TPH, take a step back. I can't see this ending with the result you are hoping for. It is true that HW often does not phrase things in kind ways, but you have also acknowledged that you have not always behaved angelically towards him either. With this particular case, you edit-warred to restore a db-hoax tag, which, to be perfectly blunt, some people might see as behaving in bad faith, especially considering your past warnings. Now you come to ANI and misquote him. Despite what you said, he did not call you "incompetent". He made some comments about "competence" being "expected", which is a little overly provocative, yes, but your behaviour was what many might see as showing less than ideal competence ([2], [3], [4]), especially for such an experienced editor. You're also accusing him of "stalking" you at AfDs, which I think perhaps you should strike. Again, sorry to be so blunt with you. Clearly the two of you frustrate one another, and I know that what I'm now telling you is unlikely to reduce your frustration. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
How about an interaction ban, especially preventing HW from commenting on AfDs that TPH has started? Corvus cornixtalk 05:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
YES YES YES. Please instate this now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering his comments in one of the above AFD's clearly saved a notable article from being deleted it should be easy to see why this is a horrible idea. Ridernyc (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea. It wouldn't have helped in this particular case, as HW had not even commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Fisheva at the time that TPH brought this ANI report. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the behaviour I am willing to block HW on here is refusal to discuss his edits. Can someone show me a pointer to HW again refusing to discuss his edits? If so, I'll block. If not, I probably won't.—Kww(talk) 05:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

None of that since the last ANI but surely the gross incivility is enough to block this time? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
How is a two year history of calling me incompetent not blockable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
That's an extreme oversimplification; and I've explained above why this particular incident ought not to result in a block of HW. If he's refusing to discuss his edits, then I agree with Kww. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You know what, Paul Erik is right. Disregard my push to have him blocked. I've done just as much stupid shit if not moreso. HW may be a little caustic, but not worthy of a block. Disregard disregard disregard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
He is getting on your nerves, that's all. If you avoid him for a while, that would be best. --Diannaa (Talk) 07:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback[edit]

Just a note - I'd be really, really appreciative if administrators in a content dispute didn't show up on my talk page making vague threats without evidence, despite requests. And a side note - I'm willingly hands-off all the Sarah Palin articles (I've tried to help with them since before this insanity) but it would be super-duper awesome if, at the very least, ONE SINGLE ADMIN would step up to deal with issues at these articles. It would be hard to find a bigger nest of BLP violations and POV-pushing. Kelly hi! 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been a bit baffled by Will and his recent actions surrounding the Palin articles, but his "warning" Kelly and then responding that a request for a "careful" explanation of his reasoning would be accompanied by "formal" action is beyond inappropriate for an involved administrator, let alone relating to an article subject to probation. The Palin articles are regularly subject to anonymous and single-purpose drive-by pov-pushing, and the editors (from both "sides" — or no particular side — of the political spectrum) that do their best to try to ensure the end result is neutral and reliably sourced deserve a tad bit better than careless accusations and threats from an administrator that ought to know better. (I've left Will a note regarding this discussion.) jæs (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
warning you that you are making a lot of reverts i did not realize there was a limit? approaching the 3RR limit, should we lower it to 2 reverts? Will would you consider a voluntary break from this topic? after reviewing your contributions, i am concerned there is a chance you are pushing a pov. the best/easiest solution to this issue, is maybe if you refrain from engaging this topic. i think the amount of time of your absence should be decided by you. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be happy to join the other contributors in this thread in a break from the Palin articles. However I don't see what POV pushing you might be alluding to. Could you please provide diffs that show a pattern of POV pushing behavior on Palin-related articles?   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, Sarah Palin articles draw a lot of attention, and a lot of that attention is detrimental. She is constantly in the spotlight, and makes news seemingly almost every day. So, unfortunately, the obvious solution - full lockdown of the article - is not possible. The only alternative in a case like that is for a small number of BLP defenders, such as Kelly, to stand up to the constant flow of editors who want to post every freakin' negative thing they can get their hands on, in defiance of any article probation and of the BLP rules. Keep in mind that BLP matters are of paramount importance to the wikipedia owners, much more so than concerns about edit-warring and the like. The fact that Palin is a media lightning-rod does not exempt her article here from the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think admins like Will Beback are an asset to wp - the detractors above hypocritical, worthless POV pushers. Sayerslle (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Or, howabout that reasonable people can still disagree and come into conflict, and there's no need to demonize either side in any dispute, especially not with baseless, rude personal attacks as you just did... --Jayron32 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe Sayerslle was referring to the "toxic authoritarian Right," which is apparently how he defines any editor who does not agree with him on the content that he wants or believes must be inserted into the Palin article(s). This would be a good dime a dozen example of why users like Kelly are pretty damned invaluable, and pretty difficult to come by at the various Palin articles — and a good demonstration of why Will being careless in his accusations in the midst of a content dispute (and stifling any questions about his behaviour with threat of "formal" action) is a very bad thing. jæs (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I've never before been accused of being a TAR baby. It almost makes me regret having voted for Obama. :) You're right, Kelly is vital to trying to keep political articles neutral, and has kept this up valiantly while many of us long ago gave up on trying to fight the mongrel hordes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Mongrel hordes? Buster Seven Talk 06:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the first and most important steps in dispute resolution is to raise the concern with the editor. See WP:DR#Discuss with the other party. I have made no threats, vague or otherwise. My post was to raise a concern that Kelly is perhaps exhibiting signs of ownership of Palin-related articles. I don't believe I'm the first editor to do so. I do not suggest that any sanctions or remedies be imposed on Kelly. Rather, I was trying to give a heads-up to avoid anything like that happening. If Kelly would like to have other editors or admins help by taking up the slack in watching the Palin articles, then picking fights with or reverting those who show up won't encourage more participation. Further, I believe that Kelly's editing has tended to promote a pro-Palin POV, and to minimize other POVs. While I think everyone endorses vigorous enforcement of BLP, BLP does not require or sanction the routine deletion of negative material which is properly source, relevant, and necessary for NPOV. To avoid ownership concerns, it would help if Kelly could be more accepting of edits that don't breach BLP, but which don't fit Kelly's POV about the topic either.   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"I have made no threats, vague or otherwise." I don't know how else to define the response you gave when Kelly asked you to provide evidence of your accusations: "If you like, I can make a more careful evaluation, but if I do that then it would no longer be an informal warning."[5] Not only is that a pretty clear threat, but it sounds like a veiled threat of administrative action. Given your heavy involvement in several content disputes at various Palin-related articles, tossing around threats of "formal" action is highly questionable, let alone when someone is asking you — in good faith — to explain an accusation that several other editors here also believe to have been uncalled for, no? jæs (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I see no justification for bringing this complaint, based on my own review of the edits that Will was responding to. For example, your removal of the url in the ref for the After Health Vote, Threats on Democrats NY Times story at seems to me enough of a red flag all by itself to support Will's polite expression of concern on your talk page, even without consideration of your other edits. Regardless of anyone's view on this, though, a moment's reflection will make it obvious to any experienced editor that there's no action that's going to be taken against anyone on the basis of this thread, so I'd respectfully suggest we close it and all move on to more productive activities. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

