Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive693

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

Noticeboard archives



Maheshkumaryadav (talk · contribs) Maheshkumaryadav is making a slew of articles, all with the same purpose (anti-Pakistan). From this version of his talk page you can see he's been repeatedly told of inappropriate pages he's created, and warned not to make more. --Rob (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this offers any help but the above user seems to have been blocked on more than one occation before [1] though im not sure they are related offences however I am sure that he/she has blatant pov against Pakistan as his articles and its tone illustrates this Ichigo0987765 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The stuff about Pakistan's apparent duplicity in regard to OBL needs to have at least one article, given the presence of a U.S. conspiracy theories artice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
There is already an article based on this alleged duplicity I think it goes by the name of support networks of obl something along the lines of that but swamping wiki with articles of regurgitated information is just silly in my opinion and only serves to satisfy ones pov Ichigo0987765 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
One article should suffice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The article is Allegations of support system in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems the user isn't just critical of Pakistan. He made Anti-corruption initiatives by civil society in India, Corruption in Indian politics, and then Effects of corruption in India. Again, all pushing a similar POV. He also made Judicial reforms in India, which isn't just POV, but is saying what the judiciary in India "needs". I think a block is needed until the user at least acknowledges the problem, which he's not doing by blanking his talk page. --Rob (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've worked "with" (near? against?) this editor a bit, primarily in India/corruption topics. While I can't really point to a single specific incident, my feeling is that, overall, Maheshkumaryadav's editing pattern is influenced a lot more by his own goals than by a sincere desire to build a neutral encyclopedia. One thing worth looking at is the list of new pages xe has created. Now, there's nothing wrong with an editor having a narrow field of focus; but if you look into each of the articles on "Corruption in Indian X", you'll see that they're mostly unsourced, always assert that there is a major problem with corruption in that particular field, and are light on any kind of details. In other words, I see in Maheshkumaryadav an editor who has a very strong POV regarding high levels of corruption in India (and, now, it seems, high levels of Pakistani involvement in terrorism), and who believes it is xyr "mission" to make sure that this topic is covered as widely and extensively as possible. This has taken the form of creating multiple articles to cover several very closely related topics, adding the same See Also link to multiple different articles which it had no connection to, and creating a Template (see Template: Scandals in India) of which 24 of the 26 links were redlinks. In fairness, on the latter issue, he has since withdrawn opposition to deleting the template. Finally, all of this is compounded by the fact that Maheshkumaryadav very rarely communicates on talk pages, and, in particular, responds to concerns on xyr own talk page via blanking. Each of the actions of Maheshkumaryadav are individually defensible and often on the "right side" of the rules, and are in many instances the marks of an inexperienced editor. Taken as a whole, though I see someone here primarily to Right Great Wrongs, an attitude which will make it quite difficult for xem to be successful on the project. Now, to be fair, I don't actually know that there's any admin action to be taken here--it seems to me that we generally don't do anything to stop even blatant POV pushing until after its gone much farther along than Maheshkumaryadav's has. But if there is anyone that can think of a way to talk to xem, though, to help "bring xem into the fold", as it were, it would be appreciated. I've tried a few times, both nicely and strictly, but, for the most part, my comments have generally just been removed without comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, i Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC) have read the above comments and i respect the view of other contributors and administrators. Let me put my POV. Corruption in India and Pakistan and state terrorism, both are true things and there are facts in media about those. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a knowledge source, If the things are true and we can give solid references, if they are suitable enough to have an article , we must try to have an article on that, Changing the name, content, removing POV from articles is welcome, but removing complete articles because they are not the best articles is not correct. It takes 20 minutes to create a small article ( for me), but the deletionist it takes 10 seconds to remove article. It discourages the article or Wikipedia expanders. I am against corruption and role of Pakistan in terrorism. But i don't write my POV in articles, i provide data and references what other prominent personalities and media have data and take on these issues. I am not against Pakistan, Pakistan is also being affected by terrorism, Creating articles supporting state sponsored terrorism by Pakistan should be viewed as work against terrorism not against Pakistan. A stable and terrorism less Pakistan is in interests of Pakistan, Asia region and whole world, including other members here. My articles are not against particular person our country. They are against social problems and in interest of humanity.

The articles are not advertisement and the motto is to have a good and neutral article on that particular area. But I single person cannot create a perfect article alone. Those against my point of view, should improve articles or take steps to improve articles. Very less as a % of people coming to Wikipedia contribute to it. But the acts of deletion work as demotivation and work in a way to discourage the newcomers. We all own Wikipedia equally. Its our knowledge. After 2000 edits ,seeing all my edits i don't think my acts can be considered vandalism. I will be bold in creating things, but will be using talk pages more and will try to keep things neutral. I will learn more how to use Wikipedia and how to create better articles. Thanks again.{Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

No one is (I think) claiming your edits are vandalism. I do believe that you're trying in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, but the problem is that I think you don't actually understand how the encyclopedia works. You said above that you "don't write [your] POV in articles." Let me show you a simple example where that's not true, from Judicial reforms in India, which I just started an AfD on. The first sentence of that article, which you wrote, is, "Judiciary of India needs judicial reforms for speedy disposal of cases and ensuring accountability." That is a clear statement of a POV. It is not a neutral statement about judicial reforms that already have been passed (which is what an article of this title should be about). Per my comments on the AfD, there is actually nothing neutral that is salvageable from that article. This is the problem that concerns me and others above. Do you see why that article, at least, does not meet WP:NPOV? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Does Wikipedia expects adults to be born instead of babies ? My personal experience is that, at present on Wikipedia it is more difficult to create content than to delete it. A baby is not born as a productive citizen. But on Wikipedia an article is expected to be good quality when created. Wikipedia expects adults to be born instead of babies. And mostly they(the articles) are killed, because they are not good. Instead of feeding and improving the article, deleting or merging is decided, because it is easier. This discourages the content creators and the result they are forced to leave Wikipedia.Mahesh Yadav (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that the articles you have been creating are fundamentally flawed because they reflect your and only your view, and even have titles reflecting your view. They are as such nearly impossible to improve into good articles at all. Therefore they get deleted. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Maheshkumaryadav, part of the problem is the rate you've been making articles. People can fix one or a few. But, you're creating numerous articles, often on the same topic. You keep slightly changing the name, to re-create essentially the same article. It appears you're doing this to get around other editors, and keep content that fits your POV. You say your articles " are against social problems and in interest of humanity.". Well, that's a noble goal, but unrelated to Wikipedia. This is not a resource for you to pursue you political ambitions. You say you welcome others to fix the POV of the articles, but this is like a whack-a-mole game, where one is put down, and another pops up immediately. Also, you've been edit warring to stop redirects of some of these articles, which is very disruptive and may warrant a block. This is a growing problem, which is getting harder and harder to fix, if we leave it alone. I have tried PRODing and they've been removed, with others. Redirects are reverted. So, I don't see what non-admins can do. --Rob (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, which I hope keeps this matter in perspective: all countries have a problem with corruption. Any time there is a situation where someone in authority is willing to bend the rules for some cash -- even if "nobody" would be hurt by this action -- that's corruption. We could create (& probably should) an article "Corruption in X", where X is every country existing or historical. However, corruption in, say, Sweden, is far different than corruption in the United States, & both are far different than corruption in India or Pakistan. Without detailed & verifiable sources, any "Corruption in X" article would say little more than "Corruption is an acknowledged problem in X." And that's about as useful as saying "The sun rises every day in X." -- llywrch (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton... again[edit]

There was a discussion at Talk:Pippa Middleton#Should Coat of Arms be removed? as to whether the coat of arms info on the page should be removed. Now, I didn't think the discussion had achieved consensus, but the info had been removed with comments like "talk page consensus is clearly against this." Is that right? Was consensus achieved in that discussion? StAnselm (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a moot point whether it's in or out (it's out) right now as Floquenbeam has said "I'll block the next person who reverts that particular section back in, and/or back out, until consensus is reached." Exxolon (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The discussion should get an admin closure, to make it an "official" consensus, but it is only one day old. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment by Jaredgk2008[edit]

Following blocking of Theyallbewhales ( for sockpuppetry, I received the following email via my personal website. I want to bring it to administrators' attention no only to tie the two sockpuppetry/vandalism cases together, but also to let you know about this user's off-wiki harassment and expressed intent to continue vandalizing. Thank you. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only did i use these sock puppet accounts: I also used these sock puppet accounts:

[cut-and-paste of contents of those two investigations]

I plan to use an internet cafe computer to vandalize more accounts.

I think the best course of action here is block the accounts as they appear. Eventually they'll get bored. If more problems arise, please file another SPI or let me know on my talk page and I'll take a look. Thanks for bringing this up. TNXMan 18:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks for the help. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Permanent vandalism on the page Geography of Spain[edit]

This page is regularly vandalized by the same Turkish user, an anon IP who is no-one else but Menikure, with references removed. He has also spread on the French wiki, with an anon IP too, sometimes with the name Saguamundi. I will ask the protection of the page, but I think that additionnally, a check user is essential.-- (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If he removed references, why does your revert of him not restore any references? Why is the entire climate section of this article supported by so few references? There are whole paragraphs claiming climate zones, temperatures, and so forth, with no supporting reference at all. You're calling his removal of File:Climates of Spain.png vandalism, but it has no references either. Why not? If I were to reduce the climate section now to material that's supported by reliable sources it would be two sentences long. Why should any of this unreferenced stuff be trusted? -- Finlay McWalterTalk 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Blackamoors (decorative arts)[edit]

An editor appears to be using sockpuppets to repeated add th fact that his non-notable self has a coat of arms including a "blackamoor". I gather that this editor has a history of self-promotion. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Daniel C. Boyer was blocked in 2007 for the exact same behavior; self-promotion and using a sockpuppet. In that case it was only for 24 hours, then extended another 24 hours for editing as an IP during the block. The editor Samuel O'Malley is obviously a sockpuppet and I'm blocking it as such. The only question is what to do with Daniel. Clearly his self-promotion is pretty blatant, and he didn't learn his lesson the last time about sockpuppetry. Is it time to consider a permanent site ban? -- Atama 20:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
(I also just left Daniel a note about this discussion.) -- Atama 20:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fazm1bico copyright violations[edit]

