Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767

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

Noticeboard archives


Syrian civil war disruptive activity[edit]

Not actually straight-up vandalism or content warring this time on this very contentious page, just a rogue editor (User:Oxycut) bound and determined to create a content fork of Syrian civil war even if no one else agrees with it. The editor repeatedly has moved content to the redirect page Syrian uprising and refuses to discuss the issue on Talk or heed warnings from editors who have reverted him. Perhaps it's time for someone with a bit more authority to tell him his behavior is unacceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war disruptive activity[edit]

Not actually straight-up vandalism or content warring this time on this very contentious page, just a rogue editor (User:Oxycut) bound and determined to create a content fork of Syrian civil war even if no one else agrees with it. The editor repeatedly has moved content to the redirect page Syrian uprising and refuses to discuss the issue on Talk or heed warnings from editors who have reverted him. Perhaps it's time for someone with a bit more authority to tell him his behavior is unacceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Newsletter[edit]

As part of Steven Zhang's dispute resolution fellowship, we've created a newsletter to update interested community members ongoing developments and research into dispute resolution. I'm asking about to whom we can send the newsletter without it being considered spammy. There are two potential lists:

  1. List 1: These are editors directly involved in dispute resolution
  2. List 2: These are editors active in dispute-resolution related noticeboards

Here's the draft of the first newsletter, just so you know what it involves: Newsletter

Question: Are either/both/neither lists ok to send out. There is an opt-out mechanism, but, it's opt-out not opt-in. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks! Ocaasi t | c 15:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it opt-in?--Rockfang (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Lack of awareness - if no-one knows about it, they won't know to opt-in. Having the first issue as opt-out creates this awareness and anyone that doesn't want to receive it on an ongoing basis can let us know. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
A blurb about it could be mentioned in the Signpost, on the Mediation Committee's talkpage, the Dispute resolution noticeboard's talkpage, and other related talk pages. This seems better to me and could increase awareness of the newsletter, without anyone getting unwanted posts on their talkpage.--Rockfang (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What would be posted on a user's talk page? A brief note with a link? Normally I would oppose anything like spam, but I can see there is a good reason to send out at least the first of these to as many editors as possible (however, please do not post the whole newsletter on multiple pages—far too big). My preference would be for the first newsletter to have a clearer aim: Why are you sending this? Are there likely to be any proposals for significant change? Any overview of future directions? What is the purpose—to make everyone happier? to more easily remove problem editors? to assist good encyclopedic content and resist POV pushers? If sending these unsolicited, please have some method of switching them off for users who have not contributed in the last month. Search for "forum, with" to see there is some missing text. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Johnuniq. I've trimmed down the intended message from the full newsletter to just a single introductory paragraph with a link to the newsletter on a separate page. That should help. Ocaasi t | c 15:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Manbumper[edit]

Manbumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Repeated edit-warring on Joan Juliet Buck with BLP violations, taking our references, misrepresenting edits. In violation of three-revert rule within 24 hours: [1][2][3] Please block.--Aichikawa (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know that you and I are in fact Joan Buck ([4]). (Note the "several of us" - who's "us"? - usually a giveaway) User:Dougweller warned Manbumper about edit-warring. Finally, Doug opened a discussion at BLPN, to which I left an extensive (probably too long) comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Request additional review of disruptive editor[edit]

Two range blocks for trolling.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like a review of editing patterns by a dynamic IP that has been causing disruption on multiple articles and talk pages. I first encountered the user at Talk:Incest pornography#Addition of External Link, then again at Talk:Incest in popular culture#Proposed Addition of a New Section.

Based on the most recent IP comments on their user talk page (which contains material that borders on being an attack page at User talk:, I've since learned that the user has been blocked on Commons for trolling, and indeed has been accused of the same at Talk:Sex positions#Proposed: Addition of animated "reverse-cowgirl (prone)" demonstration, where they also appear to be complaining about the blocks and closed discussions at Commons, as well as making similar complaints at User talk: and User talk: I haven't searched on Commons for issues there, but their user talk page here pointed to Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems, where at least two discussions started from the IP range were closed due to claims of trolling.

The only named user account appears to be Sex-position-demonstration (talk · contribs). Most of the IPs involved appears to be in the ranges and There are also a couple posts by IPs that geolocate to the same city and may be sock or meatpuppet accounts, such as and