how long does a through review of the article history take one? perhaps less time than it took to write this. i just did and could not find anything of note. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the diff, I would doubt that was an intentional "removal." God knows I'm still terrible at remembering the proper format for cites, and frequently copy, cut, and paste from other live edit areas. Since Kelly was adding several other references in that same edit, that seems like a plausible, good faith editing error to me. Kelly did not remove the reference, and I'd hardly call the edit, otherwise a productive one, a "red flag." The threat of administrative action by an involved administrator, however, is a very big red flag. jæs (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As a related aside, I really don't know what's going on with Will, but I'm beginning to seriously question his editing and tactics at the Palin-related articles. jæs (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised by other editors over Will Beback's treatment of BLP articles. So, this instance isn't the first time. In my opinion, he might need to stay away from BLP articles for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been no serious accusation of any BLP violations on my part, here or in any other context. Please don't make unsupported accusations. Doing so repeatedly is a form of harassment.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, I don't see Cla68 alleging BLP violations on your part. I don't remember ever hearing anyone else make such a claim either. He instead seems to be saying that your approach to managing issues related to BLP articles is less than optimal (despite your good intentions) in other sorts of ways. I've felt the same way at times and might leave a note on your talk page sometime if you want to discuss it. (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If he is sincerely suggesting that is an acceptable reliable source, no less for an article subject to wp:blp, then I have to agree. jæs (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I made any such suggestion. Instead, I was asking for more information. Please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't assume anything other than good faith. You said: "In general, sources from big companies [like TPM] are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors." jæs (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, here's what I wrote:
  • I'm not sure what aspect of TPM you're asserting makes it unreliable. In general, sources from big companies are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors. OTOH, gossip rags like the National Enquirer have a bad reputation and are not accepted despite having a large editorial staff. Could you clarify the nature of your objection?[6]
I wrote that after looking at the WP:RSN and failing to find any recent discussion of TPM, a source I'm not familiar with. If asking for more information about a vague objection is a violation then I'd like to see the rule on that. The person who posted the original question, of whether TPM was reliable or not, never responded.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Talking Points Memo is a news/commentary blog with professional editors and reporters, that has received significant recogition for its journalistic work.[7] As such, its views should be represented as a POV source under WP:NPOV, maybe about the same way as which sometimes gets brought up. Jaes is coming across as slightly tendentious in this discussion about it. (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The blog self-describes itself as: "Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective..." which does not make it a reliable source for our purposes, like any of the many other right-leaning or left-leaning blogs that add their opinions into the mix. I don't know how to put that any other way. jæs (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Jaes, do you understand of Wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view? Quote: "This page in a nutshell: Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." Are you saying the right-leaning and left-leaning points of view are insignificant? That is silly. WP:RS says "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." It doesn't have exclusions for being right- or left-leaning. We have tons of stuff sourced to the Wall Street Journal, whose news reporting is generally considered pretty reliable, even though it is very right-leaning editorially. What remains is the assessment of due weight according to the significance of the point of view being expressed. Secondary sources for significance like the NYT article about TPM, the Columbia Journalism Review about other outlets, etc. are also helpful. We don't exclude sources just because they're right- or left-leaning. (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss TPM. Suffice it to say that its reliability is open to question and that I engaged in the discussion without ever suggesting that it was or was not reliable. In my following comment I discovered that it was being used as a source for a frequently quoted line from Giffords which is repeated in many sources.[8] So the whole thing was a dispute over nothing. The original questioner could have simply searched on Google and fixed it in 2 minutes instead of starting an unhelpful thread. Maybe some folks just prefer the more dramatic route.   Will Beback  talk  11:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
some folks just prefer the more dramatic route will, i am concerned you aren't getting the point. instead of resolving this issue with a volentary withdraw for a short time, or acknowledging what you are doing to agitate other editors, you respond with accusations, and other unhelpful words. the main gaol here is to resolve the problem, are you willing to make a step forward to end this? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That comment is in reference to asking about TPM as a reliable source instead of just finding another source.
I'm not "getting the point" because no one here has shown any problem with my editing. That said, as I offere4d before, I'd be happy to join the rest of the contributors to this thread in taking a break from Palin-related articles.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
this is not a negotiation will, we are discussing your behavior and the negative effects it has had on others in wp. i am happy you are willing to take a short break, but do not make your withdraw conditional on the actions of others. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly's editing[edit]

Claim that Kelly "may be approaching the 3RR limit"[edit]

Kelly is complaining that I warned her about ownership and 3RR. Here are four reverts to one article in just over 24 hours. None of the reverted material appears to breach BLP clearly or be obvious vandalism, nor does she make any BLP or vandalism claim in her edit summaries.

  1. 01:08, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Approach to campaigning */ expand, rework some existing language for NPOV")
  2. 12:51, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Use of martial language */ rm Twitter link per WP:PRIMARY")
  3. 21:42, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Health care */ rm misleading quote")
  4. 01:40, 13 January 2011 (edit summary: "/* Response to the 2010 health care bill */ fixing tenses and grammar, removing [who?] (the sources say who, and we really don't need to expand this)")