User:Fazm1bico has a history of adding unsourced game engines on video game articles. After many warnings, the user has been mute. Today I went through the editor's contributions and have found, already 3 articles that are a direct copies of copyrighted websites. [see the list here]. I'm pretty sure the article Aura II: The Sacred Rings is also a copyright violation (I haven't searched for it yet). Given the user's past of being mute, I'm afraid they may not acknowledge that these copyright violations are serious and may continue to create more. —Mike Allen 01:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • There are plenty of efforts and warnings by a number of editors on that editor's talk page. It is impossible they didn't see any of it, and an indef block at the next occurrence seems reasonable to me if no response is received. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure it would be fair to say the user has a history when the account is only a week old. Although the user has created many copy-written articles recently, they have gone back and at least attempted to remove the copy-written material. I have posted on their talk page to provide further information to the situation in addition to the generic templates, although I'm not sure they are reading any of it, as there has not been any response. Simply put, despite the lack of written response, I feel the user has made a good-faith attempt to fix their mistakes, and a block at this point would be uncalled for. The question is how you tell a user to respond to their talkpage... MrKIA11 (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
History as in a few days with no response from the user, but yet they kept reverting the changes back. Not years. Sorry for using a vague term. Copyvios are serious and when you don't have a user that responds, what else are you supposed to do? Also, shouldn't the old revisions of the article be removed since they still hold the copyrighted versions? —Mike Allen 21:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This user has now edited out at least 3 copyright problems, so I think no extra admin action is needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I shouldn't have really used the speedy deletion tag for copyvio, I should have used the copyvio template so it would have been placed on the copyright violation noticeboard. Lesson learned. Thanks. —Mike Allen 04:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi[edit]


We need a couple of Admins and/or editors to help look into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi. MuZemike found a huge sockfarm here and needs people to review the edits. Anyone who has some time to stop by, the help would be appreciated. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

TheProSamurai's block evasion[edit]

Resolved: Blocked indef for continued socking and block evasion via IP.  Sandstein  06:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

TheProSamurai (talk · contribs) is currently blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry and edit waring on at Samurai X: Trust & Betrayal. Now he is back using his IP address (talk), which appears to be static and on the same articles he was edit waring on with this other accounts. (previous SPI case) —Farix (t | c) 00:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Massive number of Playboy-related AFD nominations by a single user[edit]

User:Damiens.rf has, over the last few hours, nominated more that 100 articles converning Playboy models (mostly Playmates) for deletion; the count is steadily growing. The nominations really can't be bundled together, and typically require examination of each individual's movie/TV credits. There's no way that interested editors can handle this volume of nominations, which often prove controversial. This runs afoul of the fait accompli principle set out by Arbcom in the TV episodes and characters cases; while not formally adopted as policy or guideline, I think there can be little doubt that the principle enjoys community support -- without it, consensus-building becomes a war of attrition. Make no mistake, I believe Damiens is right on principle on the notability issues involved, and disagree with him only as to exactly where to draw the lines involved. I don't doubt his good faith; while not all the AFDs on Playmates he made in the recent past were successful, I think they demonstrated significant support for the arguments he's advanced. But this is too much for the process to handle in one batch, far too much. It's inherently disruptive, despite the nominator's good faith, and it's likely to turn into a contentious mess that prevents the sort of article-by-article decision making that ought to be going on. Similar large bundles of Playmate nominations in the past have led to cookie-cutter voting and unpleasantness, and didn't contribute enough to building an encyclopedia to justify the effort and bad feelings involved. Full disclosure: I've been working in the same direction as Damiens for some time now, working gradually and using "soft" redirects to convert the large number of poorly sourced Playmate stubs into better-organized, more notability and BLP-compliant components of group articles. That process has been minimally controversial so fsr, and I believe it offers a better compromise that can enjoy a broader consensus. But even if I agreed entirely with the nominator, this is too much to handle in a single wave of AFDs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Damiens has agreed to stop, so I think this is set for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Is everything set? Damiens.rf has a history of doing these large scale mass nominations for both images and articles. He's been brought here more than once for this very issue. He'll likely be brought here again. AniMate 04:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Geeze, and I thought I did too much when I did about 10 at once. BelloWello (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't we tar and feather another editor who went on a AfD spree of articles that may or may not have had appropriate justifications? Just wondering if we intend to trot out the WikiMob on this case as well as 100 is significantly more than the ~20 articles that were nominated in the other case (with the other case also having the multiple distinct "events" of nomination frenzies). Disclosure: I've interactied with Damiens before on a discussion about a picture's Fair Usage Rationale. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
There's an important difference here -- Damiens did a much smaller batch of Playmate nominations a short time ago, and these nominations are reasonably consistent with the results there. The previous spree you're referring to, by a different editor, was completely off the wall, and completely indiscriminate -- and used an automated tool in evasion of his blacklisting from the use of that tool. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, Wuhwuzdat had it coming. HalfShadow 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

background - Some years back, folks at WP:PORN decided to include "is a playboy playmate" as one of the final evidences of notability in WP:PORNBIO. What followed was that there were articles created for every girl that has ever striped for playboy. When this piece of WP:PORNBIO was brought to an wider audience via an RFC, the community decided that being a playboy playmate is not, by itself, evidence of notability, and playmates should have articles only when otherwise notable.

These deletions were expected. I have not run across all of the playmates. And I have not nominated all I have ran across. Of course, some of them may be proven otherwise notable, but that's why we have a discussion process.

Most of the articles will surely end up being deleted or redirected to a list. After that, the playmate's enthusiast's efforts may concentrate on improving the articles on really notable playmates, as today, many of these are stubs just because there's simply not enough volunteers to keep up with an playmate sub-encyclopedia. --Damiens.rf 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The concern, I think, is that those who are interested in this topic area have to go through a large number of AFDs at once, each debate generating its own discussion and finding its own consensus. If I were intent on Keeping each of the articles you nominated, checking and following such a large number of debates would be a full-time job for the coming week. I'm sure as hell not going to edit much else, either. Here, the scale of the nominations detracts from the (probably valid) point that the subjects just aren't notable.
If you were intent on keeping each of the articles I nominated you'd be wrong to begin with. Each case should be judged on its own merits, and an intention of blindingly keeping all playmates was the original problem we started from. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it would have been far better to nominate a dozen or so to establish your test cases, and then bundle 5 or so at a time thereafter. If, as you say, these articles are sure to be deleted, the second and third sets of articles would have precedent to follow, and the debates would be much simpler. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
He did do a run of test cases. They're in the deletion log for April 4. [2] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
@Damians. Restrict the nominations to a level that the guys at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography can handle. For example, 7 AfDs per week. Just make all your research in one go, write the AfDs, and save the list of AfDs in a text file. You can open it every week and mechanically nominate the first 7 items via copy/paste. You can combine this with Ultraexactzz's advice above. I know, this is nowhere near as rewarding as doing all of them in one go :-) . --Enric Naval (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
7 Afds in a week would be a good rate; you don't want Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography to be slammed to hard, after all. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Pacing AFD nominations is especially important when nominating biographies whose potential sources are likely to predate the Internet era. It's pretty easy to determine notability -- or the lack thereof -- for someone active in 2002 or even in 1995. But some of these nominations are from the 1970s, and may require additional legwork (especially due to newspaper paywall policies). Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Seven articles per week is ridiculous low. Why should I restrict the pace of deletion nominations where there were no restriction of the pace of creation for such articles?

It has been a long time since the rfc that established that it was a mistake to consider all playmates notable, and I have seen not organized effort from wp:pornbio to clean up the mess.

There's no reason to worry. AFDs that do not have enough participation get relisted. And if a stub of the form "Rose Rosewood was the Jan 1961 Playmate. She was clicked by Mr. Photographer" get deleted, and we later find out that Ms. Rosewood was notable, it can easily recreated. As easily as it was first created. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:KITTENS works both ways. And there are significantly fewer people able to handle AfD nominations than there are people willing to create articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You should restrict the pace of deletion nominations out of respect for the people who will be trying to determine consensus on each article. Seven per week is ridiculously low, but there is no reason at all why you can't limit to say, five per day. And I would say to nominate no further articles until the current backlog clears. Resolute 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I will nominate no further Playmate-articles until the current backlog clears. --Damiens.rf 15:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Resolute 19:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the nominator should be commended for instigating these long-overdue AfD discususions. Particularly so for going through the AfD process honestly, rather than sneaking around a discussion by creating a redirect. A subject whose only claim to fame is to being a Playboy Playmate is not notable, as consensus has determined. It is wrong to redirect this article to a list of 12 other such non-notables, whose only claim to fame has been specifically determined to be non-notable. List of Playboy Playmates of 1961 for example links to not one artice, contrary to all guidelines, and the subject of the list is in itself non-notable. If the subject is notable, she will have a standalone article at which her Playmate centerfold can be mentioned. Including her on a list of a non-notable subject is simply wrong. Kudos to User:Damiens.rf for stepping up and doing the honest work that the fans have been covering up. Dekkappai (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

  • On a separate note, Dekkappai's nomination of said list he linked, AfD here, seems to be failing spectacularly. And my arguments would be the same as is stated in the AfD, essentially that Dekkappai is completely wrong about what lists are for, considering in most cases they are specifically for listing people or other information that are not notable enough to have their own article. SilverserenC 00:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Automated tools to send material to AfD for existing articles should be banned. This reminds me of the case of a recent editor who went WP:IDONTLIKEIT on sororities and fraternities, starting with the Alphas... Carrite (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Sure. Only tools that send material to AfD for non-existing articles should be allowed. --Damiens.rf 05:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I speak of New Pages, of course... Carrite (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems Damiens.rf is simply implementing previously established site-wide consensus, against a minority of vociferous WikiProject members. How many articles are we talking about here in total? Tijfo098 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that Damiens.rf has not been previously banned from using automated tools, I honestly don't see much difference in his deletion nominations here and the ones for which Wuhwazdat was banned from starting AFDs. How can you possibly be following WP:BEFORE if you post an AFD at a rate of one a minute, and use a completely boilerplate rationale in every AFD? The proposition that being a Playboy Playmate does not guarantee notability does not in turn mean that being a Playboy Playmate means that you are not notable. The results thus far seem to be varying widely, suggesting that these were just as indiscriminate as the past sprees against British models or fraternities, targeting a subject rather than considering each article topic on its own merits (for example, that sufficient sources exist here, or that the subject is notable for other things here or here). I agree with Carrite: there needs to be some restriction on using automated tools to AFD articles, even if it's just a cap on the noms per day or per hour, because that kind of bot-like editing is completely at odds with the kind of consideration that an AFD requires, Isn't the point of automated tools to make noncontroversial edits easier? The purpose is not to make one side of a deletion debate labor-free, while imposing the unreasonable burden of researching 100+ articles a day upon those who are interested in seeing if they can be saved. Particularly where the AFD nominator obviously hasn't bothered to do that work. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Q - "How can you possibly be following WP:BEFORE if you post an AFD at a rate of one a minute, and use a completely boilerplate rationale in every AFD?"
A - It would be only possible if the articles were almost all just one paragraph long and equally boilerplatelly written. Oh, wait a second!
The proposition that being a Playboy Playmate does not guarantee notability does not in turn mean that being a Playboy Playmate means that you are not notable.
Are you implying I used this rationale? I haven't.
"The results thus far seem to be varying widely, suggesting that these were just as indiscriminate"
No, they are not. Most of the articles are going to be deleted/redirected.