At this point, I don't know if this user is a troll, or if it's an issue of a lack of adequate WP:COMPETENCE, or if they are so stuck on pushing their own ideas that they suffer from a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. However, they have at this point burned through my patience with trying to explain issues to them. I'm not sure if others feel there's still a chance to help the user, or if it's time to take more direct action to deal with the disruption (ie: range blocks or page protections). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: I haven't notified the user simply because the dynamic IP makes it difficult to contact them. I wasn't sure if the best option was to post on the active discussion threads in which they're involved or if it's better to post on all the known IPs and/or the named account. I'll leave it up to others to choose the best way to notify them. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I've notified as they are the IP that apparently triggered this report and that you mention first.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Apart from any other issues, does everyone agree that "User:Sex-position-demonstration" warrants a username block? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree pursuant to "disruptive or offensive usernames". BTW, I've also notified User:Zscout370.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Will you please cite the pertinent policy? I searched but found nothing about "disruptive or offensive usernames". How is that username any more "disruptive" or "offensive" than the name of the "sex positions" article? (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree. The record here doesn't support blocking. It would be improper to block simply because Barek (talk) suggests it. That's not how the blocking policy works. (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The references to "trolling" are irrelevant and only confuse the issue. One can't be banned simply because another has accused him of "trolling". Guidelines for dealing with "trolls" are here, but Barek (talk) is disregarding those guidelines. (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's charged above that a user "has been causing disruption on multiple articles and talk pages". The only articles and pages cited are (1) Talk:Incest pornography#Addition of External Link, (2) Talk:Incest in popular culture#Proposed Addition of a New Section, and (3) User talk:; but following those links reveals no evidence supporting the charges. There's been no disruptiveness or personal attacks.
Wikipedia policy states: "some types of comments are never acceptable: ... Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) No diffs and links support the charges here. This is just Barek (talk) making serious personal attacks, but failing to support his accusations with specific evidence. (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be here to attack Wikipedia and Wikipedians with pronouncements about censorship, policy, etc., as well as attempts to disrupt articles. The goal of Wikipedia is to create and maintain articles on encylopedic subjects. That doesn't appear to be your purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I do see "pronouncements about censorship [and] policy", but none of them are baseless "attacks". Can you please specify where you perceive "attacks" and "disruption"? Are you using the term "disruption" in the way it's defined officially, here, or have you some other meaning in mind? Why not support your accusations with diffs and links, as the policy suggests? ("If you contribute an argument to a page like ... incidents noticeboard for administrative attention, it's essential to give evidence for your claims in the form of diffs and/or other links. ...") (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
WP:WIKILAWYERING, anyone? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
witch-hunt, anyone? - (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Lets not forget WP:NPA, as shown here. While it is possible that a registered user could come to this board and complain about WP:WIKILAWYERING on Wikipedia in good faith, it's highly unlikely that this is the case. (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Lets not forget WP:NPA, as shown here (full disclosure, it was self reverted by the user). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
While it is possible that an IP could come to this board and complain about rampant penis envy on Wikipedia in good faith, it's highly unlikely that this is the case. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
clickChedZILLA 00:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I hit a nerve. I thought the better of touching on that most sensitive topic, and corrected my mistake quickly, fwiw. (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
While I personally find jokes about that kind of thing to be funny, it is best to avoid them in mixed company. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
my bad. (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Back to the original topic; any suggestions on next steps? Do others believe they can work with the user to address their disruption, or after reviewing the pages mentioned, is it time for more direct measures? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully they're done now and will let it go. If they return and post yet another inane query or off-the-wall accusation, then a temporary block is in order, for WP:IDHT and forum shopping. IMHO. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Has been going on for several days already. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one that has reviewed the IPs edits and think he is trolling? And not a particularly good Wikilawyer? I hate to be so blunt, but I find it difficult to think someone has this little clue, and is instead being intentionally obtuse for whatever joy that brings them. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure this deserves as much discussion as it has received. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 03:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I fully support that decision, but as I was involved in one of the discussions I wanted to ensure others supported that action rather than doing it myself. The two primary IP ranges involved are and --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a two-week block of both of the /24 ranges would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course this is a troll. And now he is fat and happy. Block and close.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
03:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
When it came to my "statement" the user was upset that I told him I wanted an OTRS email for these images, because there were authorship, sourcing and licensing concerns. Also because the images are pornographic in nature, we needed a release from the subjects of the video before I felt comfortable even wanting to restore the images. I was not the only admin to focus on this issue, but he came to my talk page and was upset to find out that asking for OTRS wasn't "official" policy and demands that "asking for OTRS" must be confirmed as a policy before I can cite it in any discourse. However, at undeletion requests, it is an unwritten rule that if there are issues with licensing, authorship or the nature of the permission, we do ask for OTRS before moving forward. This helps us a lot when it comes to dealing with requests. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Block and move on. We shouldn't waste so much time on obvious trolls. This user has no productive edits and seems to only be interested in grinding an axe about being blocked on Commons for uploading crappy copyvio porn. Kaldari (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked I've blocked two ranges, and for two weeks for "disruptive editing" (ie: trolling) so that we can all get back to building an encyclopedia. Feel free to close this report. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Request a review regarding a proposal - Dispute involved 1 against 3 users[edit]

content dispute that appears to have been un-resolved by disruptive editor Bleubeatle. No need for drama. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Users involved:

I think that some administrator intervention from neutral non-involved administrators is really required here. Over the last couple of months, I had a dispute with the following users above. I tried most of the methods at WP:DISPUTE and had little success. I eventually took this to the WP:WQA where we made an agreement here but I wasn't quite sure about it so I decided to discuss it with them again a few months later and I got this reply today here. I've really lost all hope of carrying a civil discussion with them. If I say anymore words I fear that I'd be singled out again and condemned to be banned. I really don't want to lose my account all because 2-3 users disagreed with what I had in mind and felt the need to stir it further by taking my posts out of context. So I really need the help of non-involved administrators so that we can channel across this broken communication barrier. I'll be notifying the other users very shortly. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As Wesleymouse said "Bleubeatle you are violating the proposal to which you have agreed to. I suggest you stop now, before you make things worse for yourself." What else is there to say? Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Request for IP and User[edit]

Request is now at WT:SPI. Amalthea 12:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspected sockpuppets (in my mind, but not sure)

I recently was searching for this article: Mugham. I observed an entirely (Iranian?) POV-pushing by the User: Zheek. On his talk page the IP was convincing in pushing so called "Iranian sources". Their interests seem to be within the same domain (active since August 2012). The same case is viewable on User: Qatarihistorian (active since 29 July 2012), since his edits are highly suggested being of the same Iranian interests, using the Arabic term "Qatari" as an alibi for pushing entirely Iranian (more precisely Mesopotamian and Central Asian) related sock-organized POV. The IP aroused more suspicion by being involved in a recent Sockpuppet Investigation. Interestingly when the sockpuppets were exposed, suddenly User: Zheek began to undid an edit done by one of those socks on the article: Ergenekon. The IP did the same on the article: Kaveh the blacksmith. More interesting is that the User: Zheek did his edit at 11:05, on 2 September 2012, so before (at 19:33, on 2 September 2012) the IP even informed User: Zheek to be attentive on the articles done by the exposed sock-edits. Supposing I am wrong, then how User: Zheek became attentive on Ergenekon (11:05, on 2 September 2012), when the IP removed the referencing to "Ergenekon" from the "==See also==" segment of the article Kaveh the blacksmith at 21:11, on 1 September 2012. At the same time this is the most fishy point regarding my Sockpuppet Request for these Users. We don't need such POV-Pushing users at Wikipedia. - Intelinside13core (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This is for WP:SPI. Doc talk 10:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. - Intelinside13core (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

IP Needs Blocking[edit]