I'm not saying Kelly violated WP:3RR. I warned her that she seemed to be making a lot of reverts and also said that I was not interested in pursuing it. "I haven't counted, but you may be approaching the 3RR limit." Rather than saying something like, "Thanks, I'll be more careful", she responded by accusing me of accusing her of violating 3RR and demanded proof. Since I wasn't "pressing charges" and was only making an informal request, I didn't see the need to do so. She went on to write, "Accusations of 3RR and "repeatedly removing sourced material" - evidence, now, please, or retract."[9] So here's evidence of her possibly approaching the 3RR limit. There are more diffs available for deletions of sourced, relevant, and neutral material from this and other Palin-related articles if she wants to make a bigger case out of this now. Kelly is to be commended for deleting BLP violations from Palin-related articles, but a different standard applies for non-BLP violations. This is not a formal complaint, and I would not have brought it here. I raised it on Kelly's page as informal advice. I hope it won't come up again.   Will Beback  talk  10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. #1 looks like adding material? Is #2 a revert? Certainly it is a good solid removal. #3 is also a good removal. #4 looks an excellent POV removal. One thing to remember is the spirit of reversion - I don't see constant reverting of the same material. I see an active editor on a highly active article making good content choices. It might be worth checking Wikipedia:OWN#Ownership_and_stewardship before making comments on ownership. --Errant (chat!) 10:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) At least two of those edits are clearly not reverts, with at least one of the other two being quite appropriate per wp:blp. jæs (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If one editor adds a {who} tag,[10] and then another editor removes it, that's a revert.[11] There's no BLP reason for that.   Will Beback  talk  10:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
That seems a strawman, no BLP was claimed. But reasonable rationale was given for the removal, and under WP:BRD nothing is wrong with that process. The next step is to discuss the problem on the talk page. --Errant (chat!) 10:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no exception to 3RR for deleting clean-up tags. But notice the main change that Kelly made:
Does anyone think that deleting all mention of 2011 Tucson shootings and Giffords' concerns from a section discussing of the now-famous map is a neutral edit which corrects a clear BLP violation? Further, she doesn't even allude to this significant deletion in her edit summary, which is misleading.   Will Beback  talk  10:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a little misleading, Will, if you cut off half of the actual sentence, which provides much more context than you were indicating: "Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a national midterm election map on Sarah Palin's campaign webpage denoting targeted congressional seats including Giffords'." The shootings are already mentioned or linked three other times in the article, and wp:undue is a wp:blp issue. jæs (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a significant difference in implication between "expressed concerns about" and "commented on". After than edit,[12] the 2011 Tucson shootings article was not linked to at all from that section or anywhere else in the article. The section in question was discussing the map and Palin's rhetoric. Kelly has put effort into deleting the map and the all examples of rhetoric from the project. That's not neutral editing.   Will Beback  talk  11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I;d have removed it to, pure POV pushing synth nonsense. --Errant (chat!) 11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. There was considerable criticism of Palin for the map and rhetoric prior to January 2011. Removing the assertion that Gabrielle Giffords expressed public concerned about being placed in a crosshairs is not "synth nonsense" - it's history. Other people also warned that Palin's language might lead to violence. It really happened. Notice that we're not even talking about adding this to the Palin biography - this is buried in an obscure sub-article. It's hard to say that a paragraph on the matter is undue weight, considering it's been all over the news for days. If anything, the matter is probably receiving far too little space in proportion to its notability in her political life.   Will Beback  talk  11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In that context it was pushing the idea that Gifford made those comments (pre-shooting!) and then was later shot. That is inappropriate and not overly neutral. Looking at the article, that has it the correct, chronological way, i.e. Gifford made this criticism, then was shot, then the media picked up on it and made a tenuous link. Certainly such material is not due in the Palin top level article, only recent ism indicated that. It's hard to say that a paragraph on the matter is undue weight; If I had said that, you would be right to criticise. But I definitely did not... I was commenting on that specific removal of text. *shrug* --Errant (chat!) 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Errant, I'm not sure where you get your news but the link between Giffords' 2010 comments and the shooting was not invented by Wikipedia editors.[13] It may be original research by the media, but the article in question is about media coverage of Palin so media speculation is relevant.   Will Beback  talk  11:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm I am talking about the single diff you provided which removed part of a sentence that was a POV push. I really do not know how much more clear I can explain that :P But I will try; the sentence which was removed by Kelly presented the facts of the matter in a way which pushed a point of view and was entirely inappropriate --Errant (chat!) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not agree with this statement. The sentence does not, to me, present a point of view at all. It is correct that this edit removed the only link to the TS page. Further, the existing Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Campaign_imagery section's second paragraph, the "after the shooting" bit, reads to me as highly biased. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The sentence does not, to me, present a point of view at all.; tyhe thing that would have concerned be about it is that Giffords comments were made way before her being shot. So throwing that statement into the middle of the valid sentence is, I feel, definitely pushing a point :) Now, the fact that Kelly did not then re-introduce the content at the right place is potentially a problem, but unpicking the history is a mess and I can't pin down a reason why that was not done. It is correct that this edit removed the only link to the TS page; agreed, and it should have gone back as better content - as it now has done. Further, the existing Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Campaign_imagery section's second paragraph, the "after the shooting" bit, reads to me as highly biased.; I'd probably agree there. But once again, I am not commenting on that at all here ;) --Errant (chat!) 12:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Since we cordially disagree, can we agree then that the removal of that sentence is not an unambiguous "BLP edit"? As there is tenable difference of opinion between reasonable editors? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, absolutely. There was no BLP issue --Errant (chat!) 13:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Biased editing concerns[edit]

My concern about ownership is that it looks like Kelly has a POV regarding the subject. These are her significant recent edits to Public image of Sarah Palin:

Every one of those edits, except the last, either added what could be considered positive material or deleted what could be considered negative material, all of which was sourced. None of them correct clear BLP violations. Several of them include inaccurate or incomplete edit summaries, or even inaccurate material. It's not my intention to make a full blown RfC out of this. But since Kelly has complained that I didn't provide evidence and diffs, there they are.   Will Beback  talk  11:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It all looks fine, a normal part of the editing of a highly active article. This is what happens on active and contentious articles. Accusing of a POV on such tentative grounds is not really a good faith accusation; Will, we've edited together in the past and got on, but I think you are wrong here. Palin is always going to be a seriously difficult subject to edit and I think Kelly is helping rather than hindering. --Errant (chat!) 11:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As an addendum, looking at 2011 Tucson shooting, Kelly's work to resist the temptation to insert a lot of content about a media conspiracy theory is commendable. --Errant (chat!) 11:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kelly's POV is WP:BLP and this is exceedingly clear when one looks at your "examples" of reverts. In fact, it is against WP:BLP to allow some of those claims to be in any BLP, even if the person were the most evil person on earth. Other examples are simply establishing further proper context for claims made in a BLP - which is also fully proper. I recall editing an article on a despicable person with you where you felt it was "proper" to include a press release from the government saying a person could get a gigantic sentence (- and where the actual sentence was 30 months. [14], [15], [16], [17] all indicating a particular attitude towards the biographies of such despicable people. My only goal is proper and vigourous enforcement of WP:BLP and it appears to be essentially true of Kelly as well. By the way, all articles relating to a living person are fully subject to WP:BLP - "a different standard applies for non-BLP violations" is a simple misstatement about such. Collect (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Kelly's POV is WP:BLP... Oh? Kelly showed how deeply she cares about keeping tabloid accusations out of articles about living politicians by writing John Edwards extramarital affair from scratch.   Will Beback  talk  13:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Here she insists on using AccessHollywood and TMZ as sources to add material to the biography of the mistress of another Democratic politician.[18][19][20][21] Here she is urging its expansion.[22] It looks rather like her approach to BLPs depends on the political affiliation of the subject. If they're Republican then any controversial material must be excluded. If they're Democrats then pile on the sleeze.   Will Beback  talk  13:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, I was involved with those articles years ago when I was still fairly new. I hadn't looked at them in a long time, but they seem to have stood virtually unchanged since then. If you think there's a problem with their neutrality or sourcing, go tag them up. Kelly hi! 15:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You created an articles about two mistresses of Democratic politicians, using gossip-type sources. Every detail of the scandals given in detail. John Edwards extramarital affair is over 3700 words long. And you don't see anything in the current iterations of those articles, to which you were the first or second most prolific contributor,[23][24] that you'd change today? Is that right? Yet even 160 words on the association of Palin's rhetoric to the Tuscon shooting is apparently too much weight in your view. That seems skewed to me.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes it seems like there is a political divide within Wikipedia, of which Sarah Palin is one of the boundary markers.
Which claims are you talking about? Could you be specific.
As for my edits to Bill White (neo-Nazi), I don't think I've even come close to breaching WP:BLP, despite editing that very difficult article for years, including with the participation of the subject. If you'd like to discuss my editing, let's do it at #Will Beback, above.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll look at Will's diffs and Kelly's other edits in more detail tomorrow if this thread is still active, but his criticism of Kelly's editing looks convincing to me on a quick examination. 12:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
I'm building up this section as I look this over, but so far:
  • On this provided diffs: While I have not as yet seen the entirety of Kelly's edits to the page, the set provided by Will appear on the surface to represented biased editing. I'm concerned enough to go and look further, and am quite surprised at the responses.
  • Looking over the discussion at Talk:Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin#Criticism.3F, while I have not seen all of Kelly's comments, those in this section read as biased to me. There she's asking for sources that not only say that the criticism existed, but that this criticism was correct.
  • I am unable to see the four diffs provided higher up as reverts.
    Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a truism that you shouldn't be able to detect an editors POV through their edits. I think in some of the diffs here, Kelly's POV is fairly clear. And in some cases using BLP as a shield. Just my opinion...RxS (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting point, but not necessarily true. An unbiased editor editing a heavily biased article might well make edits solely in support of one side of the debate, simply to redress the balance. Taken in isolation, their edits might seem POV, whereas infact they were not. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but just worth remembering that biased edits do not have to imply a biased editor.--KorruskiTalk 14:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is the case here. I normally don't edit those articles at all, and I certainly don't, on my own initiative, add praise or puffery to Palin articles. I'm pretty sure that normally the only times I add anything to those articles is to present the other point of view for NPOV. Strangely, it seems many/most of the editors who insist that material appearing in RS's MUST appear in the biography, never seem to include or argue on behalf of RS material that is neutral or positive toward the article subject. Kelly hi! 14:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I normally don't edit those articles at all, and I certainly don't, on my own initiative, add praise or puffery to Palin articles.

I believe that's a misstatement. The Palin articles, and other conservative causes and politicians, are at the top of Kelly's contribution list, aside from the articles about Democratic scandals. Here's a list of the top 16 articles edited:

Here are the top 16 talk pages:

Her contributions show Kelly tends to get involved in highly polarized political articles. Her editing of Public image of Sarah Palin shows a tendency to add positive material and delete negative material, which is not neutral editing. Wikipedia has plenty of similar POV pushers, from all sides of the political spectrum. The issue is that Kelly may have been seen as a neutral protector of politicians' bios, and that does not appear to be the case in actual fact. Kelly is a partisan. If she'd stop being so quick to remove other POVs from Palin-related articles that wouldn't be a problem, but I think she has confused negative POV about Palin with BLP violations. Not all negative material on Palin violates BLP.   Will Beback  talk  21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This sort of "guilt by association" is not proof, frankly, for your allegations. You tried with diffs above, which a number of editors here found indicated no significant evidence of "partisan" editing. So now you're producing an edit analysis that seems to indicate Kelly has a predisposition to edit — I'd argue relatively productively for this project — conservative articles?
I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm a member of the Democratic Party (of the United States) and the Liberal Party of Canada. Does the fact that I've edited the Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina articles — and often had to deal with many indefatigable, now blocked or topic banned pov-pushers from every angle at those articles indicate some sort of issue? No, because your argument here is a baseless red herring, and I'm sure you know it.
Anyone could pull your editing history, as well, and find that you've edited, thousands of times, a number of vulnerable wp:blp articles, like Prem Rawat and Lyndon LaRouche (and associated Divine Light Mission, Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, LaRouche criminal trials, and LaRouche movement). Does that mean your editing in those areas are inherently biased? Certainly without significant evidence that isn't a valid allegation. Yet you use that tactic, here, against Kelly when your earlier attempt to actually "dig up" evidence failed (above).
I continue to be absolutely appalled by your actions here, including your veiled threat of administrative action above which you have refused to respond to, and instead have taken to creating as many subsections about Kelly as you possibly can. jæs (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not expect to convince you. You have worked with Kelly in some of the above-listed articles and appear to support her editing. That's fine, people of all POVs are welcome. The issue is that Kelly is a POV editor, not a neutral protector of BLPs.
Regarding my own editing, I'd be happy to address any concerns in the relevant section: #Will Beback.   Will Beback  talk  23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI, the lists of her top edits is a rebuttal to her claim here that she normally doesn't edit Palin-related articles "at all". That's clearly incorrect - they are her main focus of editing.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
@jæs - I find most of your edit to be unhelpful. Will's post is in direct response to a statement that (he claims) is not supported by facts. To criticise someone for providing evidence is poor form. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ownership issues[edit]

I think a key factor in determining whether an editor is exhibiting Ownership issues is how they engage discussion. Some comments from a recent (and related) BLPN thread may be relevant here. Note these comments come after repeated attempts to openly discuss the BLP questions:

  • ...I can't participate in a discussion with Kelly if she won't answer my questions. Banana 04:43, 9 January 2011 [25]
  • Kelly is not attempting to reach consensus. AndyTheGrump 04:45, 9 January 2011 [26]
  • Indeed. The relentless intransigence, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and misdirection from Kelly have made principled discussion impossible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris 05:03, 9 January 2011 [27]
  • There is no point saying "wait until ongoing discussion is resolved"; one side is petulantly shutting its ears. ... Ericoides 08:16, 9 January 2011 [28]
  • User:Kelly has been battling this criticism towards Sarah Palin 24 hours a day. As it's evident, User:Kelly as it is visible in this Talkpage has been defending Sarah Palin and her article in this encyclopedia from any criticism. ... Camilo Sanchez 08:51, 10 January 2011 [29]
  • You [Kelly] removed important and well-cited information that reflected badly on Palin. ... JamesMLane 05:27, 12 January 2011 [30]