My nominations were not undiscriminated. I reviewed every article and, when needed, searched for the model's page on imdb. Of course, in some of the nominations, it could turn out that the model is notable after all. But these will be the exceptional cases.

You know, many of the articles say nothing more than "Ms. Nice Flower was <insert date> Playboy Playmate. She was shot by photographer Mr. PhotoMan". Since being a playmate is, by community consensus, a grant of notability, such articles are qualified for WP:CSD#A7. But I have sent them to AfD anyway. --Damiens.rf 19:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? Explain your review process for someone like Ms. Teen Oregon USA 1994 who has multiple acting credits? Garbage. Just like how you seem to interpret the consensus that playmates are not inherently notable to mean that reliable source coverage about their "playmatehood" are disqualified in determining notability, which is a perverted interpretation that defies WP:BASIC. The proper reading of that consensus is that playmates are not notable in and of themselves if they do not have independent coverage by reliable sources. If several newspapers cover some girl with some depth because she was named playmate or only cover her because she is a playmate, that's her notability! Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
It is also clear from your mention of WP:CSD A7 that your understanding of deletion criteria is weak. CSD A7 is for articles that don't indicate why a person is important. It "is a lower standard than notability" and to use it on Playmates just because playmates are not inherently notable would have been improper and probably would have gotten you blocked if you had done 100 in a day. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no use arguing with deletionists. They don't care about concensus. They live to delete stuff... and vice versa: If they don't get their daily ration of deletions, they could shrivel and die. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
No need to be nasty, Bugs. Many of us care about consensus and take the time to clean up around here.—Kww(talk) 07:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The editor in question says he doesn't care about concensus, he's nominating for deletion anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Welll, A7 isn't about notability, so that part's just a common misapprehension. As for "Since being a playmate is, by community consensus, a grant of notability, such articles are qualified for WP:CSD#A7. But I have sent them to AfD anyway.", the only way that parses at all is if you assume he mean " community consensus, [not] a grant of notability,...". Either way, it doesn't excuse discussing people that work at identifying the material that needs to be removed from Wikipedia with such negative tones and implications.—Kww(talk) 07:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
If he meant to say "NOT", then he should have said "NOT". I'm not a mind-reader, I can only go by what he said, or appeared to me to say. As far as negativity... deletionists are pretty much useless. They take away instead of adding. They aren't interested in value to the readers. They are only interested in deleting stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm strongly inclusionist myself, but I think that there are definitely some deletionists who do add some quality content to the project. The problem is when some of them get in their minds that all articles on certain topic are all inherently non-notable and do spray and pray style nominations. I mean, if they just took their time and picked the low-hanging fruit they'd have more success getting junk deleted with much less drama. (Though I accept that the nominator in this case was acting in good faith) Qrsdogg (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's be clear here, Bugs: I don't think that I am "pretty much useless", nor do I consider my preference for removing material to be one that doesn't add "value to the readers". I take your statement as a personal insult, and think you should stop. A project where no one took out the trash would be just as useless as a project where no one added content.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • At Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serria_Tawan I see the only two people trying to delete it are copying and pasting the same exact argument time and again without even reading the article, considering its merits, or looking for sources. I clicked the Google news archive button at the top of the AFD, and found she had written a book which was reviewed in the news, and she interviewed for it. WP:BEFORE exist for a reason. You can't expect people to go through a hundred different AFD at once. And the mindless boilerplating "Delete them all, I don't need to bother looking for sources or even reading the article" should be stopped as well. Dream Focus 09:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • The editor's AFDs here are at best incompetent, and at worst malicious / bad faith, and should all be immediately dismissed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
    • While I do believe checking for WP:BEFORE prior to the nomination of all these articles is something that should have been done, this particular article is not a good example to illustrate this. Nimuaq (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Right, DreamFocus. Damien says above that he was 1) nominating on the basis of the article's current state, rather than its potential, and 2) doing no more than "review[ing] every article and, when needed, searched for the model's page on imdb". That's not compliance with WP:BEFORE, and you can't justify this by saying that most are delete-worthy, even if it's only a few that are notable. We don't expect every AFD to be correct, but it's simply not acceptable to post an AFD on the based on averages related to the subject matter rather than a careful consideration of that particular article topic.

      So we do we need a ban here from Damien.rf using automated tools to list articles at AFD, or is it enough that he's said he will stop? postdlf (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Close all of them. If people want to nominate just a few at a time, after doing things properly, such as taking a few seconds to do a Google news search first before each nomination, so be it. Dream Focus 16:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be fair to at least speedy close all the AFDs that just have the same copied and pasted boilerplate comments from the nom and the delete !voters, with no other substantive comments. postdlf (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far. After the RfC change, these Playmate articles do need to be reviewed, and speedy closing them would force someone to start all over again with AfDs. And if a speedy-closed article were re-nominated soon, someone would object with a "this was just speedy closed a few weeks ago". I would be more in favor of (1) speedy closing only the clearly notable nominations, and (2) a promise from Damiens not to make any more nominations until this backlog is fully cleared. --JaGatalk 18:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
They should be rolled back as if the nominations had never occurred. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Why nominate them at all? Why not just merge them all into some big "List of" articles? That lets the articles get broken out again if notability is established. (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is a repeat problem for Damiens.rf, ie, if he has a repeated history of causing problems, then he should be stopped. BarkingMoon (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(non-Admin comment)I'm troubled by the very act of mass AfD nominating by anybody. I disagree with the inclusion of some content, but that doesn't entitle me to create headaches for the people who put it in & defend it with good reason (even if I disagree with them). That appears to be what's at play here. I'd also disagree Playmates aren't inherently notable. Any member of such a readily-identifiable group would seem to be, IMO. Moreover, deletion risks deleting useful information. (Yes, I am strongly inclusionist most of the time.) IMO, this kind of behaviour should be discouraged strongly. In this case, it's way over the top IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
This does appear to be a repeat problem. There seems to be a long history of disruptive editing here. But unfortunately all anyone here will tell you to do is go start an RfC which will fester for a month or two and accomplish nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to move this to a policy discussion, because I think there are a few critical issues here.
1) PORNBIO is widely seen as the lowest of the low-hanging fruit when it comes to notability. It probably needs a strong rewrite to bring it in line with general notability guidelines (most curiously how is a single limited-scope award "multiple significant reliable sources"?). It is my understanding that WP:GNG is the minimum standard and project page guidelines should not go lower than that.
2) We need a process for mass deletion that allows for consistent results across an entire field without creating a fiat accompli by volume of nominations. The current situation is utter chaos because it's all on a case-by-case basis. I realize that every article needs to be examined on its own merits but I would rather see a standard created, and then applied. We should be arguing over the standard first, then how it applies to given articles, not judging each article by a different standard.
3) Wikipedia has a serious problem with a lack of adherence to GNG, especially in areas of fandom. The end result is, in practice, that areas that have a wide fan-base willing to vocally defend them have voluminous coverage and very low standards for inclusion. Because articles are judged on a case-by-case basis whomever shows up carries the day most often. Without a method for mass deletions and soliciting wider community input the process is vulnerable to canvassing and meatpuppetry. HominidMachinae (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for a review of all the specific notability criteria. Local criteria are supposed to be specialized clues to help identifying when someone on a given field passes the general criteria. But since they are mostly written (and only reviewed) by local enthusiasts, it's usual for them to serve as a backdoor entrance to Wikipedia for otherwise non-notable subjects. --Damiens.rf 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The specific notability criteria are a double-edged sword; in many cases they may be higher rather than lower. (I've been involved in a few AfDs where folk from a sports wikiproject argued "Delete" because a BLP didn't meet that project's criteria (ie. the person played in a specific league/event), even though the subject did pass the GNG (ie. there was substantial discussion in reliable sources). bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Should automated tools ever be used to list articles at AFD?[edit]

Apart from the conduct of any individual editor, it seems like the use of automated tools generally to post AFDs just causes ill will and can easily be abused (whether or not in good faith) by the rapid posting of bulk nominations. Per WP:BEFORE, we expect that those listing articles for deletion individually assess each article and its potential as a topic before listing it, and we expect tailored deletion rationales rather than boilerplate votes. Automating this process obviously runs counter to those expectations, and I see no inherent benefit to enabling people to post more AFDs at a faster rate. When is it ever a good idea to post AFDs in bulk? When has it ever improved the accuracy and validity of deletion nominations and rationales? As I noted in the last AN/I posting about abuse of automated AFD postings, it not only causes a wide net to be cast that inevitably catches valid article subjects in with the crowd, however few proportionately, it also hinders deletion of the articles that should be deleted because the whole process ends up being mistrusted as indiscriminate. Listing an article at AFD shouldn't be quick and easy; it should be cautious and deliberate.