IP blocked for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Could someone please block the above IP? S/he is violating our rules on WP:CHARTS, particularly our principles on not including airplay charts where normal charts are used. This month the user was warned lots of times for non-constructive editing, the for adding a disqualified chart and now for violating project rules on airplay charts. I've left multiple messages throughout the day but s/he has continued adding charts at a widespread scale and level. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 23:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please block? The IP has ignored all requests and is continuing to add the chart to various pages. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 14:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is finding an admin who can understand the issues associated with charts. I have no knowledge in this area, but here are a few observations. First, I notice that the IP has been blocked once before (for 10 minutes!) for charting problems. As an admin, that helps me because it sets a precedent for another block if the IP continues the behavior. Second, I notice that the principal (most recent?) problem has to do with a Spanish chart, Promusicae. You've told the IP on their talk page: "Per WP:CHARTS when a song charts on a singles chart do not include airplay charts." I can't find anything in the guideline that supports that, but perhaps I'm missing it as I'm just doing a find on "airplay". I also note there's a lot of comments in the guideline about Promusiae in a table of "typical sources". Is that relevant to the problem? Perhaps if you illuminated the substantive issue better here, an admin would feel more comfortable blocking. Certainly, there's no indication that the IP is willing to collaborate or discuss the problem - that, of course, is supportive of a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you please show me the part in WP:CHARTS that excludes airplay charts when sales charts are available? I can't seem to find any such rule in either the text part or the tables. De728631 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It says at WP:Record charts#Dependent ("component") charts. A an airplay chart is a component of a singles chart. Singles Chart = Airplay + Sales. If the Singles Chart is used then Airplay or Sales can't be listed. Admittedly this is better explained at WP:Record charts#Billboard charts for the US and we probably should explain this more for other charts but we've never had an issue with a user ignoring warnings and requets to stop or who's continued to add the charts when multiple users have reverted them on multiple pages. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 19:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I can kind of follow what you're saying. The language in the guideline really needs to be cleaned up, though. At this point, it's probably understandable to someone who already understands it but not to someone who doesn't, which is not particularly helpful. :-) In any event, another admin blocked the IP for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Definition of a combatant in Infoboxes[edit]

Not an incident; directed to proper venue. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am trying (in vain) to find Wikipedia's guidelines concerning what qualifies as a combatant for InfoBoxes describing battles or wars. I have been basing my edits upon Wikipedia's entries for a combatant or a belligerent but I realize that articles themselves are not considered authoritative. Without some specific guidelines, it is hard to interact responsibly with other editors who have differing opinions on the matter (for example, if two official political entities are at war on foreign soil and the local population takes a side and comprises a significant or majority fighting force, may the local population be considered a combatant?). I am not looking for opinion at this point unless the matter is only defined by the consensus of opinion. I am looking for a Wikipedia guideline or, in its absence, clear precedent. Thank you. --Rereward (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You might want to ask this question at Wikiproject Military History. Try posting it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Took your advice but I still welcome administrator assistance here.--Rereward (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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


Indeffed by 3Beta23. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:OmicronSquadLeader has just moved Ed Miliband to High Lord Ragamuffin. Given past history, I suspect an immediate and indefinite block will be a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

EdelweissD's ownership issues[edit]

EdelweissD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

As can be seen at List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins: Revision history, EdelweissD (talk · contribs) has been reverting in opposition to consensus as to the format of the article. He has failed to respond to comments on his user talk page, and has also twice reverted the addition of a link to the history portal, as can be seen here and here. AutomaticStrikeout 17:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As an involved admin, I've witnessed in the same article that EdelweissD has also been changing the name of Grover Cleveland Alexander from his WP:COMMONNAME. Discussion with three editors at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_pitchers_with_200_career_wins#Grover_Cleveland_Alexander on August 28 supports the name to be listed as "Grover Cleveland Alexander". Editor was warned on August 28 about edit-warring on this issue [5]. Here is EdelweissD history of changes regarding the person's name:
  1. September 1 [6] Changed to Old Pete Alexander
  2. August 28 #1 [7] Changed to Pete Alexander
  3. August 28 #2 [8] Changed to Pete Alexander
  4. August 27 [9] Changed to Grover Alexander
  5. August 7 [10] Changed to Pete Alexander
  6. August 4 #1[11] Changed to Grover Alexander
  7. August 4 #2 [12] Changed to Grover Alexander
  8. August 3 #1 [13] Changed to Grover Alexander
  9. August 3 #2 [14] Changed to Grover Alexander
  10. June 15, 2012 [15] Changed to Pete Alexander
Another issue with the editor on the same page is the entry criteria for the list. Consensus at Talk:List_of_Major_League_Baseball_pitchers_with_200_career_wins#List_entry_criteria was declared on August 28 that the list should be pared from the players with the 500 highest win totals to only include players with 200 wins. The user has still reverted three times thereafter. Here is EdelweissD's history of changes keeping the list with 500 entries:
  1. Aug 7 [16] EdelweissD adds entries to make the list 500 entries long
  2. Aug 7 [17] Discussion started on article talk page regarding list entry criteria.
  3. Aug 28 00:46 [18] Consensus declared that list should be pared from 500 entries to players with 200 wins
  4. Aug 28 06:23 [19] EdelweissD makes list 500 entries long again.
  5. Aug 28 16:05 [20] EdelweissD notified on their user talk page of the consensus
  6. Sept 1 13:57 [21] EdelweissD makes list 500 entries long again.
  7. Sept 1 20:16 [22] And again
EdelweissD has elected not to participate in the aforementioned discussions related to their reverts. Editor has 0 talk page edits in their editing history.
Edit history comments by EdelweissD have included:
  • "Major changes should be done in a new page. This is top 500 wins list."[23]
  • "unjustified major change of no real value"[24]
  • "Page has been formatted thus for years. Drop the know-it-all attitude please."[25]
Bagumba (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
See also this recent warning by Baseball Bugs. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
EdelweissD took out the portal link, again. Note the very polite edit summary. AutomaticStrikeout 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
This issue was discussed on the article talk page, a discussion EdelweissD ignored. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this user has any intention of discussing the situation. AutomaticStrikeout 21:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Clearly not, except for comments in the edit summaries which make it clear that he thinks it's his own article. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact, look through his history, and you'll discover he's been on here for 2 years and that is essentially the ONLY article he's worked on. No wonder he thinks it's his. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's very likely the reason for his behavior, but it's not an acceptable excuse. He doesn't own the article regardless of whether or not he thinks he does. He had his chance to make his opinion heard during the discussion and he didn't. Now, he wants to push his way over the consensus. I think he's going to find that consensus will push back and will push harder. AutomaticStrikeout 21:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, it started in 2005 as a "Top 100" but was essentially what it is now, 200 wins or more. For reasons unknown, an editor (apparently not the one in question) changed it 4 years ago to the top 500 pitchers.[26] Recent consensus is that that quantity is overkill. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest topic ban[edit]