Furthermore, I think that editors like Jaes and BBugs are overstating Kelly's value as protector of Palin articles, thus giving Kelly too much credit. This may unfortunately serve to encourage Kelly's resistance to article balance as well as discourage other more neutral editors from participating. -PrBeacon (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is going to result from Will's repeated tirades against Kelly is that she will wind up withdrawing from the Palin article altogether, showing yet again that the POV squad need only continue, and continue, and continue, until those who are actually here to maintain this site as an NPOV encyclopedia, and not Conservapedia, will win. Corvus cornixtalk 22:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
But Kelly is part of a POV squad. We don't need more POV pushers, we need more neutral editors.   Will Beback  talk  23:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You are not impartial in the matter. Corvus cornixtalk 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall ever claiming that I'm impartial. But that doesn't render my complaint invalid. Further, I'll note again that Kelly brought this here. I simply posted a note on her talk page asking her to avoid WP:OWN-type behavior and to stop reverting so much. That is still all I expect as an outcome.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's unfortunate to see Will going after Kelly in this manner. I don't think Kelly is part of any POV squad any more than Will is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "going after" Kelly. She started this thread. Judging by your edit contributions and work with Kelly on political articles, I don't think you are "impartial in this matter", as Corvus cornix would say.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall ever claiming that I'm impartial. :-). But I'm certainly not part of any POV squad, nor is Kelly as far as I can tell.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Conservapedia...Liberalapedia..... How about trying Neutralapedia for a change.Buster Seven Talk 01:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of her motives, Kelly's edits are (IMO) correct from a BLP point of view. We don't just repeat any idle speculation the media reports, even if they are a reliable source. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, and we take information from reliable sources to do that. Prodego talk 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps all those involved with those articles-in-question, should withdraw from them. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not RFC/U[edit]

This thread started off looking like it might go somewhere, but has instead turned into Will Beback laying out evidence why he thinks that Kelly is an editor who does not follow WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, etc. That sort of thing does not belong on ANI, unless you are looking for a community sanction. Please take the matter to WP:RFC/U. NW (Talk) 02:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread and I'd be happy to see it archived.   Will Beback  talk  03:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner[edit]

I would request that an administrator quickly apply BLP and WP:PERP and apply a merge. Talk:Jared_Lee_Loughner#Proposed_merge Active Banana (bananaphone 18:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and redirected the page, as the above pages pretty clearly suggest that a page on this individual is premature. I'm going through the rest of the archiving now (it's crashing my browser.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
David has been reverted, and I agree it was an arbitrary decision. There was no consensus to merge/redirect the article. Diego Grez (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
BLP clearly states that in cases of ambiguity, we protect the individual while discussions are ongoing. And WP:PERP is clear and unambiguous "Note: Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. " Active Banana (bananaphone 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You should read consensus before doing that again! --Hinata talk 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I think people are glossing over the "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." part there; editors havegiven serious consideration to the matter, and the general trend of the merge-or-not discussion on the page is towards the "not" side. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The "serious consideration" discussion is still in progress, but the community has not yet come to the conclusion that the stand alone article is appropriate. Again, in matters related to living people, we err on the side of protecting the individual. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Since the vote was not going their way, the OP tried this end-around. Not appropriate at all. He also tried to suppress the mug shot. Another thing to consider is that no one is questioning that this guy is the perp. The question at trial is not going to be "Who?", it's going to be "Why?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
WOW. just wow. We do not and cannot presume someone is guilty. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Where did I say he was guilty? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry I misread your statement. You call him a perpetrator just like the people WP:PERP says we should not have articles about unless/until they are actually convicted. I am sorry for having misrepesented you. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Pulling the trigger is not the same thing as being "guilty" legally. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And this appears to beWP:GAME The system because it is not going his way. --Hinata talk 19:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Just noting here that I reverted David Fuch's redirect and full protection of the page. There was no consensus for a merge at AfD, and there's no consensus for one yet at the merge discussion on the talk page. BLP1E and PERP clearly don't apply to this situation. That doesn't mean a merge shouldn't happen, but it does mean it should be left to consensus, rather than invoking policy. So please allow time for consensus to become clear on the talk page, then ask an uninvolved admin to close that discussion. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The AfD was between a Redirect or a Keep and was not a merge discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Merge and redirect was discussed, and the closing admin decided the consensus was keep. The merge discussion needs to be allowed to take its course, and the consensus judged by an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"BLP1E and PERP clearly don't apply". Really? If you mean that the application of those policies in this instance is under discussion and awaiting an uninvolved admin to judge consensus while giving little weight to any view that is not (at least in part) based on those policies, then fine. But if you truely mean that they do not apply, then further explanation will be required. wjematherbigissue 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are no compelling BLP or other policy arguments that I can see that would mandate a merger without editorial consensus. Whether the subject is (inappropriately) portrayed as guilty does not depend on whether he is described in a dedicated article or in a subsection. As such, editors and especially admins should abide by consensus and the processes dedicated to bringing it about.  Sandstein  20:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It depends on what's meant by "guilty". I have yet to see any news source that suggests he was not actually the guy who pulled the trigger. But that doesn't mean he'll be found "guilty" in a court of law. There could well be a plea of insanity or diminished capacity that could result in a "not guilty by reason of..." verdict. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • WP:PERP clearly states "convicted", which is your latter definition. I would be interested in hearing how the page does not apply to the bio. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • It also talks about significant news coverage. If some guy had walked into that grocery store and shot several non-public figures in the course of a robbery, that could be a different matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing for a merger. However, to use the AFD as an argument against it is wrong. The afd was originally discussing delete, keep and redirect. One admin closed it as a speedy "not delete" - and I reopened it, because it seemed better to allow the discussion between keep and merge/redirect to continue. However, it was then speedy closed again as "speedy not-delete per WP:SNOW". Fine, but that means that all the AFD says is "there's no consensus to delete, and the decision to redirect is not a matter for afd". So, you can argue there's currently no consensus to merge, but you cannot use the AFD in support of that - the afd simply addresses the question of actual deletion. As I say, I'm not arguing one way or the other, just saying.
    • I am wondering that too how can an admin close an AfD as something, then reopen it and another admin chooses the exact opposite choice? If this was done on every AfD that was speedly done then things would be a mess. An AfD review was opened but got only 4 or so opinions on it before it was quickly closed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Ouch, our policy and generally accepted editing behaviour here is clear (although other BLP editors would be worth consulting); unless convicted or subject to coverage outside of one event we tend to avoid creating articles like this. Recentism is a slight problem here, because stuff about him is all over the news (for obvious reasons), however with BLP we err on the side of caution - the article should be redirected and merged until such a time as a conviction is obtained and coverage outside of the 1E (i.e. a trial) occurs. --Errant (chat!) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • So all the info gets moved to the shooting article, and then a week later someone proposes splitting it out because it's getting too large. Yeh, that's a good use of time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Honest answer? Tough! BLP doesn't get overturned for editor convenience :P There looks to be plenty of content already in that article, so a quick check for mergable and significant material and then a redirect will suffice. --Errant (chat!) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • If the underlying history is left intact for the Loughner article, then copying the info to the shooting article and making the Loughner article a redirect could be reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have to say I am somewhat tempted to delete WP:NOTNEWS right now. This does seem a textbook case - don't create a massive BLP of someone who became famous five minutes ago. I'm going to be shouted at for saying this, but there does seem to be a different law for stuff that impacts on the soul of the USofA. The article is really inappropriate--Scott Mac 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