So I think we need to evaluate whether this feature should be disabled entirely in all automated tools, or at least hindered in some way to prevent rapid-fire mass nominations, such as by capping the rate (e.g., no more than one every ten minutes) or absolute number (e.g., no more than ten per day). postdlf (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As a regular participant in AfD debates, I place great importance on WP:BEFORE and believe that AfD nominators who ignore it create a fair amount of dissension. Automated nominations pretty much assure that individual assessment of the notability of the topic and the avaiability of reliable sources has not taken place. I agree with most of what Postdlf has said. However, I think that a hard working and conscientious editor could make more than ten nominations a day, if each was researched and had its own rationale, so I would oppose such a limit. Cullen328 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The limit I propose is not for manual AFD listings, just automated ones. postdlf (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The AfD templates are also set up the be pretty self-automating. I mean, once you {{subst:afd}} into an article, you get links for the the AfD page preloaded with templates, the day's list where the new AfD is reported, and the author notification template. IMO, it's not that hard to take the AfD the rest of the way manually for there.
That said, I know there are some editors who batch process. They will find 10–20 articles they have concerns about, research them, and then post all the AfDs consecutively for the ones that warrant deletion. If they choose to use an automated tool to help them post the AfDs, I don't object to that usage—so not every person who fires off a bunch of AfDs consecutively has not thought them through. However, those batch-processing editors are probably the exceptions to the rule, with the editors who do start a bunch of ill-considered, cookie-cutter AfDs being more common—and if the latter group is abusing the automated tools, then the tools need to be either throttled or disabled. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Does this proposal treat individual (i.e. non-bulk) Twinkle-style AfDs as "automated"? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Lots of responsible editors use automated tools for nominations. Anyhow, a general proposal like this should be at the Village Pump, not ANI. --RL0919 (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I use twinkle to place xfds. Automated tools for such purposes are convenient for avoiding mistakes, like forgetting to notify. I think there's nothing why with doing mechanical things by using machinery. Judging when to nominate for deletion is needed no matter how one is going to do it. It's true that the availability of the tools makes it easier to be thoughtless, but the lack of required thought is in the responsibility of the editor who uses them. Large batch nominations have been a problem for a long time: there are some times when individual attention is clearly not needed, but often it is. Nobody should be nominating in significant batches, either in one group nomination of in many closely spaced individual ones, without making it very plain from the start that they have searched carefully each of the individual items, and how they have done it. Proper preparation makes things go much smoother, than placing the nominations without such comment, and then having to justify oneself in response to criticism. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Short answer, no. Mass edits of any sort need to be approached carefully, and in particular invocations of a deliberative process like an AfD need to be done deliberatively rather than in mechanical fashion, lest Wikipedia turn into a battle between editors and bots. That's not to say there's anything wrong with helper bots and Twinkle, applied carefully, or that you can't do just as much harm by cutting and pasting. The point is that unleashing a whole bunch of processes at once swamps anyone's ability to deal with them. Seven (or five, or fifteen) per week is not ridiculously slow, as Wikipedia has no deadline. But it would still need some consensus, as it's not reasonable for a single editor to dictate process for everyone else. There's a threshold somewhere between several dozen and several hundred pages with the same issues, beyond which AfD is just not the best venue for making decisions. Anyway, best to put the brakes on things before people invest too much in it. For example, why not keep all the AfDs open as is, but announce a schedule for closing them in batches of a period of 30 days? Or maybe group all the sub-stubs with no claim to notability other than being a playmate into a single batch (all of which would be deleted within 7 days if no further sourced claims to notability are made). That would give people enough time to handle it. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
This case again points to the need for a mass deletion policy. To avoid both the issues of inconsistency and fiat accompli in these matters. Also, for the record, I disagree with any ary arbitrary throttle limit on AfD nominations of non-notable articles ESPECIALLY BLPs. HominidMachinae (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be very wary of saying that we should absolutely never automate big batches of submissions to AfD; it might not be appropriate here and now, but it's difficult to anticipate the future environment (including who !votes, how they !vote, changes to what might need deleting, changes to other bots and other processes...). Agreed that it would be helpful to improve how we deal with bulk deletions of related articles which don't fit within CSD criteria. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
On the encouragement of several editors I'm going to take a stab at a mass deletion policy to put up for RfC. I have a job interview tonight maybe I'll have it up tomorrow. My goal is a policy that allows for us to look at localized criteria that might show adherence to GNG and other important policies in that specific area and apply it in a uniform fashion to a wide area, to ensure consistency and adherence to core policies and guidelines. A side goal is a process that is NOT limited to the 7-day AfD term, to avoid the creation of a fiat accompli by giving an article's defenders more time to perform proper research. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see using automated tools at New Pages. There's a ton of crap at the gate. But using automation against standing articles en masse, be they sororities starting with Alpha or Playboy playmates or whatever the next person decides they really, really hate, should be banned outright. Once an article clears New Pages, gets patrolled, a higher standard of research should be required before it is taken to AfD. The "machine gun 'em all and let the saps at AfD sort 'em out" approach smacks of bad faith. It is disrespectful of the work of those who created the page, and it disrespects the process at AfD. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, it took me one full hour just to paste in the same rationale again and again and again down the list of Playboy Nominations — doing no research into any of them, stating my case for a procedural keep. How are those at AfD supposed to do adequate research into each of these nominations if it takes that long just to spool through them? It can't be done... This is why automated mass deletions like this MUST be prohibited. if WP:BEFORE is allowed to be ignored, there is no way to adequately defend against essentially disruptive mass WP:I DON'T LIKE IT attacks. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It took me more than a day to analyze all those articles (and some more, that I felt passed GNG), but just a couple of minutes to nominate them for deletion. --Damiens.rf 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I love that Damien denied using automated tools, [3], when he's used Twinkle for every nomination. He characterises it as tabbed browsing. Uhh okay there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I never denied that. Take your spurious accusations elsewhere. Try to understand what tabbed browsing is and stop caring about the timeframe my contributions log span. --Damiens.rf 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Nothing spurious about commenting on your attempts at misdirection. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Stop that. I did not attempt that. Stop such accusations. --Damiens.rf 16:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that WP:BEFORE was ignored and mass deletion nominations made. I don't care if it was Twinkle or a magic F12 key on an antique computer that makes it happen, it's a form of automation that needs to be banned. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC) last revision: Carrite (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're honestly care about it, WP:BEFORE was not ignored. It may be the case that this or that article ultimately comes out not to be deleted, but it will not be more likely to happen in my nominations than in it is in general. --Damiens.rf 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Non-admin comment. I'm all for discussing it at the pump, but for the record I agree with Postdlf's logic. AfD's should be limited to a more manageable number per day, although discussion on an AfD is fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been looking in to related occurrences since one of Mhiji's incidents in January. Most of these occurrences are used as a form of mass disruption of Wikipedia and some of these have been done by technically sophisticated users. For example; Wuhwuzdat's hacking of the Twinkle blacklist and Mhiji's use of an unauthorized bot (possibly a hacked version of AWB). Many use sockpuppets to perform mass disruption such as Claritas' mass AfDs of transformer characters last year. These are often done in the guise of helping the project but are actually just a different form of vandalism that uses up our limited resources. It's clear that we need to address this mass disruption some how. I requested a few edit filters a couple weeks ago. I'm not sure if what I requested is possible though. - Hydroxonium (TCV) 18:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
No, you are going to need another hardline policy like 3RR to accomplish that. –MuZemike 06:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
All the mass-AfDs that I can think of have been disruptive - another example involves visa-policy-by-country articles, for very many different countries, last year. A large part of that disruption is due to the fact that somebody with a little automation can simply click on "AfD", whilst the stokers in the AfD boiler-room still have to do real work on each nomination.
However, that doesn't mean that wanting to AfD many articles is a matter of bad-faith editing; there really are lots of articles out there which are deletion-worthy, so there can be legitimate reasons for wanting mass-deletion. A couple of times in the last year I've stumbled across walled gardens of a hundred articles which don't really belong in an encylopædia, and I had to hold back from AfD because treating these articles the same way as a single article would have been disruptive. Hence a single bad article might be deleted, but the determined editor who churns out 100 bad articles may find that many survive much longer, because other editors are worn down. I don't think that's a desirable outcome for wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I got sidetracked there, and should make that point clearer. Mass AfDs may often be disruptive, but that's due to awkward processes rather than evil nominators (though a few nominators might be evil). Simply cracking down on mass AfDs might reduce that disruption, but it still leaves us with a problem, because we need mechanisms to deal with groups of bad articles. bobrayner (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • One of the articles, which got noticed and had people comment in, ended as keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tylyn_John But with so many mass nominated, and the only people commenting the nominator and someone else who just copy and pasted the same delete rational in every AFD without bothering to even look at the article or look for sources, how will they close? Should articles be deleted simply because no one was around to participate? If people just followed WP:BEFORE and only nominated things which should be, then we wouldn't constantly have far more AFDs open than anyone can go through. Mass nomination means you are guaranteed to destroy most of the articles you don't like. Dream Focus 16:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there are equivalent of WP:BEFORE for article creation?

Some have accused me of creating a mess to be sorted out by others with my AfDs. But this descriptions fits well to those creating ever lasting unsourced stubs with the minimum claim of notability to avoid a PROD. At this point, WP:BEFORE forces any AfD nominator to do the research work the article creator should have done to begin with. There's not really an incentive not to stuff the encyclopedia with tons of garbage. --Damiens.rf 18:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, you created a useless mess. The playmate articles are far from garbage, even for ones deemed non-notable. No content is being deleted, its just being merged into list articles. People can choose to work on what they want, of course, but the reward here if any is extremely small to the project's greater good. WP:YFA, among other places, is where guidelines for article creation are set forth. The truth is that new editors are being run off the project at a rate so high, in part because of the way their contributions are treated, that wikipedia is alarmed about it.[4]. That in part, seems to be driven by zealous enforcement of policies to keep out "garbage."--Milowenttalkblp-r 19:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • We do have equivalents of WP:BEFORE for article creation. The worst creations tend to get speedied shortly after creation for this reason; the more effort the creator made, the more likely their article will survive the initial gauntlet. However, two wrongs don't make a right; just because you feel some articles were created rashly doesn't justify rash AfDs. bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Once again, Wiki fails to deal with problematic editors.BarkingMoon (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
  • (non-Admin comment) I think this has got out of hand. I don't see the issue of mass nominations of Playmates being dealt with, and it has now veered to a discussion of using Twinkle for mass deletion nominations. I go to AfD daily and select a number of nominations and then do the research and checking of these nominations, clicking just about every link. Checking takes time; sometimes it is quick, other times it is slow - to see if deletion is really merited. Often it means going and reading quite a few other pages before coming back and making a decision which can be to comment, keep, close, delete or make no comment at all. I will tell you that on 28 April and on the day these nominations were relisted, I chose not to do any AfD noms on that day, because I felt it was an abuse of the process - lumping the matter with regard to notability for Playmates to the small team at AfD to be settled and the issue of mass nominations and its impact on the daily AfD list. AfDs' are dealt with individually, not en masse. Consider that we need closure on the issue of notability and Playmates; and that need closure on the issue of mass nominations for AfD in a specific topic or category. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:51st Australian Film Institute Awards[edit]

I am wondering if anyone would be able to action the proposed move that I requested a month ago for the 48th - 51st Australian Film Institute Award pages. It was previously listed on Wikipedia that the first awards were presented in 1959 when they were really presented in 1958. Therefore the ordinal numbers for each year are incorrect.
Shining a Light: 50 Years of the Australian Film Institute. Australian Teachers of Media. 2009. ISBN 1876467207.
"IMDb Australian Film Institute Awards". The Internet Movie Database. Retrieved 2011-01-19. DonEd (talk) 06:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

50th Australian Film Institute Awards → 51st Australian Film Institute Awards
49th Australian Film Institute Awards → 50th Australian Film Institute Awards
48th Australian Film Institute Awards → 49th Australian Film Institute Awards

DonEd (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you please link to the discussion about this issue? (By the way, would it be easier just to use the year rather than ordinals, e.g. 49th Australian Film Institute Awards2007 Australian Film Institute Awards?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not just call it whatever it's called in the reliable sources that verify the content of the article and demonstrate notability of the topic? If no sources call it the 50th or 51st whatever, then surely giving it that name is original research? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Backlog processed

Eyes and fingers on buttons, please? Drmies (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Try this one, for new admin practice: (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Drmies (talk) 02:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like everyone but ClueBot and me are watching the Lakers game. ClueBot, I leave the ship in your hands. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
What, we can't bite the newbie administrators and violate WP:BITEADMINS? –MuZemike 07:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It is far more effective to bite the older admins WP:EXPLODEFARTS - they tend to reach higher orbits of indignation, with more colourful displays... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Henry Cavill and Ellen Whitaker[edit]

Sourced info about their engagement is being repeatedly deleted. It originally seemed to be from User: (who's been warned, to no effect), but other IPs (possible sockpuppets) have joined in. I reported it here, since it involves edit-warring and sockpuppetry, and didn't know whether article protection or blocking the IPs was the solution. Thanks. --Ebyabe (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of obvious sock puppets[edit]