Instead of blocking them right away I propose a topic ban regarding all article pages related to baseball. Given EdelweissD's editing history this will probably have the same effect as a block but they would still be able to edit elsewhere if they so desire. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. If nothing else, it might compel him to communicate directly with other editors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Bugs. It wouldn't have to be permanent if EdelweissD was willing to stop the edit warring. AutomaticStrikeout 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Seems severe as editor has never been blocked for edit-warring. Recommend block for edit warring and with hopes of effecting a realization that discussion is essential in disagreements..—Bagumba (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Either one is liable to get him irritated, and blocking would be easier, i.e. it could be done immediately. But for what length of time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd say a week for now. Something short might not have much of an effect. AutomaticStrikeout 21:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
SupportStrongly support a week block. The editor has refused to engage or educate themselves on the changes the article has incorporated within the past few weeks. The editor continues to think reverts is the way to go about this, rather than posing questions, listing their reasons for support on the article's talk page, or project's talk page. Latest edit summaries include these two: (20:16 1 Sept) "This completely changes the page. Make a top 200 page without destroying this one. Nothing stopping you from doing that" and (20:19 1 Sept) "You are making a new page. Destroying this one serves no value other than to make you know-it-alls feel important." The editor appears intent on carrying out their vision solely by use of reverting, and now the edit summaries are starting to get a bit uncivil. Zepppep (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
While this is being hashed out, I have submitted a 3R report here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:EdelweissD reported by User:Zepppep (Result: 24h). The editor's 4 reverts within the past 24 hours need to be dealt with speedily, although I understand it may take a little while for a ruling to be delivered here. Zepppep (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you to the editor who took action upon the 3R. Zepppep (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I support a one week block as well. I just finished cleaning up his latest work. The edit summaries are here [27] and here [28]. Clearly the message is not getting through, so maybe a week long vacation will help. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Just noting here that I've blocked the user for the edit warring. This shouldn't effect any of the above and I don't necessarily think a longer block/topic ban would hurt. Swarm X 05:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The editor persisted with a revert and contentious edit summaries. It is obvious all attempted methods at getting through have not been successful; a minimum one week block might. Zepppep (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would also support a one week block. If that still doesn't get EdelweissD into communication we can later discuss a topic ban or other measures. De728631 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. If the current 1-day block doesn't get him to talking, a 1-week block might. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Kind of ironic that he calls others stubborn and says that talking with us is seldom productive. If this keeps up after the block, I say indef him. AutomaticStrikeout 16:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Since he's never talked directly with anyone (at least not under that user ID), he's got no basis for that assertion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully the disruption has ended after the 1-day block.—Bagumba (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately it didn't [29]. Instead he thinks now that some of us are "are obnoxiously stubborn, and talking with you is seldom productive". I say further action is warranted. De728631 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Please ignore that, the diffs I showed were from right before the block. De728631 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, he seems to have disappeared, for the time being anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Br'er Rabbit[edit]

OP requests no administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nothing to see here unless you want to practice using the show button

User:Br'er Rabbit has asserted false, unsubstantiated, inappropriate and uncivil accusations of sockpuppetry against me, apparently based upon a hunch and/or their own personal theories. The thread is located here. It may possibly be a retaliatory action based upon this individual perhaps having feelings of disagreement with comments I made at the larger discussion (the link provided goes directly to a subsection that the user created within the larger discussion), or it may just be basic internet flaming.

These types of remarks can have a negative effect upon editor retention on Wikipedia, because they may serve to dissuade editors from continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. Furthermore, some people are likely to view these types of accusations by assertion, rather than by evidence, as insulting. Since I'm well aware that this is the only Wikipedia account I've had in my lifetime, I'm not personally affected. However, other editors could perceive otherwise when statements such as these are leveled against them in this manner. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

  • If you want to discuss the reasonableness of the assertion made by Br'er Rabbit, which would be necessary to consider for any potential sanction, you should unhat the closure of that discussion above, rather then start a new one here. Monty845 22:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not edit war with the editor who hatted the discussion I've linked to. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yet you reverted the hatting of this thread already... Monty845 22:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes. This facilitated the commentary that has commenced. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Admins are already quite aware of that event, so let me ask bluntly: what admin action are you requesting? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, administrators might not see the information there, because it was hatted, rather than closed with an archive template which retains the visibility of the information. I require more time to formulate a response regarding potential administrator action regarding this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If you're falsely accused of sockpuppetry, even forgetting the irony of Jack Rabbit making such an accusation, don't make a big thing of it. Just laugh at it or ignore it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the friendly, useful advice. Face-smile.svg Northamerica1000(talk) 23:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Despite any anecdotal evidence to the contrary, admins are generally capable of clicking a "show" button. Can we close this now? Tiderolls 22:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Better start asking candidates at WP:RFA about the fabled "show" button to make sure. Monty845 23:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
If this matter is being immediately dismissed, is this an indication that it's acceptable for editors to level false statements of this sort toward others on Wikipedia? Northamerica1000(talk) 23:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────You are well aware that the behavior is problematical, Northamerica1000. Please don't patronize us. Tiderolls 23:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure it's problematic. The specific question is regarding acceptability. If it's problematic, yet acceptable, please feel free to close this discussion. Not much point in going on-and-on if the behavior is allowed, despite being problematic. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't really hear what I said above, so I'll restate it: Don't worry about it. Unless someone is actually interfering with your ability to edit, then there is no actual problem. Just forget Jack Rabbit exists. He can't harm you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Br'er isn't the only editor to have picked up on the similarity in editing style and areas between you and A Nobody. Jclemens certainly did, and I have myself. However there is absolutely no way that he or I can be sure, or even confident, of that purely on writing style, hyper-inclusionism, and a tendency for TL;DR screeds, especially in AfDs (something which I note you've actually cut down on now). Given that, and the fact that an SPI has been technically impossible since late 2010, it was probably pointless for Br'er to voice his opinion (and ditto Jclemens, and now myself!), but in an environment where WP:BATTLE is common, such things happen. Indeed, in areas like I/P or The Troubles, such accusations are ten a penny. They do not lead to sanctions against editors; the standard response is that we need proof, or a substantial balance of probabilities to take action. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for providing your perspective. Perhaps no actions are required toward this editor, if these types of accusations occur frequently, and are common. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Editing pattern concern[edit]