  • WHAT DO YOU MEAN you're going to delete WP:NOTNEWS as inappropriate? WP:NOTNEWS has been around for some time, and should not be deleted without some discussion first. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 99 times out of 100 I'm in full agreement with that, and my snippy & contentious history at DRV will bear that out. But when one is (for the sake of legalese/BLP) allegedly involved in an assassination of political figures then that's the 1 out 100 case for me. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm having a hard time reconciling the concern here about too much focus on someone caught with a smoking gun and charged with multiple murders while there's this much focus on alleged nastiness for which a Subject hasn't even been charged with anything at all. If consensus isn't enough to get those who are pushing redirect to back off, then maybe Ignore All Rules should be applied; but redirect is not acceptable in the face of substantialn and growing consensus opposed to merging. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose this be closed and all discussion kept on the articles talk page where it belongs. No reason to have the same debate here. Ridernyc (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be an admin that can close the merge discussion on the talk page and make a choice here, the whole thing has blown into a huge storm with editors taking sides on the matter - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs[edit]

User did this: [31] without consensus and likely opposite consensus here:[32]. Disruptive and misuse of admin. tools if any were used. Unless there's a very good excuse, David should lose his administrative authorities,I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a little extreme. But he'd better not do it again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that edit was wildly inappropriate. I also don't think it was inappropriate to revert it. It was a difficult one to call, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone who makes those mistakes (Or in some cases they do it on purpose) gets warnings and notices before action is taken, thats how wikipedia works. I do not think this should have gone beyond a talk page discussion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Time Will Say Nothing[edit]

  • Note: This was automatically archived but I'm restoring it as it includes a ban proposal. Could some sort of conclusion be reached and recorded, even if only to do nothing? Voceditenore (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs) (see [33] was indefinitely blocked for legal threats. He is now editing as (talk · contribs), which he admits here [34]. He's been using other IPs as you can see by his statement at Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) where he says 'this IP was blocked' whereas in fact that IP has never been blocked. I could go to SPI but I'm wondering if there is anything else that can be done here. My own opinion is that the talk page edits should be deleted and perhaps even page protection is necessary if range blocks aren't practical. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the previous SPI for reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Time Will Say Nothing/Archive. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC) is possible; the others are too many. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
SPI filed Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Meh. He has a huge WP:COMPETENCE problem, mostly just here to disrupt in an SPA area. Community ban him and lets get it over with (sad as I am to say that) --Errant (chat!) 09:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There are a lot of bits out of that talk page that, if not directly legal threats, refer back to the original legal threats (assuming IP identity) in both enforcement and spirit. I leave that to interpretation on if it constitutes the immediate need for a block while the SPI is ongoing. Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protecting the article and talk page would go a long way towards nipping this in the bud, since he's only interested in Robert Shaw. Whacking registered accounts is much easier than short blocks for IPs. AniMate 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Really, enough is enough. Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) is now filled with time-wasting tendentious editing with completely spurious interpretations of "policy" and accusations against other editors by an indefinitely blocked user, who is openly violating the block, and who has no intention whatsoever of changing. See this Wikiquette Alert, these two previous AN/I discussions, and this AfD for background to this saga. Given the hopping IPs, I'm not sure what another SPI will accomplish. I too would suggest semi-protection of the article talk page. No other IPs have edited it apart from the ones Time Will Say Nothing uses and those of what he calls his "supporters". If they attempt to start editing the article, semi-protection may be required for that as well or putting it under pending changes. He has already attempted to edit it while blocked using his sockpuppet Hohohobo. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Protection requested --Errant (chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) now semi-protected for 1 week [35]. now blocked for one week [36], following this comment (as usual completely wrong) on the IP's talk page. A breathing space, but I'm sure the whole thing will start up again once the page protection and IP block expires, or earlier if he simply changes IPs. Voceditenore (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo posted to the Robert Shaw talk page saying he's removing anything unsourced. It's not just the Robert Shaw page that has been involved, it's his grandfather's article Martin Shaw (composer) and Up to Now (Shaw autobiography) Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Those pages probably need semi-protection as well. Doc talk 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

TWSN ban proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm calling this one. It seems clear by consensus that the user is unwelcome at Wikipedia. Even users that opposed a ban still supported a long-term block. At this point, I can't see much of a difference, and based on the latest evidence, it seems he is editing anonymously to dodge the existing block on him. He is hereby banned. --Jayron32 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just do this. Please pile on.

  • Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support editor is just not able to contribute without seeing a conspiracy and throwing out wild accusations --Errant (chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Heiro 10:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Favonian (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "At that point it may be that other users who support me will get involved again, although I have asked them not to." Meat puppetry, too, even? Add it to the list. Just too many profound (and most importantly, totally incurable IMHO) problems for one editor to have. Doc talk 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. Show sockpuppeteers the door. - Burpelson AFB 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (albeit with vague reservations about the wording of "Let's just do this. Please pile on.") I was previously inclined towards accepting that this user had a good faith belief that several dozen Wikipedia editors were all in a conspiracy against him. I am now not so ready to accept that, following his making implications that Babel templates were suggestive of a conflict of interest. That really is too weird! There is no hope of this editor participating without being disruptive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban, but support lengthy block on the order of 1 year. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • support, stuff like removing comments that complain about his edits, derisive comments to the other editors[37][38], claiming that avoiding the block via IP is editing "transparently"[39]. He has not learned to edit collaboratively here, he doesn't want to learn, and he keeps claiming badly-supported stuff about the supposed motivations of other editors. Yep, there seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE problem here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support (changed my mind to a long block per valid arguments of other editors below, then back to support) primarily to allow editors to revert inappropriate edits by him (and his sock/meat puppets) without running the risk of violating 3RR, which a 1 year block would not accomplish. Normally, I'd prefer a 1 year block, but I'm sure that we have not seen the last of this editor, whose behaviour and attitude have been and continue to be very detrimental both to the project and to its volunteer editors. Would a topic ban (with the topic broadly construed) allow any inappropriate edits to be reverted without violating 3RR? If so, I would support that instead of a site ban. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose site ban; personally, I don't think their behaviour so far has been egregious enough to warrant a ban; I agree there are serious WP:CIR and WP:HEAR issues here, but I think those are best handled through a lengthy block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • We've had copyright infringement, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, personal attacks, accusations of cyber bullying (which is why I supported his original blocking for his own safety), leagal threats, block evasion/socking and edit warring. All of which is not so much malignent as having a lack of WP:COMPETENCE, I supported a ban because the user creates a lot of drama and until he is able to demonstrate adequate competence should not be unblocked --Errant (chat!) 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
      • On that I too agree: this user should not be unblocked, unless they show that they understand what they did wrong and undertake not to do it again; but I think that an indef is just as good, because, quite frankly, after all this fuss, I don't think any admin would lightheartedly unblock such a user, without being certain they've learnt their lesson. But, at the same time, I don't think they've repeatedly shown that they only maliciously intend to make Wikipedia worse, which is what, in my opinion, usually warrants a full site ban (but again, that's only my opinion). Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban per Sarek and Salvio. Nothing here warrents a full siteban, but a lengthy block several months is obviously needed. -Atmoz (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; like the opposers above, I do not feel comfortable banning this user. As far as I'm concerned, the disruption has not lasted long enough nor been abusive enough to warrant a ban. I agree that a lengthy block would be better in this case. HeyMid (contribs) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
How long would "long enough" be? He's been displaying the same attitude since at least November 2009. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Still, I do not feel that a ban is the right step to take at this time. HeyMid (contribs) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Enough is enough. --John (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I was thinking of not commenting, but things have changed and I now have good reason to believe that this editor's behaviour is not going to change. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This user has made it quite clear he's more interested in his agenda than building an encyclopedia in a collegiate manner. He has rejected help, tried to game the system and generally displayed complete indifference to other editors concerns. Socking is just icing on the cake. An indef is best until he chooses to change his approach and demonstrates a willingness to learn Wikipedia's processes & follow them. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Question Can someone please explain what the position is re others reverting this editor if he only receives a long block rather than a ban? Will the 3RR still apply to other editors if he is only blocked? This editor will never let go of Robert Shaw (theatre director). Whether it's a block or ban, he will continue his attempts to evade it. He will return again and again to edit war and threaten other editors the minute he thinks the article does not project his desired image of the subject. He will also do this to any other article related to Robert Shaw. He has stated quite plainly, that he is not at interested in contributing anything to Wikipedia, apart from what he is "interested in posting". I understand that some editors have behaved even worse without being site banned. But really, what is the advantage to this project of not showing him the door? A the moment I can see only detriment. Voceditenore (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    That's exactly the point of a ban; if this user is not banned, 3RR will apply, and one will have to file an SPI and wait for the result before being allowed to fight this; anyone who does so w/o a conclusive SPI-result will likely be blocked for edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Topic ban? That's what I thought and changed my !vote above back to support. But if read WP:BAN correctly, a topic ban would also allow reverting without violating the 3RR rule. If so, would the opposers here go for that in lieu of a full site ban? I'd support that. Besides, even bans aren't permanent, he can always appeal it later. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Same difference; either way will work just fine, since he's explicitly stated he doesn't have any interest in other topics. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This user has selective reading issues, and responds to calm words with thunderous rebuttals that generate more heat than light. And, unlike Salvio giuliano and anyone else basing their opposes on his rationale, I heavily doubt a lengthy block will calm him down; if anything blocks have thus far only exacerbated the situation, as he's threatened to report blocking admins to the UK police for violation of cyberbullying laws (nevermind that he's been told that Wikipedia is only bound to United States laws). If there were even a small hope for an epiphany here, I'd oppose, but honestly this man is on a mission from God, and heaven help anyone who even breathes in his direction. —Jeremy (v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!) 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - This user is clearly interested in doing propaganda instead of contributing to an encyclopedia. And with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. User is clearly a net negative to the project, and IP socking for block evasion shows contempt for Wikipedia policy. In response to those favouring a long block instead, note that the Standard Offer applies. LK (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment I've supported the ban, but as I'd originally suggested a topic ban on any articles related to the Shaw family I'll support that as an alternative if that's more attractive to those who don't want a site ban. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thing is, he's already shown a willingness to agree to a condition, then violate it immediately. Even if we topic ban him, this is his only area of interest and I expect he'll go straight back to editing there once unblocked. Or, at the very least, disrupting talk pages of those articles as he has been wont to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The repeated legal threats (even in the numerous unblock requests for making legal threats) and socking, combined with a long history of disruptive editing, are clear signs of an unreachable user. They have been given enough chances to prove that they were here for constructive editing, and they proved instead to be a net negative. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddhiyama (talkcontribs) 15:35, 12 January 2011

[40][41] < just saying... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

User Eyriq86 disruptive edits[edit]

Eyriq86 keeps on ignoring the manual of styles, removing references and generally editing MMA records according to his liking. I warned him already three times and he simply has ignored the warnings. I believe that he is disruptive editing. While I have focused the warnings on a single article (Alistair Overeem), he has also been disrupting other articles where he has also removed references. He always marks his edits as minor and never leaves a summary of the changes, which makes me believe that he is deliberately trying to hide his edits. He has not tried to contact me or any of the other editor that have warned him in the past as seen here. These are some of his edits: Alistair Overeem 1, 2, 3; Kazushi Sakuraba; Junior dos Santos; Brandon Vera; Todd Duffee; Ricardo Arona; Georges St-Pierre; Maurício Rua. Jfgslo (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:MFIreland and edits to Hat and Caubeen[edit]

This user keeps making changes and mass deletions of referenced data particularly on Caubeen but also on Hat he seems to want to delete any reference to it being Irish despite the mass of material to this effect. A significant number of his edits have edit summaries that bear no obvious relation to the changes being made Examples of the his changes to Caubeen;

[42] [[43]] [[44]] [[45]] [[46]]

Examples of his changes to hat

[[47]] [[48]] [[49]]

I’ve explained as fully as I can my changes in my edit summaries and tried discussing it with him on his talk page but tried discussing it with him but he just deletes my messages: [[50]] [[51]] [[[[52]]