Do we really need to go through the motions of identifying the master of an obvious sockpuppet? Or is it enough that a "new" user shows up making, as their only edits, a serious of reverts of edits made by a specific set of editors? nableezy - 19:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it would be easier than AN/I, unless you think you can get the quick attention of a specific admin who is familiar with the sockmaster. Much of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600 is filled with quick duck-blocks, for example. Whenever I filed one, the turnaround time was pretty swift. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Typically, if it passes the "duck test", the SPI will be declined. So if it passes the duck test, it should be indef'd immediately and skip the middle man. Or, an admin/checkuser can decided to take the obvious action, as below.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Proxy blocked. If they resume editing, please let me know so I can either a) check their connection to previous accounts or b) block another proxy. TNXMan 19:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to correct BB: the SPI won't be declined, but an associated checkuser request generally will be. Many a sock is blocked based on an SPI request where it was determined to be unnecessary to run a checkuser.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm talking about. In the case of an obvious sock, there's no point in going through the bother of creating an SPI. Just block the bozo and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I wear socks on my feet.BarkingMoon (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Where they tend to collect hair shed by Manx cats. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So I'm a "sockpuppet"? On what evidence? That I edited a bunch of articles you don't want anyone to edit? Is that how this works? As soon as I start editing, you and your friends undo all my edits and get my IP blocked? Real "collegiate" Wikipedia. Nice going. AmiAyalon1969 (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you like, I'd be happy to initiate the process at WP:SPI. Are you requesting the process to be started? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
And this is why you go to SPI first. Let the quiet professionals deal with it, rather than invite mayhem here. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Need a sock block[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (talk · contribs · WHOIS), incarnation of User:Instantnood needs blocking to end the revert disruption. He's way too intimately familiar with my history to be some innocent IP who just happens to like edit warring, stalking me, and using the same language. And warning, he'll change IP. I'm going to request a CU look if there are any user names behind the IP as well. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like Alison is on it, though perhaps a rangeblock would be helpful here? (I never remember how to calculate those, so I don't know if there would be too much collateral damage.) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who images[edit]

I'm bringing this here because I'm not sure where else to take it, and because some uninvolved admin intervention may be necessary, either to enforce the NFCC, or to prevent process gaming or edit waring.

The article is The Impossible Astronaut‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There have been repeated attempts to put an image in the infobox. On each occasion, so far, the uploaded image has been discussed and after the appropriate time deleted or removed as not meeting the NFCC. People then hunt for another image to decorate the box, offer some weak justification, and insist that the image remains until the debate is concluded. Rinse and repeat. The result is we pretty constantly have violating images on the article until the latest debate concludes. In such cases, should the onus not be on the uploader to make the case and a challenged image remain off until/unless there's a consensus it meets the criteria? Or better, people shouldn't decide they want a decoration and then keep trying their luck with the NFCC until they get one past it.

Images in question so far have been:

Anyway, I removed the most recent image, only to have it replaced. So, I'm going to bow out and leave this to others. The basic problem is non-free content being driven by a desire to fill and infobox and then people seek for a content justification, rather than the other way about.--Scott Mac 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. The NFCC rationale used for this image pretty clearly doesn't fly (or shouldn't). However, there seems to be a pretty clear consensus-in-practice that a single screenshot from a TV episodes can be used to illustrate the episode articles, providing identifying information. Particularly for long-running shows, the screenshot can provide important contextual information, especially since most TV watchers don't really keep track of the titles of episodes they've seen -- indeed, at least for many US TV series, the titles aren't even used in the broadcasts. Visual cues can be helpful in a way that textual descriptions often aren't (we all know that proverb). There are hundreds of Doctor Who episode screenshots alone, and roughly 20,000 overall (although a significant share of those illustrate character articles). Rather than picking them off piecemeal, based on the poorly written rationales rather than potential encyclopedic function, we should have a centralized discussion on the underlying issues and make our treatment of such images consistent. (The NFCC issue is independent of the case-by-case decision on how well-chosen a particular image may be; some seem rather randomly selected.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • At WP:FAC these kinds of images with weak justifications usually haven't survived, whether or not its a single identifying image for the show or not. Part of the reason that doesn't really work is that there isn't really a single image that represents a television episode in most cases (as opposed to a film poster, album art, etc.) It still has to meet WP:NFCC even if it's in the infobox. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • As NFCC forms our Exemption Doctrine Policy for the foundation's resolution, a consensus that we ignore them to pretty up TV shows doesn't work, we apply the NFCC regardless. -- (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't disagree, in principle, with either of you. But I think that community practice, over tens of thousands of articles, has created a working consensus that single identifying screenshots in episode articles satisfy the requirements of NFCC #8 in the same way that book or album covers do for the corresponding articles. I believe that, rather than having this kind of discussion in the context of scattered images that seem to be not terribly good at identifying the subject, we should have a more centralized discussion on the general principle rather than nibbling at the edges. (I personally believe we ought to revisit NFCC#8 and much more specifically outline the conditions when identifying images can be used. We are now in the anomalous situation where article form has more influence over NFCC use than it should: for example, allow single screenshots to be used in articles on individual TV characters, for identifying purposes -- but if the articles are merged into a single "characters of the X tv series," the exactly coextensive use of the same nonfree content is no longer permitted. But that's a discussion for a different day, perhaps.)
      • In short, we need to conform the existing practice, which is reasonable under the Foundation resolution, with the NFCC requirements, which some editors reasonably interpret as contrary to current practice. With two reasonable, but incompatible, interpretations, we should seek a more general, well-focused discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
        • "single identifying screenshots in episode articles satisfy the requirements of NFCC #8" NO, NO,100x no. This is not policy, not consensus, and not compatible with the NFCC.--Scott Mac 20:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
          • There is indeed a very clear policy consensus against this indiscriminate use of such images that has been shaped and confirmed across dozens if not hundreds of deletion debates. We have at least a couple of them every week, and the large majority of them end in deletion. We also have a very wide-spread myth among article authors that there is such a blanket allowance. I doubt there has ever been an informed consensus discussion leading to this idea. The reason for its existence is simply that at some time many years ago, at a time when NFC enforcement was given less attention, somebody made the fatal decision of including an "image=" parameter in the relevant infobox templates, and the results of that person's one-off whim are still haunting us today. I've often been tempted to just go and deactivate that field in the template, which would orphan a couple thousand bad non-free images at one fell swoop. The only reason I've refrained from doing so is for the sake of the ten righteous ones among the thousand bad ones. Fut.Perf. 20:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
            • There is indeed a very clear policy consensus against this indiscriminate use of such images that has been shaped and confirmed across dozens if not hundreds of deletion debates. . . . We also have a very wide-spread myth among article authors that there is such a blanket allowance. And that's why we need a centralized discussion. There are thousands upon thousands of such uses, and they're being added faster than they can be deleted. If "policy is what we do," as Jimbo once said, than I can't really see how (what I call) the consensus-in-practice among the editors who write the articles is less valid and the opposite consensus-in-practice among the editors who take part in deletion discussions is more valid. The whole "identifying use" NFCC justification has sprung up from editorial practice; it would be hard to develop it from the policy page text alone. Unless you're intent on playing whack-a-mole forever (or at least willing to), a centralized discussion on the underlying principles is the better way to go.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Just one aside: I'm now struck by the thought that, in all the years of playing whack-a-mole about this (and you are right, it really has been something like that), your argument about "identifying use" above is the first time I've ever seen something like a coherently argued position in defense of this practice. Even if policy is "what we do", I find it hard to call something a policy consensus if its proponents have for years failed to think up something even approaching a coherent, articulated justification for it. All they ever said in so many words in debate upon debate was "so many other articles are doing it, so why can't we here?" Fut.Perf. 21:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
                • If we want to argue policy is what we do, then please formalise that policy that it's automatic an image, any image from a show can be used in the article and we'll be in breach of the foundation resolution. The fact that we've been slack in enforcing our existing policy and meeting the foundation requirements shouldn't be an excuse to continue that slackness. We've also had/got tons of textual copyvios and tons more being added all the time, should we just allow that as "policy since it's common practice" too? -- (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • I've started a discussion on WT:NFC#Television episode screenshots to try to clarify the existing language that would suggest that episodes don't normally get screenshots unless the scenes are discussed. Input for the larger policy issue should go there. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I will only say this (without getting sucked in the underlaying NFC debate): While an image is under discussion, it is customary to leave the image in place for the duration of that discussion. It is the only way in which participants can judge the image in question in the scope in which it is used. Removing an image from an article while under discussion is not helpfulf and is often seen as a disruption of that discussion (I know I do). It is the reason why FfD exists; with arbitrary removal we would not need FfD to begin with. Edokter (talk) — 20:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: from Hullabaloo's remarks about practice, and others' about that practice violating NFCC, it sounds like we have a more widespread problem. This should probably be addressed via amending policy, or possibly an RFC on the general issue which can inform general practice. Rd232 talk 01:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS permission check needed[edit]

Could any OTRS person perhaps do me a favour and check this ticket for me. It was added to a number of images, but not by an OTRS person but by the uploader himself, and that uploader has a massive prior history of copyvios. Fut.Perf. 21:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That ticket is a permission to use a specific photograph of Jessica Stam, and nothing else. If it's being used elsewhere, it's a lie. — Coren (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I expected. Indef-blocking the offender. Fut.Perf. 21:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please look at Danstar123[edit]

I'd like for an administrator to look at the work of Danstar123. Edits like this are very dangerous, and it looks like nobody noticed this for many days. Inigopatinkin (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain you can characterise that as 'dangerous'. It looks like good faith to me. Of course it violates BLP etc but given it's been made to the page of a cult leader I suspect it is in fact correct. Egg Centric 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Appears to be good faith edit, although as Egg pointed out, there's a BLP problem. I glanced at the Contribution history and everything else looks constructive. Suggest a polite note on Danstar123's User Talk page regarding the BLP problem, and maybe something about WP:V to go with it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody notified the user of this posting? (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just made the required notification. Inigopatinkin, in the future, please remember that when you open an ANI discussion on an editor you must notify them of the discussion. Monty845 04:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog[edit]


There is a lengthy backlog at WP:AIV, if an admin or two could take care of it, it would be appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Still 6 reports remaining. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please look at Danstar123[edit]

I'd like for an administrator to look at the work of Danstar123. Edits like this are very dangerous, and it looks like nobody noticed this for many days. Inigopatinkin (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not certain you can characterise that as 'dangerous'. It looks like good faith to me. Of course it violates BLP etc but given it's been made to the page of a cult leader I suspect it is in fact correct. Egg Centric 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Appears to be good faith edit, although as Egg pointed out, there's a BLP problem. I glanced at the Contribution history and everything else looks constructive. Suggest a polite note on Danstar123's User Talk page regarding the BLP problem, and maybe something about WP:V to go with it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody notified the user of this posting? (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just made the required notification. Inigopatinkin, in the future, please remember that when you open an ANI discussion on an editor you must notify them of the discussion. Monty845 04:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

AIV Backlog[edit]


There is a lengthy backlog at WP:AIV, if an admin or two could take care of it, it would be appreciated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Still 6 reports remaining. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:COI behavior?[edit]

Admin User:JzG has blocked User:James Cantor (who identifies himself as James Cantor) for repeatedly editing the biographies of some professionals that disagree with him in real life on professional issues (disagreements recorded in print academic publications). The block has now expired. Admin User:DGG however seems to think that the block was unjustified and that Cantor tagging with {{notability}} the biographies of people with whom he has had real-life disagreements is not a problem but a way to improve Wikipedia. I have asked DGG to reconsider his position on his talk page, but he asked that the discussion not be continued there. Since DGG is an admin, I thought this would be the proper venue to continue the discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

how the heck is DGG encouraging battleground tactics, or have a conflict of interest, here? he said that he didn't think the article tagging was justified, but that tagging the articles was not disruptive. How does that indicate that he's encouraging battleground tactics or that he himself has some sort of conflict of interest?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Where did I say DGG has a conflict of interest? Tijfo098 (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not terribly clear, to me, exactly what you're asking for, or who has done what. Are you seeking some sort of action against User:DGG, or against User:James Cantor? How did you come to the conclusiong that DGG "seems to think that the block was unjustified", and why is that relevant? This report is confusing.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I thought the block was also unjustified. It looks to me that James Cantor was blocked for having a COI, and not any actual disruption. Does James Cantor have a topic ban that I'm unaware of? I've already commented at Cantor's talk page to explain further. -- Atama 22:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It's perfectly correct to say that I thought the block unjustified, because I said so in just those terms on the user talk page. I prefer not to block or unblock in a situation that involves things I've worked on, or I would have unblocked. I have frequently said here before that admins should avoid anything at all that might possibly be interpreted as over-involvement, true or false,& I try to follow my own advice. I gather the block is still in effect for a few hours, and I very strongly urge somebody to lift it. I would certainly unblock in a similar situation where I had no prior contact with the people. As for battleground behavior, it's pretty clear who I think is currently engaged in it. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The block ended about 5 hours ago. I tried to unblock when James made his most recent unblock request and couldn't because a block was no longer in effect. -- Atama 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that MuZemike and Atama tried unblocking me at about the same time and "unblock-conflicted".
My remaining concern, for which I would appreciate input, is whether I am supposed to follow JzG's restrictions on threat of more blocking (which amounts to a topic ban) despite that the other admins who have so far commented said that I have been acting within the relevant guidelines. My original (and unanswered) response to JzG is on my userpage here, and the subsequent block discussion is here.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
James Cantor was autoblocked when he shouldn't have been (which I don't know why the autoblock was still up). –MuZemike 04:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, this is green light for the following involvement of experts in Wikipedia. Expert 1 writes a paper, proposal, whatever, in some academic publishing venue. Expert 2 publishes a rebuttal or a paper disagreeing with expert 1, again in an academic venue. Expert 1, who is also a Wikipedia editor, tags the WP:BLP Wikipedia biography of expert 2 with {{notablity}}, meaning non-notability of course. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And what if Expert 2 has a valid reason for the tag? I don't see a problem here. -- Atama 00:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record: The first thing I did was to state the issue on the talk page here, and the other editor in the discussion suggested the tag here, which I then enacted here.
If there is anything else I could have done to make the issue more explicit for other interested editors, I don't know what it is.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Expert 2 doesn't edit Wikipedia to begin with. Do we want experts tagging each others' biographies here when they have a real-life conflict? Is that the new purpose of Wikipedia? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Linking WP:BATTLEGROUND is a senseless non sequitur. If you want to know what the Wikipedia guidelines are for a situation like this, read WP:COI. If you have a problem with our guidelines, start a discussion on the talk page there. There is also WP:COIN (where I tend to hang out). But basically what you're describing isn't explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. -- Atama 00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I might also add that there is a very relevant line in BATTLEGROUND you should consider, "Assume good faith that every editor and group is here to improve Wikipedia—especially if they hold a point of view with which you disagree." -- Atama 00:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
On a side note, Guy was never informed that someone had started a discussion here that included him, I've now informed him. -- Atama 00:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I would like to be entirely clear here: I have no objection to Cantor editing in his field of expertise, I do object to to his editing of articles on living individuals with whom he has off-wiki disputes. His reaction to a warning on this was to repudiate the basis of the warning: [6] - this is, I think pretty uncontroversial. An individual with real-world conflicts editing the biographies of those with whom he is in conflict and asserting that there is no reaosn why he should not, that warnings are invalid? That is an unequivocal rejection of WP:COI and not acceptable. Hence the shot across the bows. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • So his rejection of the COI guideline that makes suggestions about how an editor can edit Wikipedia without causing problems is a justification for blocking? COI is not a policy, and isn't enforceable without a community ban. When did admins get the unilateral right to block someone for having a COI? The diff you provided looked like you were single-handedly placing a topic ban on an editor, which admins don't have the ability to do. I had hoped there was some blatant disruption on James Cantor's part that I had missed but it looks like I was incorrect. So again, tell me, what discretionary sanction were you operating under? -- Atama 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Funny, DGG had threatened to block another editor over COI/DE for simply commenting on a talk page. What changed in the policies since then? Tijfo098 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
It was a borderline legal threat. Did Cantor do something similar? As I've said repeatedly, there needs to be disruption along with the COI before a block can be levied. Even WP:COI states as much, to prevent the kind of block that happened against James Cantor. Guy attempted to place a topic ban on James Cantor, which is completely in conflict with the banning policy. "Except as noted above, individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans." The exception is when discretionary sanctions apply, which is why I asked about it before. Frankly, Guy's directive to James Cantor was unenforceable. If you wish for there to be a topic ban against James Cantor, however, this board we're posting on is the perfect place to initiate it. Just make your argument as to why the ban is necessary and ask for community input. You can't, however, ask an admin to ban someone for you, we can't do that. -- Atama 02:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
How was it a legal threat? The editor threatened with a block there by DGG seems to have simply written that he had been sued already, which created the COI. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
And if you and DGG are concerned about expert retention, you may want to pay some attention to the thread just above this one, where an expert is being accused of the utmost impropriety of wanting to include an overview table of the field previously written by him but which has apparently been published by the foremost professional organization in the field on their web site. James Cantor has also added a number of external links to his personal website to various articles, which has created a ruckus in itself—there's a thread in the EL/N archives— but I am not complaining about stuff like that, I'm only concerned about his editing of his opponents' biographies to disparage them, and the encouragement he now receives from some administrators in that direction. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Tijfo's comment is rather a half truth. Missing from his (?) opinion are this COI guideline:
Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies.
Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight.
and my many, many, many talkpage entries doing exactly that: [7], [8], [9], [10], etc., etc., ...
Well okay, I guess that makes Tijfo's comment somewhat less than a half, but I think the point is clear. I have every desire and every conceivable demonstration of following WP:COI, including even its optional recommendations. The only, and I mean only dissatisfied editors are those with whom I have had one or another content dispute, typically because the scientific POV I added to a page disagrees with their own POVs.
— James Cantor (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not recall the two of us having something that can be really called a content dispute here. And I probably agree with you on most sexuality-related topics—"probably" because I don't know your position on everything. The closest thing that comes to a content dispute between us (that I can remember) is this thread, where you asked for sources justifying the discussion of homosexuality on the paraphilia page. Are you saying that I have a grudge on you for that? Tijfo098 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I was referring to edit disputes in which I find myself on sexuality pages in general, not any with you specifically. Hans Adler just captured the idea perfectly, below.— James Cantor (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think James Cantor's behavior on wikipedia has been way over the top since the beginning, with various bits of WP:COI driving most of it; and his putting a notability tag on the bio of a person that he has an off-wiki dispute with is certainly unacceptable. Maybe a warning would have been better than a block, though, as he does tend to toe the line when it's pointed out to him. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to accept that there are situations when people can put notability tags on the biographies of someone they have an off-wiki dispute with - eg, in cases where the person may not be notable and tagging for notability is objectively justified. To argue otherwise is simply to suppose that people can't behave responsibly or like grown-ups on Wikipedia. Assuming that won't encourage responsible behavior or editing; just the opposite. (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"won't encourage responsible behavior or editing; just the opposite" like not signing in to your account before commenting at ANI? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
More like assuming bad faith and making an accusation like the above. (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
So not letting him tag articles of his opponents is an assumption of bad faith? How about you nominate WP:COI for deletion then? Because it's all an assumption of bad faith in the same vein. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates by consensus, and it's really not up to individual editors to "let" other editors do or not do particular things. More to the point, it is indeed assuming bad faith to suppose that someone cannot possibly be permitted to edit an article about an opponent, if his edits seem unproblematic in themselves and other editors might have made them in good faith. (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually,, I think the consensus is that the notability tag on the rival's BLP was _not_ objectively justified. As I recall, not even DGG supported it. BitterGrey (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I was commenting on the general principle at stake rather than the rights or wrongs of this particular case. But see WhatamIdoing's comments, about the lack of evidence for both Cantor's supposed rivalry with Moser and for Moser's notability. (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

() Let me put it in simple terms. Administrators can't place bans on editors without having a discretionary sanction first. That's pretty much the end of the discussion. Nobody has refuted this, or can refute it. If you don't like it, start an RFC. If you want a ban on a particular person, propose one and see what the community thinks. Otherwise this is all just noise. -- Atama 06:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

User:JzG didn't ban James Cantor, he blocked him for disruptive editing. An he'll probably block him again next time Cantor does something like that. If you disagree, you can unblock Cantor, because you're an admin too, I gather. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Telling someone they cannot edit an article is a ban. Ignore that all you want, but that's a fact. I'm assuming it was done in error, but if I see it again, I'll have to start an RFC. Administrators cannot ban editors unilaterally, and an attempt to do so is a claim of authority an administrator doesn't have. -- Atama 06:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of edits to read. I do not see grounds for asserting that James Cantor rather more likely, however, that consensus would be reached for a ban on WP:BLP articles in the field, given his numerous documented real-world disputes. from any material I read, and, in fact, that COI is a straw man argument here. Nor did I see his edits as "disruptive" to the point where a block would be preventative. They certainly did not reach any stage where they made untrue claims about any person, and WP:BLP still applies to any contentious edits in them. If he violated WP:BLP and consensus were reached on a block, that would be an entirely different issue. BTW, the COI argument would imply that no expert could ever edit in their own field, as every expert has presumably had interactions with others in the field. I do not think such an extention of COI is wise. Collect (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Two points on my mind:

  • I'm the editor who suggested tagging Charles Allen Moser with {{Notability}}. Why? Because editors are supposed to tag articles if they have BLP-related notability concerns. You're not supposed to let them sit and rot in the hopes that maybe, someday, we'll have sources, and maybe, possibly, if we all cross our fingers, no harm will come to the subject in the meantime.
    In case someone's interested in the details, at that time, there were a whopping four (4) sources cited in the article that weren't co-authored by Moser, and their contents were as trivial as "[Footnote] 10. Charles Allen Moser, unpublished doctoral dissertation for the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, completed August 1979". That's 100% of the material about Moser in one of those four sources, and it is not even close to what we mean by "significant coverage".
    Since then, the professional trans activist who encouraged JzG to block Cantor, Jokestress (talk · contribs), whose own website has many pages attacking Cantor, e.g., for "notably virulent" transphobia[11]—has found a handful of additional independent sources. However, my spot check of these sources hasn't turned up a single one with true "in-depth coverage" about the person we've inflicted this article on. We've got a longer string of single-sentence sources, e.g., WP:INTEXT attributions like "According to several researchers, notably Charles Moser and JJ Madeson in their book...", or uncritical, unanalyzed direct quotations from works the subject co-authored. This is what the folks at AFD usually call the "passing mention", which is a distinctly poor indication of notability, especially for a living person. If this were a company or a product, we'd all be at AFD right now, and you'd all be screaming delete, rather than trying to punish someone for correctly flagging a possible problem for attention from the community exactly as recommended by our policies.
  • I see that a couple of people have asserted here and elsewhere that Cantor—who does actually count as a living person under our policies, even on this page—has treated Moser badly by wondering aloud whether the apparent lack of "significant coverage" means that Wikipedia shouldn't inflict a badly sourced article on Moser. There are have been explicit claims that Cantor and Moser are in some sort of rivalry or academic feud. I want to know: Where are your sources for that contentious claim about these two BLPs? Perhaps some folks are simply showing how gullible they are by repeating Jokestress' assertion that they're rivals, but I've never yet seen the smallest evidence that this alleged rivalry actually exists in the real world, or even a credible explanation of why such a rivalry would prompt Cantor to promote Moser's papers on Wikipedia. I've provided sources proving that Jokestress has a real-world feud with Cantor; it didn't even take two minutes to find them. So where are yours to show that Cantor and Moser have a real-world rivalry? (Hint: Merely failing to agree 100% on a given academic point isn't the same thing as having a "rivalry" or "feud".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm going to notify User:Jokestress that you are discussing her statements here. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, and if you think that Moser guy is not notable WP:AFD or {{prod}} his bio. ANI is not the place to decide that. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
      • ANI is, however, the ideal forum for deciding whether any editor should be blocked for expressing concern about the notability of a BLP. That's why you started this discussion here, isn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Orrather, whether an editor who has numerous off-wiki disputes should be permitted to edit the Wikipedia articles on individuals with whom he is in dispute. To which the answer is, in general, no. It's not like this is the first time someone has been told to lay off articles on people with whom they have off-wiki disputes. Cantor seems happy to undertake not to edit some articles directly, according to his user page, so I don't even see why this is a problem for him let alone anyone else. Commenting on the talk page is fine. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Full support for the block - No editor should edit the article of living people they have citable off wiki disputes with - User:James Cantor either needs to back off or we need to consider a topic ban. There are a couple of others that also would benefit from a topic ban, its not just James, user:Jokestress is another, Cantor is highlighted because of his real life name - the whole area is overloaded with over involved contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
@Guy: Orrather, whether an editor who has numerous off-wiki disputes should be permitted to edit the Wikipedia articles on individuals with whom he is in dispute. That's a reasonable suggestion, but that would require either a policy change or perhaps arbitration. What you're suggesting is a change to what is considered a blockable offense on Wikipedia. Right now, there is no such thing as a blockable offense for COI outside of discretionary sanctions. That discussion can happen, and might be a good one to have. But I'll caution you, we couldn't even decide on whether or not we should consider being paid to edit an article to be a blockable offense, which is a far more blatant form of COI, I don't have a lot of hope to get a policy change for an even greyer area like this.
@Off2riorob: Full support for the block - No editor should edit the article of living people they have citable off wiki disputes with - User:James Cantor either needs to back off or we need to consider a topic ban. It sounds like you're saying two contradictory things. Should there be a topic ban, or can James Cantor be blocked without a topic ban? I'm sure anyone would be hard-pressed to find a way to support the latter. Anyone who is an administrator should know very well that we can't initiate topic bans on our own, heck, just about every RfA I've seen in the past couple of years includes the question "what is the difference between a block and a ban" for a good reason. As to the former, I think it's reasonable to suggest a ban for one or more people involved in this dispute, I'll leave it up to someone more familiar with the history here than me to draft such a suggestion. -- Atama 19:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't completely disagree with Off2riorob's principle, but I'm still waiting for someone to provide name a reliable source that shows this alleged "citable off-wiki disputes" involving Cantor and Moser. I've been having trouble finding reliable sources that even name both of them on the same page, but perhaps someone else's search skills are better than mine.
We are making accusations about real people here, folks. This affects more than the editors: This affects Moser, too. Wikipedia hits high in the search engine rankings. A relatively obscure researcher (Moser) shouldn't have the world told that he's in an academic feud with a somewhat better-known researcher just so that one or more of us can gain an upper hand in a pretty simple content dispute. We need to either cough up some citations to support these allegations of an academic dispute, or we need to start striking comments and quit making administrative decisions based on unsupported and possibly false allegations of an off-wiki dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
@Atama - I don't support restrictions at all really - I support the involved users getting the idea and moving away from editing in their involved sector - if they don't do that - I support restricting them via topic bans - wikipedia is not benefiting at all from them attempting to insert their strongly held involved opinions into articles, this is especially important in relation to articles about living opponents of theirs ...about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with you there, Off2riorob, on a case-by-case basis of course, if their edits violate WP:NPOV that can't be allowed. -- Atama 22:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, try this (doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9436-8), and note that Cantor is coauthor to the Blanchard 2008 paper (DSM-5 proposal) as noted in his bio here. He somehow took interest in the bio of Karen Franklin as well; do I have to spell it out how that is a COI as well? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WTF? Moser contradicted a paper of which Cantor was an author? That's all you have, and you present it as if it was a smoking gun? I really don't see what's wrong in general with academics editing their colleagues' articles so long as they do it fairly. If you want to make a case against Cantor you must (1) prove that he is so irate about the people whose biographies he edited that even though his edits may look innocuous, we must assume that he did it for some secret dark motives, or (2) prove that there was something wrong, or at the very least tendentious, with his edits.
Now the field of sexology may cause strong feelings in those who have personal problems related to this field. But when you assume that therefore academics working in the field who disagree with each other must automatically be enemies, then that's pure projection. A proper academic feels passionately about his or her field, but not in the same way as someone whose aberration/lifestyle/whatever is under examination. That's not to say that there is never fighting between academics working in the same field, but the normal assumption is that they get along with each other rather well, even where they disagree. And it would be absolutely stupid for an academic editing under his real name to do anything controversial concerning a colleague. This kind of thing always comes out and causes a bad reputation. That's practically a guarantee that there will no improper edits by Cantor. If we ever get hard evidence that in fact he doesn't care about his reputation and edits improperly, then we can still look at this again, but so far absolutely no such evidence has been presented. Hans Adler 00:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I assume you want the animosities to rise to the level similar to that in thread above this one (on EP) where self-identified anthropologists were in bash mode on an EP prof before something is done? Also, it's best to wait for Jokestress to reply, because I'm hardly familiar with Moser's work. I just pointed out what I could find in a few minutes. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, you essentially say that "sexual minorities" have more of a conflict of interest in editing sexology articles than sexologists themselves have describing their own work in Wikipedia, or that of those other sexologists they disagree with. Interesting line of thought. Can we extend that to ethnicity for instance? It's also a core part of many editors' identity. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest that this entire thread is getting seriously tendentious and is not actually accomplishing anything? It might be a good idea to have the whole thing shut down as pointless, and the thread archived. (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I said no such thing. I said they are more likely to be pissed when someone characterises their lifestyle as an aberration that needs treatment, or when someone characterises the uncurable condition that has destroyed their life as a mere lifestyle choice – whichever applies from the POV of the respective individual. In addition, there are also editors who get involved to prevent damage to society – which may be a perfectly legitimate reaction, or an instance of moral panic, but in either case will also tend to make conflicts acrimonious. Both types of editor are likely to blow normal, civilised academic disputes way out of proportion, and as far as I can tell that is precisely what has happened here.
The same principle does apply to ethnicities. An actual, bona fide scientific researcher in a field related to ethnicity, editing the articles of his colleagues whom he regularly meets at conferences and exchanges emails with in between, is likely to be more self-restrained and therefore more neutral, and also to be much more knowledgeable about the subjects, than an lay editor who edits such an article because he or she feels that the subject's research is all wrong or offensive.
The only way someone can do real research is by being sufficiently detached from their field to notice contradictions to their own theories. In science there is (supposed to be) a strong culture of openness to all forms of criticism, which must be dealt with constructively. It's not enough to hypothesise that in the case of a specific researcher and editor this culture may have broken down, and something may have been a motive for improper behaviour, when there is no evidence that improper behaviour ever occurred. Maybe your instincts are right, and maybe there is proof for this, but you haven't made a convincing case, or in fact any case at all. It looks just like a witch hunt. At some point this pounding on vague suspicions with no evidence and no disruption other than that caused by an overreacting admin really has to stop, as it's already in the territory of unsubstantiated personal attacks.
(Please note that I am taking no position whatsoever on the science here. I have no experience whatsoever with unusual sexual interests beyond having a few homo- or bisexuals among my friends. I am not interested in these topics, but on the other hand I am not damaged by a hypocritical upbringing. I have no strong or unusual positions either way. But I do have strong positions on the ability of academics to contribute to Wikipedia in their field unless and until they are actually breaking the rules.) Hans Adler 12:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Does the "strong culture of openness" include removing criticism of your work from Wikipedia under WP:2LAW? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
(1) We should look at the full picture. (2) He removed this letter to the editor from the lead of a medical article. In that context WP:MEDRS#Choosing sources applies, and it says: "Peer reviewed medical journals are a natural choice [...]. They contain a mixture [...]. Although almost all such material will count as a reliable source for at least some purposes, not all the material is equally useful, and some, such as a letter from a non-expert, should be avoided."
I am not saying the edit was ideal, but it was not criminal and it was 14 fucking months ago. If that's the best concrete evidence you have, then you have nothing. (I find the letter to the editor that he removed very convincing, and if I had seen this edit I guess I would have restored it.) Hans Adler 23:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
From the Moser article Dr. Cantor removed a quotation saying that Moser is "well-known". (This was done before he tagged Moser's biography for [lack of] notability.) Perhaps the quotation was wp:undue, but this wasn't clearly argued in the edit summary. Presumably Moser's notability doesn't hinge on the recognition he receives in that quote, but I'm not going to speculate on his notability any further. My opinion from the helicopter is that those edits in sequence look questionable. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
A lot of editors, including myself, routinely remove vague puffery and peacock terms like "well-known", "leading", and "notable" from all sorts of articles. That's a very typical and directly recommended good-editor behavior. If you want to improve Wikipedia today, then here's one list containing hundreds of similarly puffed-up BLPs that you could be improving. I'm sure you'd have no trouble finding hundreds more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Presumably the whole reason for having an article about someone is that they are well known - there would scarcely be any point to having an article about him or her otherwise. Tijfo098 is straining to find examples of sinister behavior by James Cantor, but isn't succeeding very well. (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I would not have advised anyone to bring this matter here, because neither the specific situation nor any general issue was likely to be advanced, but rather that bad feelings would expand concentrically. So it has--witness the above general discussion, What business do we have here discussing the motivations of people editing in this field? As for the reliability of people editing in their own academic specialties, academics can be just as pig-headed as anyone else, except that their quarrels are likely to extend way beyond the Wikipedia scale in duration, extent, and rhetorical skill. There may be some fields of science where people are open-minded about criticism, but it certainly does not apply to anything having immediate RW applications, especially in the social sciences. And I read some of the arguments above as saying that transsexuals should not be editing articles about transsexuality, which makes as much sense as saying heterosexuals should not edit articles about that aspect of human life. It depends upon the editing. There's been a lot of bad editing in the present field; almost everyone editing in it has a very strong POV. Cantor's editing in this instance was not disruptive, and that is all that needs to be considered with respect to him. (And yes, this does imply that Guy's block was disruptive, & I think that proven by events.) If we need to change general rules, common sense would indicate that we should not do so in the context of a particular case, especially a case necessarily involving emotions of this degree of magnitude. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that there's plenty of disagreement on this matter (as we found out in this thread), so it's unlikely to get resolved by consensus. (But hey, it's less absurd to debate this issue than to dramatize the MOS:DASH.) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: WP:COI says "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. [...] COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies [...] accounts may be blocked. " As a result, whilst "COI" is often loosely thrown around where editors have personal or business links, it doesn't lead to blocks unless clear disruption is shown. The blocking threshold should be substantially higher when the alleged COI editor is both editing with their real name and is notable enough to have their own wikipedia entry (which can lead to such kerfuffles affecting their reputation). The bottom line is that COI editing is not banned per se, and admins can't sanction it unless it becomes clearly and unambiguously disruptive - a judgement that must be made after a large dose of WP:AGF and attempted education of the user. Rd232 talk 01:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also quite willing to WP:AGF, but one needs to consider the long term history of edits as well, as ArbCom has done in a recently closed case. For example, with his previous (and acknowledged) account Dr. Cantor edited the biography of User:Jokestress (who identifies as Andrea James), to add a certain incident to the lead as well as the expression "controversial American transsexual" (that expression, which is not in the source cited, reminds me of a "left-wing Professor of Biology"; James is described as "a Hollywood-based trans-consumer advocate and an entrepreneurial consultant on trans issues" in the source). I'll let you judge for yourself if that incident, which received only a paragraph in press as part of a larger story, is lead-worthy material in any WP:BLP. Dr. Cantor also pushed the text beyond what NYT wrote, which is only "sexually explicit captions", which became "sexually explicit obsenities written over them" in Wikipedia. I understand that an agreement was struck in which he agreed to avoid making such edits. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
That's three years ago - ancient history. Granted that it wasn't good editing, Cantor hasn't done anything remotely like that for a long time, and I don't think a fair-minded person would hold it against him now or use it as a reason to ban Cantor from anything. I think all parties to this thread should acknowledge that it isn't serving a useful purpose. Either propose sanctions against someone - against Cantor for his supposed COI and disruptive editing or against JzG for blocking him disruptively - or else just drop the whole thing. (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a pretty good point until you realise that that particular edit occurred 3 days after the creation of what you say is Cantor's previous account. Unless he had undisclosed other, earlier accounts (I have no idea but given that he changed accounts very openly it doesn't seem very likely), this relativises things quite a bit. It's still a valid point, but it's also not the kind of smoking gun that requires us to ABF him three years later. Hans Adler 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, it would be unfair to deny that his editing skills have improved over time. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Whitewriter continued hounding[edit]

Hello, I have been the subject of repeated wiki hounding from mr whitewriter for months. His recent attempt to have relevant material that I have been working on deleted from my userspace is an example of this : I request only to be left in peace to continue my work and as I have stated before, my enjoyment of working on wikipedia has been repeatedly disturbed by mr white writer. I have seen a pattern of aggression from him against anyone on wikipedia who is seen as supporting kosovo, and I wish only to be able to add in neutral and verified factual data about the geography and history of kosovo. My collection of placed of cultural interest that he would like to have deleted are sources for my work and I have been able to process some of these, including posting pictures and we even were able to collaborate on some articles such as Hermitage_of_St._Peter_Koriški. I only ask for some protection from these repeated attempts on deletion of my notes and works. thanks, mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He has worked hard to have my work deleted before


Here are some examples of him causes disputes over issues if people belong to one ethnic group or another, his actions seem to be motivated along these lines.

James Michael DuPont (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The last two diffs don't add anything. WhiteWriter was not a problematic editor in those discussions. As for him having "worked hard to have my work deleted", I can see why it may feel like that to DuPont, but it isn't the case. The List of Populated Places was a duplicate. The Prizen point was given a third opinion. The huge number of subpages is a minor policy issue. I didn't undertstand from his post that WhiteWriter was proposing to delete the lot.Fainites barleyscribs 01:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
OMG, this is interesting... User:Mdupont showed us several time that he dont know or respect several wikipedia guidelines, (WP:SPA obsession) and when i or any other editor ask for guideline respect, then we are problem, i suppose. Users knowledge of NPOV, LAY and several other guidelines is quite limited. Anyway, any uninvolved editor can see some of the users usual articles quality, or wast list of partial WEBHOST sub-pages, and you will see for your self. That is miles below wikipedia quality level. At the end, i just tried to help and fix, following main and essential Wiki guidelines...
But i will not tolerate his definitely purpose disrespect and misspelling of my user name, as white water, and white write, even after i warned him explicitly on that. In this previous link you will see one of my numerous attempt's to talk to him, and help him to edit wikipedia in a good way. And when i look a bit better, we didn't have any connection points for months, so we may see that wiki-stalking was on his side now, and not mine. If we exclude off wiki invite by someone else, for some reverts, of course. Unfortunately, i would ask some protection from this user, as i was only trying to do good, as best as i know and possibly can, while his only compromise or cooperation responds are false bad faith reports like this one. --WhiteWriter speaks 12:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is BelloWello canvassing?[edit]

Regarding Southern Adventist University, Bello posted this request for help with Young Earth Creationism on an uninvolved user's Talkpage. Initially it seemed innocent enough to me, then I recalled Bello has had 3 other incidents with gaming the system:

  1. Editing to the brink of 3RR, resulting in another user getting blocked (rightfully I might add)[12]
  2. Making trivial edits potentially to trap another user with 3RR[13]
  3. Accusing another user of COI to potentially to suppress his ability to edit. This resulted in a "final warning" from Jasper Deng[14]

I began asking myself questions. I share them with you:

  1. How is YEC even remotely related to SAU? Was this a pretense?
  2. Why not just start a discussion on the talk page? Why assume the editors there are ignorant of YEC?
  3. Why didn't he just edit the article himself and see what happens?
  4. Why involve an editor who has never edited SAU about a topic which was never discussed at SAU?

Note that there is a Project Creationism banner on the talk page, added by Bello. At first I thought this bizarre, again since it is completely irrelevant, but it may have been added to justify the request to the uninvolved editor. Lionel (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am addressing this question: How is YEC even remotely related to SAU? Was this a pretense? The Adventist Church is in the process of firming up its committment to YEC (Young Earth Creationism). SAU is an important entity in this process. It is of interest to those watching to wonder how Southern relates to the YEC issues. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: Donald is active on the SAU talk page, appears to be knowledgeable about SAU/YEC and would probably have been a valuable contributor to a discussion on the talk page had Bello started one. Lionel (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

<--This recently renamed mystery user has also had WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior on P/I related stuff at DYK, where he seems very much at home, after making a first DYK nom April 24. [15], and in particular,

Coninuing partisan battle is this edit [16] where BelloWello censors out a good chunk of the article's very few critical comments, in clear violation of consensus-building that had been going on among other editors who were working to get the article balanced enough for DYK. With editing issues like this in more than one area, I wonder if we are looking at a new name of a banned user. betsythedevine (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC) (I just notified BelloWello of this discussion, since there was nothing on his talk page about it.)

See discussion of prior username, I presume if the old account was still blocked, the admin posting there who has knowledge of the old name, would have done something about it. Monty845 01:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I think BelloWello is just trying to be as bold as possible with his changes, but, the battleground behavior concerns me a bit as well. I personally think that his recent comments about Fountainviewkid's supposed COI (whom I've notified) and his recent edit warring, in addition to the gaming of the system, all of which we have already take note of, combine with those comments on the DYK template talk to suggest that BelloWello ultimately seems to have a long pattern of a BATTLEGROUND attitude, with gaming the system being used as a "weapon in the battle." But with that said, BelloWello has also made nice contributions recently too - he recently wrote a new article with few problems.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "How is YEC even remotely related to SAU?" The link provided in the cited comment on my user talk page provides a clear answer. Beyond that we have a reasonably broad overlap between creationism and Adventist academia, including (but not limited to) George McCready Price and the Geoscience Research Institute. As to the rest, I can't really comment upon it -- but it does seem to be rather a grab-bag of unrelated complaints -- and certainly complaints unrelated to the thread's title. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem with Frank Guinta[edit]

The article concerning NH Representative Frank Guinta is getting extensive edits from an IP near DC: Special:Contributions/ Others have tried to engage this IP in discussion on his talk page and on the article talk page, but in vain. His opinion, expressed in edit summaries, is that the article should talk about Guinta's official position but omit his campaign promises (for example). I don't know if we should ask for page protection, or a temporary block of the IP to get his attention, or for someone more experienced at BLP to figure out which if any of his requests are appropriate. The lawsuit against Guinta certainly got press coverage when it was filed less than 6 months ago, but is it still notable enough to be in the bio? Also, the behavior of the SPA account suggests possible WP:COI. Advice would be welcome if you have any -- thanks! betsythedevine (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have notified of the existence of this discussion. In the future, please remember that when you start an ANI discussion you are required to provide notice to the involved editors. Monty845 04:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I really apologize and I do know this but it was late at night and my brain wasn't working on all cylinders. Thanks for doing it for me. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the gentle tone of your reminder. betsythedevine (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Another blanking by a confirmed sockpuppet