WP:NOTHERE editor is no longer here. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:IanChris948 has been making a series of edits to various pages to support his own theories. I first encountered him when he made two edits to Masonic conspiracy theories (diff shows both). I then discovered he made this edit and a series of others, where he claimed he knew who the song was written about, and funnily enough, it turned out to be him (which I figured out afterwards by following a trail of evidence). The consequence of the conspiracy theory edit led to User:Blueboar attempting to enter into dialogue on the user's talk page, and the result was not useful. I also received a comment on my talk from this user, and then discovered he had also posted the same comment on his FB page (which he had inserted into an edit). Now he has apparently written a book about this whole theory of his, and inserted that into the same song article. Note that all the edit summaries are misleading, there is blatant self-promotion, and there are other concerns I have which I will not raise publicly. All that notwithstanding, my AIV report was referred here, and I believe some action needs to be taken. At best, this is an editor who is self-promoting his own agenda. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, only to push his own Masonic conspiracy theories. I really can't see how he could become productive, so I've indef blocked - with full support for unblock if he can actually convince someone I'm wrong in that judgment. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. creating / vandalizing 25 new talk pages[edit]

Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam .... blocked and cleaned up by Boing! said Zebedee --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has created about 25 new talk pages, pasting random material into each. I have been flagging each with {{db-g3}}. Also did some more conventional vandalism. Should I continue to do flag? Jim1138 (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - no need to tag any more, thanks, I'm checking them all and deleting. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User Kaz and Crimean Karaites/Karaims POV Fork[edit]

  • As this was turned out to be a contentious move, it was reverted, so on 28 August 2012, Kaz initiated a move discussion.[31]

--Toddy1 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting the procedures correct. I don't know what a POV Fork is but will be happy if someone can explain it to me. I still find the wikipedia editing protocols inaccessible due to a mental disability. At any rate, it seems the discussion is going along well now and I only reverted the changes because peoples comments were being deleted and moved. The issue is simple really. Karaims are not Karaite Jews, and Crimean Karaites is a misnomer and should never have been started. It should now be be merged into a relevant section on the Karaims article. The majority of voters seem to be in agreement with this. Apologies if I have not been able to access the wikipedia editing protocols correctly, but a disability is something society unintentionally causes in an individual, so it is not my fault really.Kaz 21:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Then please restore the redirect page to a redirect page, and allow the discussion of a move to runs its course.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
But Sir, as I have tried to explain to you, Karaims was originally an article [35] before the Crimean Karaites page existed. It should never have been redirected there in the first place, and was only done so by some user who did not understand the difference between Karaims and Karaite Jews. If you like you can delete whichever article and talk page you like. as long as the votes of the people involved are not undermined and the end result is a Karaims article with a sub-section about Crimean Karaims to which the Crimean Karaites page points. I do not have Admin privileges to do all this by myself but if I did I would certainly have fixed it all from the very beginning through a slow process of consultation without anyone's opinion being lost. Kaz 22:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
'The votes of the people'? Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I am glad to know that. Facts should never be decided by Majority vote. But then I am confused why such voting proceedures exist. Thankfully the majority in this case agree with the facts. Kaz 05:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
A vote (usually known as a "!vote" or "not vote") exists to try and judge WP:CONSENSUS. The admin who makes the final judgement will not look at numbers, but the strength of the policy-based arguments. So, a 12-5 "vote" may actually lead to "no consensus to change" if the 12 were WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes, and the 5 were strongly-rooted in policy dangerouspanda 11:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
So it means as long as there are a couple of people causing trouble about a change, then that change will never happen? What should I think about this page of advice Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules should I ignore it? lol
But seriously, the page was recommended to be merged into the older Karaims article. On what grounds is this merge being prevented? I would sincerely like to know. Kaz 06:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I read Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means and I think I just have to continue with WP:BB am I right? If Toddy1 has a source to prove that the overwhelming majority of Karaims are Karaite Jews from Crimea then he should produce it right? Until that time Karaims should not be redirected to Crimean Karaites right? Kaz 07:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Kaz, please fix your signature to include a link to either your userpage, talk page, or contribution page. The Wikipedia guideline for signatures requires a link to one of those three pages be included in your signature; here is the relevant portion of the guideline. Thank you. Horologium (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment Horologium, but because everything we write can be mirrored across the internet on other sites, I was told several years ago that it is personal choice whether or not to put a link to my user page in my signature. Whoever removed the links for me did so because it protects individual privacy. Is it a must now? I read the guideline you posted, it seems it is still optional no? Kaz 17:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not optional. Your signature must contain a link to either your userpage, your user talk page, or your contribution history. The first sentence of the section to which I linked states that, explicitly. Horologium (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The RM looks to be a bit of a mess and more than a little dodgy (one user returning after two years, one !voting in the first edit, and one relatively new account which made a small number of edits a month ago then suddenly returned). All these were in favour of the move. Number 57 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Resolved: Edit warriors blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to add referenced additions to the article about Dostoevsky which were reverted 3 times for no reason. I can't edit the article further as I am sure these will be reverted again =( JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Right now this looks like a content dispute. Try the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, GreatOrangePumpkin has been blocked for edit warring before barely two weeks ago and thinks stuff like that is a joke. [36] And it turns out the other party in that older edit war was JackofDiamonds1, who was also blocked. It looks like this war is over the inclusion (or exclusion) of some ancestry information in the article. Neither side seems to have discussed this issue on the talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Having taken a further look, both blocked for edit warring. Given 72 hours as this is a second offense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

IP and new user vandalism abuse, threats of violence at article[edit]

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

Resolved: blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Please forgive; this is my first occasion of notifying, but this seemed too serious to just revert and move on. If I don't do it exactly right, at least I attempted. The article is IBM's The Great Mind Challenge.

The first diif is for an IP: User: [37] It was reverted by a bot that left a generic warning. who reverted the bot's corrections. Then I came along to remove some stray text and afterwards noticed the serious vandalism by a newly registered user: User:Iamanone0

[38] [39] [40]

So far, this user has only threated to hunt down and kill the bot for changing back their additions to the article. But I don't want to now add myself to the kill list by notifying this new user on their talk page. I will notify them of my posting on this noticeboard. Fylbecatulous talk 13:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked two of the recently used IPs and indefinitely blocked Iamanone0. If this doesn't take care of the problem, the page can be semi-protected. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Fylbecatulous talk 14:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive reverts by IP[edit]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

IP user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have nothing better to do than planlessly reverting other people's edits.

Please convince them to stop this idiotic pastime.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

They haven't received a single warning. Don't you think there is a progressive process that should be accomplished before reporting them to administrators? Isn't there also a board for that? You haven't handled it well at all. Start with a level 1 or level 2 warnings on their talk page.--v/r - TP 15:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Did that. Sorry for troubling you. Go to sleep again. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Frida1983[edit]

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

Resolved: user blocked, article protected for a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you please block User:Frida1983 for disruptive editing in a news article Ramil Safarov. Please see the article history. --Yerevanci (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

They have already been blocked for edit-warring dangerouspanda 18:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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


After discussing ad nausem and repeatedly going circles user Wüstenfuchs (talk · contribs) continues to refuse to get the point. Three of four participants have come to a conclusion and agreed what was the appropriate solution to a dispute, but Wüstenfuchs ignores this, canvasses a user, states "there was no consensus", begins an edit war, and edits the consensus solution to suit his own POV [41], [42], [43]. We have all been very patient in this discussion, but this is just ridiculous and clearly constitutes disruptive editing. --PRODUCER (TALK) 21:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted myself. And two users, namely you and Timbouctou, don't make a consensus. --Wüstenfuchs 21:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It was actually three editors, you keep forgetting User:Czarkoff's participation in the discussion, who also agreed with the consensus you seem to be against. You were given ample time to convince other editors of your view, a huge amount of time was wasted on discussions about the issue in the past two weeks (a casual glance at the talk page will atest to that), and in the end you simply started edit-warring when things didn't go your way. Bringing this to ANI is not only justified but necessary. Timbouctou (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You reverted Timbouctou's edits two times [44][45] and, as Timbouctou points out, "only then did you revert your own revert, but then proceeded to tweak the lede to fit your ideas ([46], [47], [48])." --PRODUCER (TALK) 22:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Pardon me... but I haven't noticed Czerkoff's reply... I reverted the lede. --Wüstenfuchs 22:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan and AfDs[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/GeoSwan and AFDs. This is not a comment on any of the issues being discussed in the thread — it's purely an issue of its size, which was overwhelming everything else on this page.

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

Reasons for creating this page[edit]

This is the largest ANI discussion that I've ever seen without looking in archives, and it's so large that it's dwarfing everything else on the page by a massive margin. Looking in archives shows me that some incidents in the past have grown so large that they were moved to separate pages, such as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011, so I've created this page on that pattern. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Geo Swan and AfDs[edit]

Hi, AN/I. I'm concerned about the sheer number of deletion nominations that are taking place of material written by User:Geo Swan. Users unfamiliar with the history of this are invited to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan, but the gist of it is that Geo Swan is one of our most productive content creators—but many of the things he's written do not comply with Wikipedian norms. I have no objection to Geo Swan's material being nominated for deletion. When one editor nominates more than 60 pieces written by Geo Swan in the same month for deletion, then that's a potential problem because the guy's entire corpus is being destroyed faster than he can defend it. Basically, it takes time to defend stuff at AfD, and Geo Swan isn't being given a chance. In my view this is not fair.

I expressed my concern to the user involved, DBigXray, here. Was that the most diplomatic phrasing ever? Probably not, and I'll take any lumps I've got coming to me for that. What I found was that DBigXray gives a very robust defence and may not have a very thick skin. So I left it there.

What happened then was that in a separate discussion, a deletion review, I saw that the multiple nominations were causing Geo Swan significant distress. See here. As a result of the Deletion Review, the article in question was relisted at AfD, and I expressed the same concerns more forcefully in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed Qasim. You'll see the same pattern, with the robust defence from DBigXray and an accusation from an IP editor that I'm "poisoning the well". Am I?

I hate posting on AN/I and I always try to avoid it. What I would like from this is for editors to agree some kind of cap on how many of Geo Swan's articles can be nominated for deletion all at the same time.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification, The deletion review[49] has been wrongly portrayed above. The article was CSD G7ed by Author Geo Swan while an ongoing AfD was discussing it, Due to CSD G7 the article got quickly deleted, and the ongoing AfD (now moot) had to be closed. But another editor User:Joshuaism unaware that it was author Geo Swan had asked from CSD G7[50] started deletion review with WP:AOBF towards Bushranger for closing the discussion and deleting the article. After the discussion at Deletion review the AfD was reopened again and finally closed as delete--DBigXray 11:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
For further clarity: I did not delete the db-author'd article. I merely closed the AfD as "moot due to G7" as it had already been deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that there should be a special "rule" just regarding articles created by Geo Swan. One option would be to suggest a change to the deletion policy that would limit the number articles created by a specific editor that could be listed simultaneously at AfD. I don't think this is the ideal option, but I think it is better than having a "rule" just regarding articles created by one editor.--Rockfang (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That would probably need a RfC. What I'm looking for at the moment is a specific, immediate remedy.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You need context to the poisioning the well comment I made. This was in relation to you insisting that loading the AFD with meta discussion on if someone should be allowed to nominate multiple articles must stay within the AFD discussion rather than being discussed on the talk page or somewhere like RFC or here. Your comments were nothing to do with the value of the article or otherwise. No admin should close the discussion based upon such opinions so the only impact could be to sideline the afd from the issue it is supposed to address. That isn't an issue of if the broader subject warrants discussion.
    I'd only see a cap on the number of deletions possible if we are also willing to impose a cap on the number of creations. If someone has created a large number of articles which don't have the sufficient sourcing etc. to stand up on their own but then take a significant time to defend each one, then I don't think we should be encouraging such large creation in the first place. Additionally if only one editor (the original author) is the only person who can or will defend an article at AFD, then there is quite a problem with those articles anyway.
    I#ll also note that you discuss DBigXray as apparently not having a thick skin being an issue, yet the very same thing about Geo Swan you seem to be something we should be sympathetic towards, you can't have it both ways. -- (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it your position that user conduct is irrelevant to AfD closes?—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Why should it be relevant? The decision should be made on the merits of the case - on our policies and guidelines. But the main issue for me here is that it appears that most of these articles have BLP issues, and given that, the faster they can be dealt with the better. Normally we might not care about how fast we deal with a large group of articles, but if there are BLP violations, and apparently there are, I'd definitely oppose a cap. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it your position that not using appropriate dispute resolution, instead just declaring in an AFD that there is a user conduct issue, is a constructive way of progressing things? Is it your position that content inappropriate to wikipedia should remain there, based on S Marshall (or any other editors) personal judgement that the person nominating it for deletion is not being "fair"? It is my position that user conduct issues are not the subject matter of AFDs, that's what we have dispute resolution for. Presupposing and judging that there is a user conduct issue is pretty much out of order. Your emotive summary of the matter on the afd "DBigXray is going through systematically destroying Geo Swan's entire corpus..." is not likely to be constructive in determining if the article is "useful" for wikipedia or not. It is unlikely to add any particular light to the discussion, just heat. Certainly if I had listed a set of articles for deletion beliving that I was doing the right thing clearing up BLPs etc, to have someone come to the discussions not comment on the substance of it the articles are valid or not. but instead declare my motivation as being to systematically destroy someone's entire corpus, then I'd certainly be annoyed (and I'd also question with who the user conduct issue lies) -- (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
This all seems rather tangential. If you really must continue this discussion, kindly take it to user talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sixty nominations in a month is clearly going to overwhelm both the AfD process and the article's creator. It takes 30 seconds to AfD something with Twinkle and move onto the next, maybe five minutes if done manually—either of which is considerably less time than it takes to make a good case to keep the article. I think a formal cap would be instruction creep, but there really is no good reason for one editor (in good faith and employing common sense) to nominate more than one article by the same author every few days. Perhaps the discussions could be placed on hold somehow until GeoSwan has been allowed sufficient time to respond to the nominations and make the case for the articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 30 seconds to AfD ? And what about the time that I spend trying to find sources and look about the notability of these BLPs and following WP:BEFORE prior to nominating these article for AFD, I feel in the above comment it has totally been ignored while it should have been taken into consideration. --DBigXray 10:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
    • DBigXray in the boilerplate nominations you kept placing you routinely asserted you had complied with the advice in WP:BEFORE. I am not going to speculate as to why you would make these assertions even when lots of secondary sources did exist, I will only inform readers that I think you routinely did so.
DBig, in one of your bulk nominations of half a dozen articles you decscribed them as all being about Guantanamo captives, when several of those captives had never been in military custody at all, at Guantanamo, or elsewhere. Rather they had spent years in the CIA's network of secret interrogation camps, that employed waterboarding and other "extended interrogation camps".
I regard this as a really telling mistake, one that demonstrates that, contrary to your claim above, you weren't bothering to read the articles in question prior to nomination, let alone complying with WP:BEFORE.
Ideally, no one participating in an {{afd}} should take the nominator's claim they complied with WP:BEFORE at face value, because nominators are human, thus fallible, some nominators are newbies, or have unconsciously lapsed and let a personal bias taint the nomination. Ideally, everyone participating in an {{afd}} should take a stab at reading the article -- at least to the point of reading beyond the scroll -- if it is a long article. Ideally, every participant should do their own web search, even when the nominator claims they complied with WP:BEFORE.
Unfortunately, one often sees a lynch mob mind-set develop in the deletion fora. In my experience, when that lynch-mob mindset develops, only the fairest minded participants do more than read the nomination itself, before leaving a WP:METOO or WP:IDONTLIKEIT and this is what I believe happened here. Geo Swan (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, per WP:AGF, you should assume that the nominator has attempted to comply with WP:BEFORE. You just shouldn't assume that their Google-fu (or JSTOR-fu, or whatever) is good enough to assure that their WP:BEFORE was adequate. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not too much opinion on the overall conflict, but generally, if someone's Google/Jstor-fu is inadequate to research a topic adequately before starting an afd, they should refrain from starting further afd's until they have upgraded their google/jstor skills, per WP:CIR. (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • comment First i have removed 10,000 from the title, this is an attempt to sensationalize this discussion.
  1. For the record I have no history of editing or confrontation with Geo Swan anywhere on Wikipedia, and i have no malice against Geo Swan nor with his creations. I have no interest in Geo Swan's contributions whatsoever. I am active at military weapons, ships, History and terrorism related articles. I came across these articles via the categories on terrorism related articles . I have also created BIOs of few militants and militant organizations myself and I have also improved a number of articles on notable Guantanamo prisoners if they agree with the policies "irrespective of who created it" . I nominate articles only when I am fully convinced that they are clear cases of policy violation "irrespective of who created it" . AS the admins have access to deleted pages, they are free to check the deleted pages from my AFDs that I have also nominated several non-notable BIOs and articles created by editors other than Geo Swan if they do not satisfy the guidelines.
  2. on Bundling I dont get any special joy in bundling these articles but I have started doing it as I was requested by AFD sorters and AFD contributors to WP:BUNDLE these AfD's for better discussion as single AFDs had to be relisted several times. I accepted that sane advice. Later on few editors protested against bundling and I accepted that and started nominating problematic articles individually.
  3. Finally we should always "remember" that it is not me but the community who decides what article to keep and what to delete based on the consensus at AfDs. I am only highlighting that these articles that have problem. Also note that the notability of these articles could not be established even after 6 years and even after extensive search I could not find any sign of notability of the subject and thats when i decide to AfD it, Many other AfD contributors have also tried and came to conclusion that these were poorly sourced WP:BLP articles violating WP:BLPPRIMARY. And ALL of these Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles have either been deleted or redirected.
  4. S Marshall above prefers to violate WP:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person, making false misleading accusations of bad faith. He has never addressed the subjects of the article but only concentrated on making personal attacks on the AFD nominator on these AFDs. S Marshall falsely accused me of making "quite virulent accusations" here on this AFD. I have never made any accusation against MArshall ever, forget about "virulent" or "quite virulent". On the other hand we can see SMarshall had accused me of a Crusade on an AfD which itself is a severe Bad faith accusation on his part to which i left a civil and sane reply on Marshall's talk page[51] to stick to the content and stop doing WP:AOBF. And in reply to that I was threatened by Marshall to be dragged to ANI (Which he has done). From what i See , accusing me of making "quite virulent accusations" is clear case of Lying WP:ABF and WP:AOBF by SMarshall opposite to WP:AGF.
--DBigXray 10:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Your 60+ nominations of articles by the same editor in the same month, is the point you should be addressing here.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am more concerned about these poorly sourced Negative Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons articles violating WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLP1E as far as I am aware , Biographies of living persons is something that Wikipedia takes very seriously. These articles should have been deleted while WP:NPP but may be it escaped the eyes of new page patrollers as geo swan has Autopatrolled/reviewer rights.
  • Also from the comments of Geo Swan on AfD i feel that he is still unaware of policies of WP:BLP or choses to blatantly ignore them, but then it is not something that i should care about. My concern is the Content not the contributor, I have already made my comment. and explained my position as clearly as I can. I have always followed community consensus and here also I will follow what the community decides to do with these problematic WP:BLPs, I dont have anything else to say here, regards--DBigXray 10:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Was it just coincidence that you nominated all these articles by the same editor, then?—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, through AfDs I am pointing out problematic WP:BLPs irrespective of who created it now if Geo Swan has created all the problematic policy violating non notable WP:BLP Articles, then you are Barking up the wrong tree. It is not me but Geo Swan who should make a clarification about it. For the record I have already stated above an i am repeating again, I have also nominated problematic BLPs of other editors and the admins having access to deleted page history can go ahead and check it.
  • I will appreciate if you do not attack me on AfDs in future, AfD contributors should not comment if they are unable or unwilling to address the subject of the article but are more concerned in derailing the AfD debate by making ad hominem personal attacks against the fellow editors as you did on AFD here andhere
  • Also the fact that S Marshall wrote 10,000 AFDs as the section title in an attempt to sensationalize the discussion clarifies that he is more interested in WP:DRAMA than participating positively on Articles or AFDs. --DBigXray 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Was it a coincidence? An accident? Or are you targetting one particular contributor whose edits have caused you concern?—S Marshall T/C 10:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop it, the pair of you. The issue here is not (or should not) be why we have all these AfD nominations, but what to do with them and how to give each article a fair hearing and ensure that the author can mount a defence of each one if he is so inclined. Bickering over motives doesn't bring us any closer to resolving that issue. If you don't have anything unambiguously constructive to say, then don't participate in this thread. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • No, that's only part of the issue. I'm trying to establish whether Geo Swan is being personally targeted—which does matter, HJ Mitchell, and isn't irrelevant at all—and if so why he's being targeted. Sometimes it's legitimate to target one particular editor. If they're a serial copyright violator, for example, then everything they've ever written needs to be investigated. But as a general rule individual editors should not be targeted because of hounding and griefing concerns. 60+ nominations in one month is, prima faciae, damn good evidence of targeting, isn't it. I'd like to start a discussion about whether targeting is justified in all the circumstances, in the light of the RFC/U.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The RfC/U itself targets him. It isn't unreasonable for someone to look at it and come to the conclusion that he created a number of dubious BLPs, is it? And then to decide to do something about those BLPs? Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Is that what's happened? I've asked DBigXray, repeatedly, to tell us whether he's targeting Geo Swan or whether this is a coincidence. He won't answer (and accuses me of IDHT among other things because I keep asking). If DBigXray would confirm that he's targeting Geo Swan because of dubious BLPs, then we'd be making some progress here. In any case, the RfC/U does talk about the issue of targeting Geo Swan. I think that what applies to Fram applies to DBigXray as well. Don't you?—S Marshall T/C 16:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well If you read my above reply again you should be able to understand how I got to these articles but for that one needs to take out the earplugs out of his ears. Everyone else here knows what the real problem is but as we see above Marshall seems to be hellbent on Getting me banned from WP:Terrorism BLPs. Assuming good faith, for you and your understanding I am explaining this one last time. As said above I am active in BLP articles specially terrorism related I have created several BLPs Abdul Rehman Makki, Yasin Bhatkal, Fasih Mahmood, Zabiuddin Ansari, Naamen Meziche, Iqbal Bhatkal, Riyaz Bhatkal, 2010 Bangalore stadium bombing, August_2012_Mansehra_Shia_Massacre, February 2012 Kohistan Shia Massacre and many more. As we know these gentlemen work in organisations that are often interrelated or work in tandem. Obviously I am expected to come across these terrorism related articles, which led me to these BLP violation articles from the categories. I have tried and improved several of these BLPs and I have nominated the non notable WP:BLPPRIMARY violations Irrespective of who has created them . To be honest I am annoyed at these attempts of making imaginary relationships between me and Geo Swan, when there is none, If you dont believe me go and dig into my contributions and bring up a relationship if you are able to find one, until then STFU ! I hope this puts an end to the silly WP:IDHT statements that Marshall is repeatedly stating above, so that we can now concentrate on addressing the Real Problem of these BLP violations.--DBigXray 16:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I take it that you deny that you are personally targeting Geo Swan?—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • (Later) Oh, and I'm not trying to get you banned from anything. I'm doing exactly what I said I was doing: I'm trying to get you to stop nominating very large numbers of Geo Swan's contributions for deletion at the same time. And that's all I'm trying to achieve.—S Marshall T/C 17:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
─────────────────────────I think Marshall has no confidence on our WP:AFD process and least confidence on the Afd contributors and Zero confidence on the AfD nominators. Could Marshall explain why he thinks only Geo Swan has to defend these articles ? do you feel all the AfD contributors are morons hell bent on deleting BLPs ? If the articles are notable anyone should be able to prove the notability and defend it at AfD if the consensus has a view that the article is non notable and/or a BLP violation, then its ought to be deleted. --DBigXray 17:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The articles you list are all related to Muslim terrorists in India, DBigXray. What have you done to improve the articles you nominate or that you considered nominating? What edits have you made to save Guantanamo and other American terrorism related detainees?--Joshuaism (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • These are the articles that i started, the list of articles in which i have contributed is pretty long and I am not interested in giving another list of articles so feel free Dig into my contributions on Guantanamo and other terrorism articles and help yourself, regards--DBigXray 17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It is an unfair burden to make me prove a negative. It is much easier for you to provide the evidence (if it exists) as you should have a better knowledge of your edits than I do. --Joshuaism (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • SMarshall and DBigXray -- given that this is supposed to be about GeoSwan, could ya'll stop the back and forth?
  • I'd like to hear from GeoSwan themself.
  • The linked RFC/U recommended a mentor -- did that happen? Nobody Ent 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't see any indication that it did. As I said, my main concern is the BLP articles, should we be asking for input from BLPN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 11:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The ease with which an editor can defend his contributions should not be an issue in determining AFD - especially not in cases where a single user mass produces content that is substandard, and which includes blps. The problem is with the article mass creation, not with article mass AFDing. If a user creates a large number of dubious articles then he should expect that he will be implicated in a large number of simultaneous afds. That is how the process works. The alternative is to say that as long as you create enough substandard articles you get a get out of AFD free card. That's not the wikipedia I want to be a part of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
As the guy that submitted the Qasim article for deletion review I feel I should share my concerns.
  • DBigXray is submitting these AfDs at a rate that is too fast for any single user to review the merits of