The only time he responded I used his suggested text in the article but he deleted it himself see: User_talk:Lloydelliot10 Lloydelliot10 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It would seem that the actual cause here is your repeated removal of references to the British, as in [53] and [54]. You'll want to get that plank out before you start helping others with their splinters. Gavia immer (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have already explainded to User:Lloydelliot10 on his talk page a number of days ago that the Glengarry beret worn by the Irish army is notting like the Caubeen bonnet the British army wear. Despite this he keeps making edits about the Glengarry on the article page and added an image of the Irish army reserve which has notting to do with the subject.--MFIrelandTalk 22:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you did and I used your suggested words in the article. I can only repart what I said on yourn Talk page:
I'm somewhat confused by your edits to Caubeen and Hat - as I said when you posted a 3RR warning on my page I have no wish to start a war, but you appear intent on removing any reference to its use by the Irish. Any google search throws up a lot of Irish hits in addition to its use by UK Crown forces, I'd draw your attention in particular to the reference in The Wearing of the Green and its use by the Ancient Order of Hibernians which I put on the page. I don't think anyone is disputing its adoption by various emige Irish units outside the Republic and the British Army - why are you so intent on removing any other references? Lloydelliot10 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
You never replied to this, just kept on mass deleting on the page.
If I deleted any new references that you added I apologise but I did not see them. You seem intent on deleting any references to Irish use of the Caubeen (see above for two in particular). I have no intention of deleting refences to its use by the British - I don't know where the idea that I have came from but just because they may have 'poached' it doesn't mean they get exclusive use. Regards Lloydelliot10 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I will explain to you again just as I have above and on your talk page, that the Glengarry beret worn by the Irish army is notting like the Caubeen bonnet the British army wear. Despite this you keep making edits about the Glengarry on the article page and adding an image of the Irish army reserve Guard of Honour which has notting to do with the caubeen. My comments on your talk page was not a suggestion for the article but to explain to you what a Glengarry is. This is a link to the offical Irish Defence Forces website page on the Armys uniform.LINK --MFIrelandTalk 19:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue has just come to my attention and if anyone checks out some of the information that MFIreland is trying to erase for example sourced information that show the caubeen being used outside of the Brirish/Commonwealth army, i.e. by the Ancient Order of Hibernians. His edits have also tried to change an article on an Irish type of hat into an article that makes it appear that it is only a British/Commonwelath piece of headgear despite evidence to the opposite.
MFIreland has not disucssed a single one of his edits in the articles talk page. In fact no-one has. If MFIreland wants to continue making disruptive edits to alter an article into an exclusively British army article, he should take it to the article talk page and seek consensus with everyone else. Mabuska (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Two Qiaos[edit]

Joetri10 (talk · contribs) has been insistent in reinserting and reemphasizing fictional elements of Two Qiaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite the attempts of others to try to refocus the article back to the factual (and I'll admit that perhaps now I'm embroiled, which is the reason why I'm bringing it here). I'd like someone to review the situation and consider appropriate actions. --Nlu (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Well the Romance of the Three Kingdoms isn't just any old work of fiction. ☺ It's a shame that Joetri10 is the only one pointing to a source for what the article says, even if it is a 14th century work of historical fiction.

    Here's an appropriate action: Start pointing to some other historical source material, that backs up what the purported "facts" are supposed to be. How is the poor reader to know that this entire article isn't derived from the stories in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms? It's the only source that anyone is even pointing to. It's a good idea to show what actually is factual in this article, with sources, before edit warring over what's fact and what's fiction. For all that anyone has shown in 7 years, the entire article could be something that doesn't even exist outside of the Romance. Indeed, back in 2005 the article said outright that these people didn't exist except in fiction, so it's possibly a bit rich to claim that one is sticking to "just the historical facts" when one hasn't shown that there even are any, and that Joetri10's emphasis on the Romance as the sole existence of this subject isn't indeed entirely proper in this case.

    Good content drives out bad. A good article that provably documents the actual history with sourced historical analysis will discourage counterfactual additions and cargo-cult encyclopaedia writing. But coming to the administrator's noticeboard to get support for one side of an edit war, and not finding out what the historical fact that the article should present even is, doesn't get one the good content that the process requires. Uncle G (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

    • Historically, there's a name-hopping editor whose whole M.O. is adding large amounts of content from Dynasty Warriors and other such video games to articles on historical and semihistorical Chinese figures (Uncle G: I use "semihistorical" because quite often the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or The Water Margin have influenced conceptions of these figures; e.g., I basically agree with you), and to a lesser extent other East Asian historical topics. I don't know if this is the return of the same individual or not, but I tend to remove such content when I see it because there have been so many unconstructive additions of this type. Gavia immer (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
      • If only that sort of thing were confined to Chinese historical figures and one person. It isn't. ☺ There's more than one person for whom knowledge of some subjects is confined to television, film, and video games. But that's how good content drives out the bad. A good article, explaining some actual facts from authorities on the subject, tends to stop people just building piles of random fictional occurrences in the hope that they'll magically turn into an encyclopaedia article about something factual after some mystical critical mass of fictional instances has accrued. And that's definitely what is needed in this case. The unanswered question is whether there's any historical fact to be had in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I’m not sure if I can post on this issue but seeing as the issue is me then I’m going to explain a few things to help you understand this. The unanswered question?, it is indeed unanswered. Similar to the figures Zhu Rong, Diao Chan, Lu Lingqi, Xing Cai and many others, they are all based on real people however because of the Novel Romance Of The Three Kingdoms and the game Dynasty Warriors By Koei, their existence is much more fictional then factual/historical. I say good luck to any who tries and find real historical facts about the Qiao's that doesn’t derive from the Novel. Now onto the fictional points?. Many people who will be looking up the Qiao's will find very little if the fictional points are not there. Another question is not what facts should be on the page, but what the page should be about In which i think it should be the both (meaning both Real life facts and there portrayal in the novel). If you look on any figure's page related to the Three Kingdoms, you will find information of the novel on all of those, the Qiao's are in no way any different. Showing facts about Dynasty Warriors, what movies they have been portrayed in and their inclusion to the novel can help the reader a lot as that is most possibly what they are looking for. If i am doing wrong by wanting the reader to learn more about them by showing facts that are most important, then i don’t understand what you truly want on Wikipedia. Because i promise you, without the fictional facts on that page, it will prove worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joetri10 (talkcontribs) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


Recognition denied
See User:Access Denied XI. WP:RBI WP:DFTT. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 18:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Isabella and Lego Liker[edit]

Resolved: SPI investigations deleted by MuZemike, and User:Isabella and Lego Liker blocked along with sockpuppets mentioned. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Goes several months without editing, then all of the sudden creates a SPI investigation against me without my knowledge. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jddjss and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JDDJS JDDJS (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL at the sock report he tried to create; it takes a lot more than that to fool me. Anyways, the following accounts are  Confirmed: