Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Dimadick and the addition of WikiProject Women category (and peripheral categories) to every single female tennis player[edit]

Suddenly today I see the addition to hundreds, and I assume soon to be thousands, of female tennis players a new category... WikiProject Women. That is way to general a category to add to every single female player that ever played the game of tennis. Do we add WikiProject Men to every male player? Do we add "WikiProject Homo Sapien" to all players? I deleted some additions and I asked the person in question to stop so it could be discussed wiki-wide... the answer was an emphatic no. So here we are. All I want is for it to stop since the widespread addition was challenged. User:Dimadick will be notified. It looks like this is not the first time this editor has had problems with adding categories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. As far as I know, there's no limit on how many WikiProjects an article can belong to. There are unique issues that affect women more than men and WikiProject Women seeks to address those issues. Adding related WikiProject tags is no more disruptive than adding related categories, and there are plenty of categories specifically for women. clpo13(talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Categories get removed all the time from articles for being far to generalized or fivolous. This one takes it almost to the nth degree. 1/2 our tennis biography articles are affected. I can open a full RfC under Biographies or MoS. I sometimes go to a category like "cities in france" or "NFL teams" or "river of the United states" etc... to narrow my search for things. But this category is ridiculously large if it's tagged for every single female that ever lived and is here in this wikipedia. Before it gets tagged onto that large a base it needs to be discussed wiki-wide. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'll admit that the subject of that WikiProject is pretty broad, but nowhere on the page does it list criteria for what articles can or cannot be included. Given that, I really don't see how Dimadick has done anything wrong. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a question of punishment. The user started adding bunches of these. I asked him/her to stop and reverted several of those additions. The protocol now is for him to show a proper need and convince a consensus that the addition is warranted... not keep adding more and more. They refused, so we are here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The relevant guideline would be WP:PROJSCOPE, which discourages edit warring over the inclusion of project headers. I would suggest that you just leave it alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I haven't checked specifically, but my impression was that that project was being added to every article about a woman. If that's the case, I would say that's an unmanageable number of articles, and could become a problem if the project generates style or format guidelines and then attempts to enforce them across all those articles, a sizable percentage of the encyclopedia. If I'm correct about their intended scope, I would suggest to the project that choosing articles about people who have advanced the cause of women's rights or something similarly restricted might be a more manageable and appropriate purview. BMK (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. WP Biography has a unmanageable scope of articles on that basis. The better thing is to suggest that WP Women consider task forces for their articles that are basically the underlying major projects. Just like WP India has an Indian films taskforce and WP Films has an Indian films task force that I think redirect to each other, WP Women can create a women tennis players task force that's really a task force underneath WP Tennis. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Correct. let's take someone like Billie Jean King. I have no issues with that addition at all. But otherwise what would stop me from say... adding to EVERY US President and every UK Prime Minister, the categories wikiproject Mammals, wikiproject Homo, wikiproject Primate. They all fit but you can 100% bet it would be challenged (as it should be). Would @NinjaRobotPirate: say those additions should also be ignored? This is just far too broad a project if it intends to have itself attached to every single female on the planet. I think most of the tennis players are already listed under WikiProject Women's sport, and special ones are listed under WikiProject Women's History. Here's a query since it's running through my mind... if this sticks and I want to challenge this with an RfC, where would be the best most all-encompassing place to put it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate would say that he doesn't really care what WikiProjects do as long as they don't get in his way. But I don't see the harm in making task forces. If it were me, I'd go to WikiProject Women and suggest Ricky's idea. If that didn't work, then I'd maybe try starting a discussion at WP:WikiProject Council. If that didn't work, then I'd fall back to WP:VPP, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

On the German Wikipedia they made the decision long ago to add "Frau" as a category to all female biographies. I just checked Maureen o'hara and it's still there, but I was under the impression that the need for this (in order to measure the proportion male/female biographies) was answered with Wikidata. There all people items are assigned properties for human and gender. Anyone know whether the German Wikipedia is still adding that category? It seems a bit redundant to me. Jane (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Women is not about Women's rights, that is WikiProject Feminism. WikiProject Women has a much wider scope and discussions on its page regularly addressed the need to add more articles about women, whether manually or about robot. Since the discussion is about their scope, I wonder if they should be notified. Dimadick (talk) 06:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
They were notified before this an/i took place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, and while this an/i is going on Dimadick continues to add this item to every woman and specifically tennis player articles. Talk about bad faith and chutzpah. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that User:Fyunck(click) has misunderstood what WikiProject|WikiProjects are. They are not categories to help readers find articles. They are there to direct groups of editors to articles that fall within their particular field of interest. When an article is created, it should be added to as many relevant WikiProjects as possible so that editors who might have an interest in contributing to it can do so. The only people who should be concerned if there are too many articles, or inappropriate articles, being added to WikiProject Women are the members of WikiProject Women. The best place to discuss if the new additions are appropriate is probably the project's talk page. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
A couple things. Those articles that fall within this field of interest are every notable female in history. I still say that's ridiculous. And it was being discussed at the project page, but while it's being discussed there (and here) this particular editor will not stop adding what I deem as controversial/overkill. They aren't even a member of the project from what I was told. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, there is a WikiProject Women's sport so for the women tennis players could it be suggested to Dimadick that this project be added instead of WikiProject Women? As an example I have been adding WikiProject Women writers to articles about women who are authors, and articles about their books. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I try adding both banners where they are missing. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a forum shop in the wrong forum; OP started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women#So_what_criteria_is_used_to_tag_articles_with_this_category.3F shortly before filing here. Per WP:PROJSCOPE projects define their own scope and per WP:PROJGUIDE concerns should be raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council. NE Ent 12:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the co-founder of {{WikiProject Women}}.
Let's take a look at Jane Austen. Should we have a discussion over including both WikiProject England and WikiProject Hampshire, or including both WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers, or including both WikiProject Literature and WikiProject Romance? IMO, there is room for all of these. If editors want to concentrate on a subgroup of articles, they can create a WikiProject, and work on those articles. This entitles them to add their project's banner to talkpage space. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a question of having multiple banners. Almost every tennis player has multiple banners. No qulams about that at all. This is about a particular editor adding a particular banner that encompasses every single woman on wikipedia. Specifically 1/2 of all our tennis bios. Most already have a women's sport banner. Some already have a women's history banner. But this editor is now being reverted by multiple editors for adding an over-reaching banner to these articles. And make no mistake, this An/i is not here because of wikiproject women. It is here because a single editor kept adding the banner, was challenged, would not discuss these additions, and kept (and keeps) adding more... even while this discussion is happening. It is not inconceivable that wikiproject women and I could have seen eye to eye and come to a compromise. But User:Dimadick pretty much dared me to bring it here because of words and actions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding Task Forces: At WikiProject Women, we've talked about creating a separate Wikiproject or a TF for Women in Leadership and for Women Entertainers... we haven't created either, but we've talked about it... and there's talk about Women in Religion, too. Fictional women are also within this project's scope; did you know that WMSV did a series of edit-a-thons on them, bringing Lisbeth Salander to GA? Any woman who self-identifies as a woman is a woman, so transgender women are women, and are within this project's scope, i.e. Chelsea Manning. We're not going to start creating a slew of new task forces for all of these subdivisions of "women" as we don't want to split up our resources.
  • Regarding "Frau": While a "Frau" category has probably accomplished something similar at the German language Wikipedia, we have not gone in that direction on En Wiki and I haven't seen any discussion about doing so; if there is, link please.
  • Regarding Wikidata: it does NOT capture every article created on Wikipedia, and it does not have a gender value for every biography.
  • Regarding AfD: if an article has a WikiProject Women talkpage banner, and if the article lands at AfD, then WikiProject Women will be alerted and can participate in the discussion.
  • Regarding banner specificity: If a woman's biography is tagged with more specific banners, e.g. {{WikiProject Women's History}}, {{WikiProject Women writers}}, and so on, we don't add WikiProject Women, but if there are no "women" talkpage banners on an article's talkpage, why shouldn't we add an applicable one, such as WikiProject Women? Note, only 15.5% of En Wiki's biographies are about women, so it's a slim subset of WPBIO.--Rosiestep (talk) 25 October 2015
    But that's not the case here. Let's look at a couple articles in question. Talk:Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers already had 7 banners on it... two of which were "Wikiproject Women's sport" and "Wikiproject Women's History." Talk:Suzanne Lenglen had 6 banners that also included "Wikiproject Women's sport" and "Wikiproject Women's History." Maybe a more modern player like Steffi Graf that had 5 banners including "Wikiproject Women's sport." You don't see me removing multiple banners just because they're there. Above you say that "If a woman's biography is tagged with more specific banners we don't add WikiProject Women. Well most of these additions are already tagged so you should be admonishing this rogue editor who won't follow protocol. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to try again. WikiProject Women exists and sets its own scope. If there are too many articles for the project to manage, that is not your problem, it is theirs. You really have no dog in this fight.
Incidentally, your accusation that Dimadick "dared" you to bring the issue here appears to be misleading. The evidence of Dimadick's talk page is that you first threatened to report this to the administrators, and Dimadick told you to go ahead. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be misleading Nicknack since that was not my first post on their talk page. And it appears per their project founder that they don't put that banner on just every article, it depends on if there are other more narrowly defined banners already in place. So your dog appears to have run away. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Apart from tagging the tenniswomen pages in a way that mimics the behaviour of male dogs drawing the boundaries of their territory, perhaps someone could describe what improvements were provided to these tennis pages by the tagging team ? Pldx1 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

90.200.46.221[edit]

This editor, 90.200.46.221 (talk · contribs) makes people into Islamic/Arabic. Yi Gu was in Category:South Korean Roman Catholics before 90.200.46.221 made him Islamic. Julia Mullock apparently converted. Ben Gurion did just fine without Arabic transliteration of his name. I didn't have a look what else he did, but I think somebody should look into 90.200.46.221's edits, and possibly block him. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I just plowed through their edits and reverted unexplained additions of Arabic names to Mauritian and Indian politicians. Not sure why they were doing it. Blackmane (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Harry Jaffee's illness[edit]

NO ADMINS NEEDED
This is not an admin issue. Please use article talk page to discuss article content, use WP:DRN or WP:RSN to attract additional eyes if needed. --Jayron32 15:33, 28 October 2015 (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 have recently added material to Al Jaffee, based on the 2010 Weisman biography, written with Jaffee's extensive co-operation. Some of it was regarding Harry Jaffee, Al's brother (deceased since 1985, no BLP here). One editor, User:Modernist, objected to my including the mention of Harry's mental illnesses, reverting out "mental" repeatedly. His first edit summary said it was merely "ce", his second merely said "disputed", his third time he went to the Talk page (and pointlessly left me a duplicate message on my Talk page). He claims he has personal knowledge, and that the Jaffee family is appalled, and I'm supposed to find some other source. So far as I can tell, the Weisman book is RS, and Modernist is just engaged in censorship regarding dirty laundry.

His Talk comments have been rather dictatorial and entirely useless. I'll mention that "libel" in this context is nonsense. You can't libel the dead. Mentioning Rashomon in this context is completely silly. If some other RS contradicts Weisman, well, okey dokey, maybe we should include that too. And yes, I am aware of bios that turn out to be hit pieces or otherwise quite terrible, but usually word gets out and there are reviews somewhere that point out the problems. For example, the Charles Shultz biography was methodically trashed in a long Comics Journal article soon after it was published. I have not seen any on Weisman's book, I'm more than welcome to evidence.

I had originally planned to go to DRN, but the instructions there say that when the issue seems to be more over behavior instead of content, one should come here. I presume mentioning this discussion in the current Talk:Al Jaffee#H Jaffee thread counts as notification.

Meanwhile, I'm putting off dealing with other things in the article, like some extensive copyvio. Choor monster (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are bringing a specific editor to ANI you need to notify them directly on their talk page rather than a discussion. If your intent was just to get more eyes on it, DRN or RSN would probably be a better bet (if they are disputing the reliability of the source you are using). Since you mention behavior you would need to notify Modernist directly. Since it appears to be a fairly standard content dispute, you need to provide diffs of behavioral issues rather than just disagreement between two editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Although really, Modernist objects to 'mental' in front of illness but not that he was committed to Bellevue? Seems ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW Bellevue is located in Manhattan in the east 30s and while it does sometimes serve as a metaphor for 'mental institution' it happens to be one of the best medical hospitals in New York City, especially back in the 1960s. As to the above dispute - I stand by my remarks...Modernist (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Which are largely irrelevent in the face of reliable sources. Harry Jaffee is dead since 1985 so its not a BLP issue for him. While his surviving family might find it distressing it has been published that he suffered from mental illness, do you have a policy backed reason for excluding it? Do you have any evidence the biography it is sourced to is unreliable? Is there any published source that states the family object to the biography's statement of fact that he suffered from mental illnesses? I can see an argument that it may not be relevant in an article about Al Jaffee, but that is a content dispute. 'I know the family and they say its libellous' does not hold much weight. Its also borderline a legal threat designed to chill discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I provided diffs for Modernist's unhelpful and misleading edit summaries. I provided a link to his utterly useless Talk comments, where he simply claims the cited RS doesn't count because he knows better. This is a behavioral issue. DRN does not want behavioral issues. RSN is pointless here, there's nothing about the source that raises questions, other than an editor's bald-faced claim.
And the source, written with Jaffee's personal involvement, tells how Harry was taken to Bellevue for his mental problems, by the police per standard procedure at the time. His remarks that he is standing by, so far, consist of nothing but bad-mouthing an RS, claiming he knows better. Choor monster (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Essentially what is stated in the Weisman book is the primary sources opinion; and I am stating that that opinion needs corroboration and that I have personally heard objections to that opinion. Weisman takes the primary source at his word, however I am stating my objection to that as a reliable source. I'm not bad mouthing anything by the way - these are extremely private matters...Modernist (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Unless you have some evidence that Weisman did not do basic fact-checking when talking to their source, thats a non-argument. Again, do you have any policy-based objection? "I have heard personal objections" does not count. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2015 (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 editing by *AirportUpdater*[edit]

This discussion has fallen severely off-topic into matters not appropriate for ANI. That aside, no evidence of disruption warranting administrator intervention has actually been presented and there is no consensus that admin intervention against this user is needed. Swarm 02:32, 29 October 2015 (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.

*AirportUpdater*

I've been editing here for as long as I can remember, as an IP of course. But I have a complaint to make about this particular user. *AirportUpdater* .

Overview
When I came across the user I noticed that he was removing hyphons '-' from airport links on articles despite a consensus on WP:AIRPORTS. Not only, he has have removed references from articles. This could result in the article ending up with a source tag.

Report
Here is 1 example of his disruptive editing: from this diff .

He continues the exact same behaviour using the exact same edit summary on multiple articles, despite consensus.

Action
I would like the user to be blocked for a while, maybe even indef. The editing has gone to far, without any admin action. Please take care of this situation as soon as possible. Thanks.

46.208.248.225 (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If that example is typical, what he's doing looks like a waste of time, though it's not clear why he should be blocked for it. There are no hyphons (or even hyphens) in "Orlando International Airport". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I can see why you might want me be blocked but my edits are not meant to harm any pages. I am simply making each page better. In relation to references, there is no need for them when flights are already running. That's why I've been deleting them from airport pages (and I'm not the only one doing so). Now, talking about MCO, this has been an ongoing issue and topic between editors and I have been commenting on WP:Airports about this issue. For the longest of times, MCO has been listed as "Orlando" on every airport website and I am simply sticking to this idea. We are currently in discussions on WP:Airports and until a final decision has been made, there shouldn't be any changes to the airport pages. Hope you understand. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, 46.208.248.225, I would consider you creating a talk page so we can discuss this matter privately instead of bringing to the Administrator's attention first. Thanks, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I must admit I am confused about the idea that you don't need sources for flights that are currently active (am I misunderstanding?), like in [2]. Wikipedia relies on sources; not everything is required to have an inline citation to stay, but when there is a valid inline citation to prove a fact, it doesn't seem appropriate to remove it to me. LjL (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks you for your comment. Yes, you are correct. However, on airport pages, this is how we do things: When an airline announces a new service, we add the airport with a "begin" date and a source verifying that this is accurate. Then, when the service does start, there's no need for the reference anymore telling us when it will begin so it makes no sense to keep it. That's why these sources are then deleted. Hope this answers your question. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It answers it I guess, but it's concerning that it is the way it's done just on airport pages. Since "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope" (from WP:Local consensus), the accepted guidelines about having reliable sources in the articles are as valid for airport pages as for any other article. LjL (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about other articles as I am only an Airport Updater (my name). All I know is regarding references for airline routes, we've always been deleting these after flights have begun. Otherwise, the page would get very clobbered and littered with unnecessary junk. One last thing we airport editors do is put references when services resume or end. Again, after they do resume/end, we take away the source as there is no need for it anymore. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
References to sources are not "unnecessary junk"... :-\ Don't you have sources with a consolidated list of current flights that you could use as non-inline references for such articles? LjL (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever edited an airport's page before? It seems as though you aren't entirely sure what I'm talking about yet. Airport articles only need sources for new/resuming/ending flights that will happen in the future. Once that date has passed, there is no need for a reference telling us when it will begin, end, or resume. It is, junk (it doesn't benefit the page anymore). Understand a little better? *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to have edited an airport's page to know that claims on Wikipedia need to be backed up by sources. Do these airport pages claim that certain flights are currently ongoing? If so, are sources given to verify that the claims are true? If not, why not? LjL (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Every airport page has a chart listing which airlines fly from that airport and the destinations (next to the airline) that each airline flies to. Some also have which concourses/gates/terminal they are located at. Here are some examples: John F. Kennedy International Airport, Pittsburgh International Airport. Maybe looking at these pages can answer your 2nd question because I believe I've answered it multiple times already. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
If you can see, there are some sources next to routes that will be beginning, ending, or resuming. There is no need for sources next to all the others because they are already running. This is how it's always been on Wikipedia. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
My second question is a simple one that can be answered with "yes" or "no". My tentative answer is "no", as I can see no sources to the lengthy tables of current routes. Is that how it's always been? I don't know, but that's inconsequential. I'm sure if people systematically remove the sources, then in the long run they will not be there. LjL (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Please consider that I do not share the opinion that administrative action needs to be taken against you, as to me, it seems obvious you have acted in good faith. At the same time, I see a possible inconsistency between Wikipedia guidelines and your "typical-of-airport-articles" edits, and I think it's worth making sure the people who routinely edit airport articles (like any other group) do it in line with the guidelines of the rest of the encyclopedia. LjL (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly! It's always been like this. I'm not the first one to be deleting sources for routes that are running so I have no idea why this person is accusing me of doing something disruptive and worth blocking. Good discussion. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
...And thank you very much for agreeing. I am not a kind of person that goes around editing articles for pure enjoyment, I do it to make each page as accurate as possible without having unnecessary text in places it shouldn't be. Thanks again, *AirportUpdater* (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I must still stress that citations that verify the material contained in the article are not unnecessary, though, but in fact necessary in most circumstances. That doesn't mean you should be sanctioned, but if removing such citations is the norm for the airport articles people, then those people should really start a discourse with the rest of Wikipedia. LjL (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. Citations are definitely necessary, I couldn't agree more. Airline/destinations charts are a whole different ballgame though as you've noticed. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I am picking up a strong sense of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a touch of WP:OWN here. "(Policy X) is important, except for this one thing _I_ do" is not a Wikipedia policy I'm familiar with, nor is "We've always done it that way so it's fine". Perhaps the reason no one has commented on the sourcing issues with these articles might be that they're not a highly-trafficked area of WP?

WP:RS is policy. Not "...policy except for these articles..." or "...policy when I think it should be..."--POLICY. *AirportUpdater* needs to abide by this just like everyone else. GJC 23:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely false. I am not sticking to my ideas even though the community has moved on (as stated in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Absolutely not. The community has been doing the same thing I've been doing long before I even started editing. To answer your question, these pages have a very high traffic and is constantly being updated by many editors. It seems as though you are not familiar with how airport pages work based on your thoughts and comments. I recommend you take a look at a few pages to see how they look, then make accusations if you still have any. Here are some examples: Pittsburgh International Airport, Orlando International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you really want to. I suggest you read WP:AIRPORTS a little more carefully. If you still think no hyphons are needed, then you are welcome to start a new disscussion at WT:AIRPORTS. Why it was obvious that you were acting in good faith, note, that you can't rely on your opinion. I think community should find consensus, a non-involved editor can close if everyone's happy that this will have no action. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, websites are not a Wikipedia. Just because they do it one way doesn't mean we copy it. 46.208.248.225 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I have an idea: how about dropping the mindnumbing enumerations of which carriers fly to which cities, departing from which concourses? Such information changes frequently (WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK) and really has little to do with understanding the subject. This would reduce the arguing such as above by 100X. EEng (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I was afraid to suggest it... then again, I am an inclusionist (who does find it a bit backwards that long list like those generally survive while there's a trickle of genuine articles semi-irreversibly deleted, but that's off-topic I guess). LjL (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It's an idea. But I know that's never going to happen. Wikipedia is the only place where you can easily pop on and see where a city has flights to around the country/world. It's very helpful for someone who is trying to book a flight. They can see if that city has a nonstop flight to whichever city they want to go to. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
What part of WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK don't you understand? EEng (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at John F. Kennedy International Airport and the amount of information and unnecessary detail is just staggering. And, this might just be me, but I've never run into anyone who consulted Wikipedia when booking a flight. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikivoyage is a guidebook though, might it not be helpful to unobtrusively move the ever-changing flight information there and then continue to maintain them there? Although I'm not even sure wikis are the best place to search for that kind of data, because I suspect a backend that could connect origins with destinations would be so much handier... LjL (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports is an eye-opener. It seems like updating flight information is the primary activity of the WikiProject. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes; updating flight information is a common task carried out by members of the WikiProject, but it contributes to building an accurate and comprehensive encyclopedia so I'm not sure why it would be considered a negative thing. The airlines and destinations served from an airport are relevant and notable, and they help to provide context to the reader by indicating the significance of the airport. The references to WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK would be justified if the articles were including non-notable information such as fares, frequencies or timetables, but the airlines and destinations serving an airport are significant, verifiable, widely covered by both primary and secondary sources, and are of interest to the majority of people reading an encyclopedic article about an airport. OakleighPark 12:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Verifiable and sourced, right? LjL (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not the destination tables are sufficiently sourced is debatable; most current destinations do not have inline citations as the airline's timetable is considered to be the implicit citation. This is stated in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, but if it's not in agreement with Wikipedia's policies then it should be discussed and changed. I'm sure the editors of WP:Airport would be happy to address your concerns and work towards a constructive solution for ensuring that the referencing in destination tables meets Wikipedia's standards. However, I strongly disagree that just because there are issues with referencing that all destination tables should be removed. OakleighPark 13:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not saying people go to Wikipedia to book flights, I'm saying that Wikipedia is a good site people can go on to get an idea of what flights run from which cities. Yes Liz, us airport editors are all about updating flight information. It keeps us constantly checking Wikipedia to make each airport page better. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is entirely inappropriate article content. In addition to NOTGUIDE, there's WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Hey -- why not include fare information too?
The fact that this information is the locus of editing disputes makes it not just deadwood, but wormwood. It should all be removed. And yes, a look at e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Chinese_carriers_operating_.22direct.22_flights_from_China_to_Europe_via_another_Chinese_city shows how bankrupt all this busy-bee activity is. EEng (talk) 04:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see where you are getting at. There are constantly issues regarding these airline routes (and that is a good example that you gave), but again, these charts aren't going to get deleted because they've been on every airport page since Wikipedia even started. They go way back and I think they are a great way to see how many nonstop routes each city has. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, these airline/destinations charts are one of the most important stats for an airport that everyone looks at when they visit an airport page. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The more stuff like that you say the more you strengthen the argument for removing it -- all of it. EEng (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget maps, articles about roads, railway lines etc.. Because WP:NOTGUIDE. Did someone mention fare information? New York City transit fares *grabs popcorn, sits back to watch* Ssscienccce (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Articles on roads and railways aren't subject to the kind of rapid change airline routes are, nor do they involve anything like the same mind-numbing quantities of information. The transit fares article should certainly be cut. EEng (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Just because the Wikiproject frequently has discussions to establish consistency, it does not make it 'bankrupt'. The discussion linked to was a case where what was reported by some sources (ie:direct flights from certain Chinese airports to the US) was not an accurate reflection of the real-life situation (ie:the flights were actually just domestic flights that were linked to the US flight only by having the same flight number). Such discussions may seem menial and pointless to many people, but they contribute to the quality of the encyclopedia by ensuring that the airport articles are as accurate, consistent and reflective of real-life as possible. Removing content because it has sparked discussions and disagreements among editors will do nothing to improve Wikipedia. OakleighPark 13:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with EEng. This primary-sourced or unsourced garbage does not belong on Wikipedia. The project needs to be reminded of our core policy on verifiability. A lot of these articles will need trimming. --John (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you give some specific examples of content you think is not verifiable? Ssscienccce (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
If the issue is that the destination tables are lacking appropriate sources, then surely the best solution would be to improve the quality of the referencing in destination tables, instead of removing them. Just because they currently lack sources, it doesn't mean that the information is unverifiable. OakleighPark 13:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not a good idea, take to WT:AIRPORTS. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You make valid points elsewhere but this report is getting way too off-topic... however, to stay within its realm, part of the original issue was that the reported editor was alleged to be removing references from those tables (or elsewhere in airport articles). Inline citations aren't mandatory for everything, but at least if the content is dubiously sourced or not easy to verify from the non-inline sources, then they shouldn't be removed. LjL (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved to WT:AIRPORTS, please post your input there. And please act in good faith. 87.112.66.233 (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diaanaa, David Biddulph, GiantSnowman, Blackmane, and JzG:need consensus on keeping/nuking transit fares, routes and times.ping admins for urgent attentionMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Diaanaa, David Biddulph, GiantSnowman, Blackmane, and JzG:retryMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is that how you form consensus now, pinging a small group of specific people in an ongoing discussion? --LjL (talk) 11:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Mahfuzur rahman shourov is under the mistaken impression that there is some sort of committee of higher up admins that can lay down the law as it were, which is somewhat amusing since I'm not an admin. @Mahfuzur rahman shourov: admins do not make editorial decisions as you think. Admins are granted privileges to enact the will of the community and to protect Wikipedia from disruption or damage. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this discussion has gotten way off topic for an Admin page. These are great discussions to be held on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports if you chose to do so. There you can discuss these topics with actual airport editors such as myself. *AirportUpdater* (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the Wikiproject page the right place to propose deletion of the Wikiproject?
This discussion is highly relevant for right here. It seems to me there is an out-of-control group of editors tag-teaming on airport and airlines articles which has been hiding their non-Wikipedia-compatible practices by dealing with each separate regular editor who arrives, one-by-one. In their tag-teaming, they try to create an impression that the newly arriving editor is being disruptive for noting and tagging or otherwise beginning to address the obvious problems. I got their treatment recently, when I arrived at American Airlines destinations to disambiguate a term. I noticed it was entirely non-encyclopedic, an extreme example of a directory, and in passing I removed an asserted future destination claim. On basis that Wikipedia is not a place for forecasts of future film releases or airline services or other crystal-ball items. From an I.P. editor and from editor Oknazevad I got obstinate treatment asserting that "wp:AIRLINES" (not a policy or even a guideline) rules, when that is merely a link to their WikiProject. I was eventually directed to their [WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT]] guideline, which is a local consensus out of sync with Wikipedia. Some of this is reflected at User talk:Doncram#New services. They called my tagging an article "bad faith" and "disruptive and unneeded" and stated bureaucratically "it has been removed". Which is not how legitimate tags pointing out problems are to be handled.
I didn't take it further then, but seeing others' encountering this stuff now and being equally horrified, I think it is time to eliminate all of this stuff.. on airport articles and on the 433 (!) airlines destinations articles in Category:Lists of airline destinations. This may all be moved to WikiVoyages perhaps, but certainly is to be removed from Wikipedia. The "Other stuff exists" argument about trains does not hold water; this is egregrious directory stuff and needs to be cleaned up, including for reason that we need clear treatment for trains editors and others elsewhere that this other stuff existing does not justify directories elsewhere. These editors' out-of-sync views and cumulative treatment of concerned other editors make this a bigger issue than one simply to be covered by themselves in their Wikiproject. Also, there have been past AFDs in ancient times (2007) which failed to stop this stuff (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations/archive and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Airlines destinations); it has only gotten worse since then.
Has a big new AFD been started yet, or could someone please start one (and post here and notify myself and others concerned about this), or where else is this being addressed, besides here (which should continue here). This is a big ongoing problem area, which is not going to be resolved by a chat among airport/airline updaters themselves. --doncram 22:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ever heard of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH? You accuse the WikiProject of a grand conspiracy when the reality is that 99% of the members are just trying to improve the coverage of airports on Wikipedia. In my years of editing airport articles, I have never observed any 'cumulative treatment of concerned editors', as disagreements are regularly discussed in a civil manner to reach consensus. I think a lot of the conflict stems from misunderstandings from people who aren't too familiar with airport articles. For example, future destinations are only added to tables when it is reported in a verifiable source and is almost certain to actually happen, so stating that it is a 'crystal-ball item' is completely inaccurate. If concerned editors took some time to observe what actually happens in the Wikiproject, they would see that everyone is there to improve Wikipedia and improve the quality and consistency of airport articles; not to deliberately circumvent Wikipedia's policies and attack editors who disagree them, as some people are alleging.
Finally, demanding that a Wikiproject be deleted is extremely nonconstructive, especially when you appear to have significant misconceptions about how it operates and what it does; if you are genuinely wanting to improve Wikipedia, then why not suggest ways that the Wikiproject could improve instead of demanding such drastic action? OakleighPark 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Discussion started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations about this following comment above about whether these articles are needed or not. Any further opinions are welcome on the AfD page --Mdann52 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this turned to something.

If you would be to remove the destinations both from airports and airlines, there would be chaos. Before I promote the argument, one editor will refer to the German Wikipedia. Which has no destination lists, but has done so well. But this is because it is so strict, every non-airport editor will refer to other guidelines. Which does not apply to all WikiProjects. @Doncram: Please stop removing future announced routes till consensus is revolved, thanks, also as per WP:AIRPORTS, The main issue here is also referencing, all we need to do is add references for unreferenced routes and there! Problem solved. As I said earlier in this disscussion, some airport articles have been ranked at amazing levels. And, big suprise, they have... destination lists. Removing these will destroy the WikiProject, destroy the Wikipedia. I don't want to bring this up but please take your time to look at the 'Wikipedia Is Failing' essay. Where it describes the general failures of the English Wikipedia. We are failing, rubbish consensus' are destorying this project. We need to finally realize what this project is really about. 217.45.102.139 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2015 (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.

FkpCascais again[edit]

The RfC and the review of the RfC have both been closed. FkpCascais has accepted the result. There is little support for any action against FkpCascais. In my personal opinion, he would be wise to avoid this topic for a while. EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2015 (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 need external help at this point.

Recap: There was a complicated RfC. It was closed against FkpCascais's stance. After further debates, he asked for a review of the close, which is, let's say, ongoing. This is when I got involved. In the meanwhile, there has been (a lot) more discussion on the article's talk page.

I have been sort of mediating. FkpCascais has gone from seemingly hating my guts to apologizing. The current problem is that I had added a "disputed" tag to one of the two main points of contention. FkpCascais removed it twice and then removed my talk page request not to do that (I see he has reverted that now, though).

He had repeatedly removed another such tag before (prompting me to report him for edit warring) and had been told by, among others, HighInBC that the tag should stay. He had gone well over 3RR before.

There is also an IP-hopping sockpuppet involved in this (opposing FkpCascais), and I have more than enough of everyone, really. FkpCascais needs to cool down and realize that the RfC was against his stance and that it's completely backwards that, even though his stance is still reflected in the article, he's even getting "disputed" tags removed. LjL (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What I am proposing with this report is that FpCascais be somehow made to relent from edits and arguments on topics related to ex-Yugoslavia (I think there have been issues on other articles too, but I have not been involved), or at least Serbs of Croatia. How this is achieved is not my concern, but talk pages can't just keep on inflating with people running away from the sheer length and absurdity, and the consensus from the RfC can't be unilaterally overturned. LjL (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You added this last paragraph just now, you are asking for me to be removed. I am asking for an admin please to see LjL conduct as reviewer. From the very start they were not been making a neutral review but a clear tendentious one with a goal of prooving me wrong. I dont think that is a review at all, but rather involvment in the dispute. They even got to call things "my side and their side" that much neutrality has been seen on their behalve. Once I continue providing sources and backing up my points, it obviously becomes a situation where I become the undesirable one. I am the only one providing sourced arguments there against the Croatian POV, remove me and we will be left with no Serbian editors and the articles will loose even the chance of being neutraly written. What the admins need to do is to see what happened there and recoment this users to stop trying to eliminate me. They made a consensus ammong them which is not backed by any reliable sources and which goes clearly against what English-language sources are saying. Albino made a very controversial close, and now LjL all that has been doing there is to proove me wrong. That is a valid position as edtor, but than they are not a review that was asked, and should stop pretendng to be one. FkpCascais (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course I added the last paragraph now, everyone can see the double signature. AlbinoFerret's close is not "very controversial", since you're effectively the only one still opposing it. You're making a ruckus. I also take big issue with the concept that to be neutral, the article needs to have both Croatian and Serbian editors. I'm neither, and in fact, I'm sadly starting to think that if neither nationality took part in its editing, it would be for the better. And, of course, no, a review going counter your opinion is not the review you asked for: I do recognize that. LjL (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Just one minor point of correction LjL, I asked for the review. FkpCascais mentioned starting one and then waited a few days, so I started it since I closed the RFC. AlbinoFerret 00:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I will be asking for formal mediation on this. LjL started wrong foot on this from the very start, and now is ignoring 20 reliable sources and engaging in WP:OR by making their own interpretation of the constitution. Things dont work that way, 20 authors certinly know why they are saying something, and there is no need for a Wikipedia editor to go to the Constitution and check their findings. They are unable to provide RS so that is why this is happening. FkpCascais (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
LjL the talk-page revert of your comment was an accident, I reverted myself instantly. Also, I must say that LjL has been condoning the participation of that very same evading-block editor, and having a nice long chat with him at their talk-page, even using the arguments provded by the IP at the article talk-page dscussion against me. Strange at least! FkpCascais (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
"Things don't work that way" is valid about ignoring the result of an RfC, too. And my talk page is mine to talk to people at, thank you. LjL (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh and sorry about the original section heading HighInBC, it wasn't meant literally, but this has really felt... weird. Couple of days ago he gave me a half barnstar and apologized for, well, you can see that on my talk page; couple of days before that, he was hating me and saying I was "lying through my teeth", and removing tags; now he seems to be back to that. I am confuzzled. LjL (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I assumed you made the initial missinterpretation of soures by accident, I AGF towards you, however by seing your continuos loyering of one side only, you making ways to ignore sources, I really have to say I was not wrong, you are indeed involved in this, and you are being tendentious. I can, and will, provide clear exemples of your tendentious atitutde if asked to do so. FkpCascais (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I need to say I objected LjL being the reviewer of the close from the very begining, and I had my reasons, but I ended being flexible. Can I please ask this time for the reviewer to be an experienced admin please? This is an easy case actually, just that a series of mistakes were made in the process. Or, if the admins believe the option of fomal mediotion is better solution, that would be great as well. FkpCascais (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The review should be closed. There's a very solid consensus that it should be closed, despite it having become another very long thing to read because this is basically how you murk waters. LjL (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
And perfectly sourced material (your own words) will be left out... You are letting emotions affect your decitions now, you know it. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Mirror, mirror... LjL (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Not funny at all. This entire process was handled extremely poorly, and I spent weeks digging into sources and finding consensus ammong them. FkpCascais (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
But you found none. You are actually still going counter RfC consensus, and I have also spent a long time trying to sift through your mess and arbitrate a little. I've had enough. LjL (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Cause all you have been doing there is trying to find a way to dismiss my 20+ sources, a terribly difficult task. Obviously you had it enough and we got here. If you only once accepted sources are right we wouldnt be here. FkpCascais (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
And I didnt found consensus? Not because you receve advices from an evading indef-blocked editor and a user opposing me constituously claiming it is all propaganda my sources are saying (strong arguments for sure). But there is a clear consensus ammong the sources for what really matters, 20+ sources agree ammong them about most, it is just minor peripherical aspects left to work out and can be finished quite easily. But you come and you question everything, even clearly establshed facts backed by 20+ sources and contradicted by... zero sources and 2 partisan editors. Such as "Serbs lost constituent status in Croatia in 1990." You ignore the 20 authors, and you want to see yourself the Constitution. OK, you said you can do it talk-pages without breaking WP:OR, but how are you going to insert it n the article iif you have no RS opposing the statement? What are we loosng time there for? So you ignore WP:TRUTH, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:OR just to see if it is possible to make them right and me and my 20+ sources wrong, that is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Every time someone examines those 20+ sources they come to the same conclusions that they dont say what you want them to say. An RFC, outside editors who looked after the RFC. Its starting to look like filibustering. Its starting to look like you are WP:NOTHERE because you are ignoring the consensus of everyone else and want to continue in an endless discussion that goes round in circles, Its time to drop the stick. AlbinoFerret 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
They are not all saying "Serbs lost the constitutive status in Croatia in 1990" yes or not? FkpCascais (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You are being accused of not dropping the stick and WP:NOTHERE, and you thing that dragging the discussion to this ANI will help your cause? Listen to the others and drop the stick, you "lost" the RfC and soon the review. What else to do. Prevent a consensus enters the article? That would be a first, at least for me. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I asked for a review of your close cause you didnt even read the sources, you just copy/pasted their argument, and later you refused to clarify the close to me. So obviously you want it now to be dropped. FkpCascais (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret:, I was even willing to have lengthy debates, but not ruckus. Not ruckus like removing tags, edit warring and even reverting me on the talk page, which I'm sure was done in the heat of the moment (since it was undone), but whatever: it shows what this has come to. LjL (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I told you the revert at the talk-page was a mistake, for God sake, the screan I was using is small. I reverted mself instantly. But using whatever to get me out, nice from you. FkpCascais (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh my God, WP:NOTHERE is perfect! All this time I was trying to point that he isn't discussing in good faith in my own words and I didn't know of this. This perfectly describes it. Thanks. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

LjL, if you look closer at the discussions, you'll see he's really been attacking everyone who doesn't agree with him. The user who started the discussion got reported by him. He got fed up with Fkp and left. I got attacked that I'm a sock to the point that it's generally accepted as a fact, although no report was made. Director got attacked as a nationalist. You got attacked...The whole discussion should be reviewed so let's leave it for the admins. Every single editor had left the discussion because of FkP and if it weren't for me he would successfully enter his POV to the article after all the opposition is gone, one way (by blocking) or another (by exhaustion). I told it a long time, he's not been discussing in good faith and it's really hard to notice until you get involved with him. Isn't that right LjL. It's hard to notice that when someone puts a direct question how he neglects to answer it and buries it with a wall of text. You can't easily notice if you don't read carefully. But when you get involved you see it very clearly. Your last section is a great example. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're pretty much on the spot (but you still shouldn't evade blocks). LjL (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to since I'm not blocked. ;) I can tell you that I'm staying away from this user when this is over. I won't get involved in another of his "discussions" since I tend to finish it when I get involved. I can tell he's doing some contributions on football related topics. I would advise him to stay on that topic,but I doubt he would listen. 159.224.0.18 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not even going to comment this evident cumplicity the two of you had been having from the very begning. I will defend myself by saying just one thing: I was the only one to present sources there, and plenty. That was my way of "attacking you", sorry both of you perceve it that way. FkpCascais (talk)
No: I previously documented your way of attacking me, and perhaps it's due time to bring it up. LjL (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course I attacked you, you were lying about sources clearly ignoring parts of a sentence thus turning their meaning upside-down. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, admitting and justifying your personal attacks won't help but, but on contrary... Stop, take a deep breath and objectively think what you are doing.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Listen pal, even if I didnt existed, your tendentious editing will not get to the articles cause people here are not fools. And you were not indef-blocked because of me reporting you, but because of your own edits. So deal with it, and stop chasing me around. Get a life. FkpCascais (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's not get paranoid and see someone who doesn't exist and think someone is following you. If you get blocked here it will be because of proving the arguments against your behavior in this very own report. You are still not dropping the stick and you are even admitting and justifying personal accusations. You made them against everyone participating here and all in front of admin eyes. I told you, take a deep breath and think about what you are doing to yourself here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I see there is now a push into making this look as if it is me not dropping the stick. But the case is the following, in a cntent dispute I was alone representing one side vs a group of editors. I have plenty of sources, that is what made me hang on all the way. However, a reviewer came and made a close just copy/pasting their argument claiming consensus ammong editors. He made a mistake, but once a mistake is made it is hard to fix it without making the closing editor look bad. For some reasons, and in quite strange ciircunstances, an editor offered to be a reviewer, although rather than offering itelf, he started reviewing by their own will and sort of self-declared as such. All they been doing while eviewing is trying to make me wrong. I am please asking for a real review. If the reviewer want so, I will not even participate, and I will respect whatever the cocnclusion will be. Or a mediation. Whatever the admins find more appropriate. FkpCascais (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't get infinitely many reviews until one agrees with you. Also, one doesn't "offer to be a reviewer", and I didn't close the review, which is still ongoing (but ought, for the love of everything good, to be closed soon). LjL (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
LjL you went above and beyond. I know that some will look at the claim of 20+ sources with concern that perhaps there was a mistake someplace. But you looked and found there was none. I am glad you did, because being an outside editor you confirmed that everyone else was right. This should have ended with the RFC, but I am glad you looked and found there was consensus. AlbinoFerret 02:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You made the poorest close I have ever seem in 10 yers, I ask any admin to confirm it, and if I am wrong I will block myself. FkpCascais (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
There is already a review, and its going against you. You dont seem to understand that you dont get to argue again and again and again until by some slim hope you get someone (unlikely) to agree with you. AlbinoFerret 02:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah and let's remember LjL was slightly on his side at the beginning. It someone finds himself/herself in that situation I strongly recommend he/she takes a few days and tries to deal with him himself/herself.LjL I hope you saw what I was going trough this last few MONTHS. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
LjL, There was just one close by now, and a non-admin one, in a hot-topic case. So it is not me asking for indefinite reviews for sure, and you certanly read the part me saying "I will respect whatever the cocnclusion will be". Do you have problems understanding my English or you iintentionally pretend not to? FkpCascais (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You removed a comment against you.[3] granted by an IP that is probably shouldnt be here, but that removal should be by an admin if anyone. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, now make a party because of it. Anyway, that will not make your close any better. FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Because his comment about not asking for indefinite reviews wouldn't make much sense if he didn't remove my comment. Fkp, you can't and you shouldn't take this as a fight and try to win by getting others blocked by neglecting arguments and with personal accusations, by removing other peoples' comments.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
At least let this current review finishes against your favor until you ask for another one. ;) All this doesn't help you look like you had dropped the stick.. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You dont even have a stick... @Everyone else, so nice you condone an evading-block user to post, and LjL even let him participate in the discussion perfectly aware of who he was and his sockpuppeting. FkpCascais (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
You let me open a RfC. What a big mistake that was, to bring your fallacies to the eyes of other editors. So if someone is letting someone participate, as if it's up to them to decide who should participate. Everyone is free to make a report against anyone and you didn't make it. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I sure hope this is my last night I spend like this. I didn't get much sleep this last few months. FkP go to sleep and allow us others go as well. We can continue tomorrow. Maybe you really should sleep it over so you realize what you have done here.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A further incident: after FkpCascais cursed and accused another editor, I was about to intervene when he simply deleted his message. I did not consider that fair, so I reinstated it struck-out (and explained in the edit summary), but he reverted my edit without further explanation. LjL (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous? Please focus on content there and answer the questions presented to you by another editor who clearly questions your conclusions there. And dont edit, move, remove my comments. Thanks you. FkpCascais (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What is this all about?[edit]

If you want to know, then expand this hat. But it's a content dispute not belonging here

This is my edit (The entire section "Socialist Yugoslavia", you can see the content and the sources, it was empty before my edit), this is the close of Albino (look at the argument and the edit of mine and the sources He sugests removing the entre section and replacing by a sentence saying just: "On 22 December 1990, the Parliament of Croatia ratified the new constitution,[89] which was seen by Serbs as taking away rights that had been granted by the Socialist constitution.[90]"). This is basically an attempt to eliminate perfectly sourced content and replace it with a dubious sentence, but OK, that is my view, someone should confirm it. At bottom of Talk:Serbs of Croatia is where the review of LjL is found. I will leave this thread and not answer anymore unless asked by an admin. FkpCascais (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's another thing. You really shouldn't make unilateral edits while that very own thing is being discussed. Look at what you did here. Another user pointed out that the very same thing we are discussing on Serbs of Croatia is also present on Croatian_War_of_Independence article. You open this discussion (20:00, 18 September 2015 ) to point that both articles will be changed after the RfC is over. Then you go and unilaterally edit the article yourself ( 00:24, 20 September 2015). That article is still standing with your unilateral edits while the RfC is already closed against you. That's not a way Wikipedia is edited. Did you think no one will notice you went on unilaterally edit an article although the discussion is still open and pending? I could have reverted you, but I haven't.Since I know you would go to edit warring there as well and have that article protected as well.93.171.64.118 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Will someone please remove an evading blocked user? It is not because he is criticizeing me, couldnt care less, but because he is cluttering the thread. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Question for admins: there are many articles that dont get much attention beside the involved editors. Such articles clearly are some international disputes such is this case. Puts head-a-head the opposed views each nation has. In my view the ideal situation would be to have a decent number of editors from each, plus neutral ones, side making consensus all together by gathering sources, seing wht they say, and applying our rules and principles. However, when one side has just one editor, the situation becomes clearly totally different than that ideal one I mentioned. The easiest thing the lone editor can do is letting the other side have their way. But is that fair for Wikipedia as a neutral free online encyclopedia? This case here is very interesting because it demonstrates all the problems the lone editor faces if he wants to fight for archiving neutrality. Armed with sources, I am facing all possible and impossible means to get my text out or to get me out. Albino made a close just copy/pastng their arguments and I bet the life of my sons he didnt even opened one single source of the 20 I presented to see what they actually say. Then LjL, she imposed herself as reviewer and has been her best to see how to turn around things and make me loose. It was terrible for me. She even missquaoted sources, when I checked them to see how could I have missed them saying what she claimed they say, I found out she just lied brutally. Why she did that? Even so, I was conviced to give her a chance. But, what should I do as an editor when I see she is reviewing clearly tendentiously? Cause, they really got me to the limit, it is just a pharse to see when I am going to give-up or if I am going to do something they could report me for, then they have the group, and have the close editor who clearly wants to support his mistake... I really couldnt have done much better, I gatheres so many sources, all of them scholar and in English, all of them verifiable just with a click at Google Books, I made an edit as fair as possible having in mind te sources, and I am basing my arguments at talk with sources (I am so much pressured I even have to source my comments! And I do!). They hardly look at the sources (besides LjL who I made look at them after much reluctancy on her behalve; she did the best to avoid looking at sources and was trying to find a way to convince me to just accept the close, she even proposed an "one for you-one for me solution" just to escae dealing with sources, cause they knew I had sources). I had to gently ask to give sources a chance, after what they in anger just 10 minutes later, made a totally tendentious presentation. Instead of accepting to see what sources say, they started immedately working to defend their goal... Wait... should a reviewer clearly back one side? I dont think so, but that has been her behavior all time. Of course, in that edit, actually only 1 of the 4 sources says what she clamed, you can see the reality ofthat thread of hers: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Sources_suggesting_.22rights.22_may_have_been_retained. FkpCascais (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Well some things need to be said, and I think that other editors are not aware of your behavior on Croatian War of Independence article. I on the other hand have been dealing with you for months and I'm perfectly aware of it. Now's the time to point it out. It wouldn't be productive if I had gone to edit warring over there, so I waited to an opportunity like this. 93.171.64.118 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I did this at that article. Please, please dont mention it anymore, if someone noteces I added perfectly sourced content in an article I will not get a chance to mantain my terribly tendentious nationalist editor reputation. FkpCascais (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

To prove what LjL is doing, please see the exemple of what they are doing here Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Two_points_about_the_RfC on point 1. Lets see her claims if are backed with sources. 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but I'm male, by the way. LjL (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Just look what is happening there. I will saying nothing, just judge by yourselfs who is doing what. FkpCascais (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Linking to your own statement proves nothing. AlbinoFerret 22:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

History repeating itself[edit]

This seems a lot like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_RFC_close_review. The same actors, the same dispute, same wall of text. It is also very reminiscent of the discussion at Talk:Serbs of Croatia. ANI is not the place to carry on a debate. While I agree that the original thread needs to be closed. I also think that while all involved(except for the IP hopping sock) are acting in good faith the behaviour of all should be examined. While I have acted only as an admin in this area I would welcome fresh eyes as the whole thing is making my old mind wrinkle.

I don't think it is serving any of the party's interests to be carrying on this dispute here. I have read what has been written and it seems like the involved party's have already made their point and now just going in a cycle of disagreement. I ask that the involved party's refrain from providing information that is already present on this page and instead continue the debate on the article talk page. I ask that an uninvolved admin close the current RFC review on WP:AN and if there is not anything new here this too. HighInBC 15:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure; may I additionally ask that if the RfC review is closed in favor of the RfC close (i.e. against FkpCascais's stance), than that consensus be, at this point, and finally, enforced in the article, in one way or another? Dead-letter consensus isn't useful. LjL (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
In my experience when an RFC has that much debate afterwards there is a problem. A strong consensus is rarely hard to enforce because those who agreed with it want it enforced. The RFC repeatedly referred to here involved few editors and numerous occurrences of sock puppetry(including the person who proposed it).
A fresh RFC with a clearly defined set of outcomes that is not created by a blocked user would represent a much more clearly enforceable consensus. Right now it takes someone with the patience of Job to sift that RFC and find the reason in it. Props to @AlbinoFerret: for closing such a mess of an RFC. HighInBC 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks HighInBC, I do think another RFC would likely be a good idea. But the way that RFC was laid out is really bad. I think another editor should open a new one, one who doesnt write a question that is almost TLDR, that leads to less participation. Another issue is how to remove the sock. They were heavily discounted in the RFC so they really didnt impact it much. I counted the IP's as one editor, and even if taken out completely it doesnt change anything. You have been doing what you can, but they seem to come back again and again. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I am sure now that an uninvolved senior editor came questioning LjL conclusions, LjL wants to see the RfC closed as quckly as possible. FkpCascais (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Every time I read a comment on this topic, its like deja vu all over again or Groudhogs day. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang[edit]

This is what is happening. I am facing a clearly tendentious "reviewer" who is making WP:OR, intentionally ignoring reliable sources (sometimes even pretending not to understand their content despite being all in perfect English), and sugesting to drop Wikipedia:Verifiability. As revewer he has clearly been siding since the very begning clearly not in compliance with WP:NPOV, absolutely necessary for a reviewer. I am askng please uninvolved admins to review LjL behavior as reviewer, the link here is just one exemple of the constant he has been having there. In a subsecton I made, which LjL colapsed,are more diffs of exemples of their tendentious atitutude. FkpCascais (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This again FkpCascais? I think it's time for a TBAN for FkpCascais , broadly construed on anything dealing with Croatia. This is about the second or third time I've seen this issue come up, with him. Enough already ! KoshVorlon 15:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
A senior editor has come and questioned LjL conclusions. Please wait to see the outcome, I believe it would be fair. It is very hard to be the only one at one side of the dispute and it is very eeasy to make a precpitated conclusion that I am the one in fault, by it may, or not, be that the case. FkpCascais (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You are consistently mixing up content issues with user behavior issues. LjL (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "senior editor" FkpCascais. There are Editors, there are sysops , then there are Arbs. KoshVorlon 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
In this case, there are. Cause we have been dealing with a great ammount of new single-purpose accounts. That is why I said it. But it is OK, you are entitled to have your opinion. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Please list the alleged single-purpose accounts (aside from the IP-hopping sock). LjL (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It is him I aam talking about obviously. He has a list of related accounts already blocked. But what does it matter? All I meant is that the editor questioning your decitions is not a newby but an established editor. FkpCascais (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Several of the people who opposed you during and after the RfC were also established editors. What's your point? LjL (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes a topic ban on Balkan articles should be in order. I'm looking at his contributions and everywhere I go I see walls of text and him accusing others of being socks, nationalists, making personal accusations. It often leads to him reporting and trying to ban other users, like it happened on Serbs of Croatia where he tried to block me and another user when we were the only one that opposed him. I already told what I think of his behavior in the upper sections, but let's see what some of the other's think:
Director : "Of course he's not discussing in good faith.Don't know when ever he had." [4] , "Frankly I think this horrendous, farcical mess is grounds for a topic ban." [5]
Shokatz:"And here we go again, you should be topic banned for WP:UNDUE and obvious one-sided POV-pushing." [6]


Topic ban for FkpCascais[edit]

Withdrawn, FkpCascais has agreed to drop the stick and wait for someone else to start the new RFC. AlbinoFerret 22:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The above section shows that FkpCascais is WP:NOTHERE. He has engaged in personal attacks, removing others comments, filibustering, ignoring consensus/failure to drop the stick, and appears to be to involved in this topic. I propose a 6 month topic ban, the width of the ban determined by the closing admin. I suggest 6 months in order that he broaden his editing in other areas of WP and return a better editor to this topic area. If not, there will be enough WP:ROPE. AlbinoFerret 17:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that for the first time we have an unnvolved editor looking at the dispute criticizing your conclusions, sure it is time to eliminate me. FkpCascais (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
At the time of the close I was uninvolved, and tried my best to stay uninvolved. But with everything that has happened, including talk page sections on my talk page after the close and comments in discussions after the close that is not the present case when dealing with the disruption you have caused. AlbinoFerret 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Definetly support a 6 month topic ban - and just so you know this, FpCascais, I'm under one myself, I know what it's like and hate proposing this for anyone, but in this case, it's applicable. KoshVorlon 18:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal how to solve this and move on[edit]

Seems obvious that by now personal conflicts are interfering wth the objectivity and neutrality. I seem to be the problem, LjL and AlbinoFerret are pointing out. I propose then to stay out from now on. Since a new editor gave a look at the content and is adressing some issues I myself was adressing earlier, I agree that my part is done; I made an edit, I provided sources, I asked questions, nothing else I can do anymore. I promisse to stay out from the review till its end, I will come only if asked to. User:LjL, User:AlbinoFerret and User:biblbroks, would you agree? FkpCascais (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, the review has ended. Until another RfC takes place, the results of the previous ones are valid. LjL (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, it is closed then. I just asked. Its over then. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, its over, FkpCascais you agree to let RFC stand and the consensus that was reached there. You will drop the stick and wait for someone else to start another RFC? If you agree to that I will withdraw the TBAN request. AlbinoFerret 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course AlbinoFerret. I was actually unaware the RfC had been closed today. If it is closed, then it is closed. FkpCascais (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn, I am glad to see this on the way to solving the issues without banns. Dropping everything is a good idea while everything moves forward. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Oppose any wide topic bans for FkpCascais, but if it were up to me I'd go with a narrow ban for the one specific article, no longer than 6 months. In other words: nothing big that stops him contributing in general - just something to get him to shut the hell up over there definitively, and not just start this all over again in a month. I know the user rather well, he's a clever guy: I'm seeing him getting a buddy to post another RfC in a week or two, and then starting this stupid show from the beginning. I'm hoping we can address that possibility here?
Don't doubt for a second that he hasn't accepted the community's position, he just isn't dumb: he saw a tban on the horizon. He still thinks he's in the right, that he has "the sources and you don't have sources and I have them and.." etc. Pardon my frankness, but... -- Director (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Director I have no doubt that there will probably be a round two. But banns/blocks are not meant to be punitive, so if he dropped the stick I was willing to drop the request. Nothing in the agreement above stops anyone else from starting a RFC, you could do it if you want. I would recommend that at the first post by the sock on the RFC that someone ask HiInBC to block the page to IP's for the remainder of the RFC. This will give one less argument for anyone that disagrees with the outcome. AlbinoFerret 14:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret Naturally. What gave you the impression I was proposing a punitive measure? Quite the opposite, I'm talking about making sure this affair comes to an end for more than a week or two, I don't want to see Fkp "punished". And I think you made my point for me: "there will be a round two"? Well there shouldn't be a "round two" of disruption. I think Fkp, while he has pledged to drop the stick, has an easy window back into there - simply by getting a buddy to post an RfC in a week. A 6 month ban from the article should cement the matter - and if he's honest he shouldn't even mind it, since he pledged to drop it.
I'm really not trying to see anyone "punished" :). I'm opposed to any wide bans on Croatia topics or Yugoslavia, and am in general a big opponent of willy-nilly topic banning. And, in spite of us being on opposite sides in a few debates, I've known Fkp for a while on Wiki and I really hold no personal grudge against him at all. In fact, I originally joined the discussion there with the intent of helping him out, thinking he's advocating sources vs Croatian nationalism... and then it turned out to be Serbian nationalism vs Croatian nationalism... Sigh... (the change was indeed probably a deliberate provocation by the Croatian government, trouble is, Fkp wants it to have concrete legal ramifications - which it did not have.. even further, he wants it to justify a Serbian takeover of a third of the country as their constitutional right... ugh...) -- Director (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't saying you wanted to punish him Director, just me saying something I'm sure most people agree with. I have a feeling though, that if he repeats his behaviour in the near future my withdrawing will be seen as WP:ROPE. I really dont want that, I am a firm believer that multiple points of view make better articles. Its just that we need to discuss things in good order with cool heads, and no I am not suggesting you want disorder or are a hothead. :) AlbinoFerret 21:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I think the recent amendments to the section make it relatively balanced (though I might think that because I made them), since FpkCascais's point of view wasn't really reversed or even removed, but simply toned down considerably. Sources would need to be updated and reduced to a sane number, though, which I haven't done. LjL (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Direktor, you really want to continue this? The RfC is closed. I argued while it was open. I dont pretend coming even near enything involving this any soon. I got tired. Proposing a TB for me is really clearly an attempt to eliminate me. Let me ask you one thing: how do you think it will look if I gathered here all you comments from the discusions? You provided zero sources, you continuosly made unsourced claims and OR, and half of the content of your comments were personal remarks breking the rule of coment on content not on contributors. Your personal remarks were intentionally offensive and provocative and full of content totally unrelated to the discussion. Move on, its over. FkpCascais (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right, and I apologize.. but it'd have been pretty silly for me to shut down my brain and pretend I just met you. About as silly as you pretending to be completely neutral on this. Look, I'm not "continuing" anything - just keep it quiet over there for at least a couple months.
If you'll permit me to ramble a bit.. my personal opinion on this is that both the Tudjman and Milosevich governments were trying their best to provoke ethnic tensions, where previously there were virtually none. Tensions were absolutely in both their interests. And Croatia wasn't Bosnia or Kosovo, everything was pretty much fine: the Croats got what they wanted in the 1974 constitution, and the Serbs were pretty far away from all the Kosovo drama to get particularly fired up by the "anti-bureaucratic" bull. I think that both Tudjman deliberately worded the preamble as a provocation, and Milosevich of course took to shamelessly inflating the significance of it... -- Director (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Director, but I must disagree that he is "right", at least on the part where he accuses you of unsourced claims, OR and personal remarks (as if the former two were a breach of any rules when in the context of a talk page discussion, anyway). LjL (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please close this section[edit]

It appears to have ended well, nothing more needed. Would an admin please box this up so it can end without any more drama? AlbinoFerret 03:45, 28 October 2015 (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.

Persecution from Collect and McGeddon[edit]

Dust seems to have settled. Blackmane (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2015 (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.

Hello. I'm here to talk you about the incorrect actions of other Wikipedian. There are two users that are percuting me. They delete, change or undo everything I add to Wikipedia pages. They have voted negatively in a AfD debat without reason. User Collect and McGeddon are persecuting me. He voted negatively in the AfD debat of the Internet Horror Movie Database, they are persecuting me in the page [7] and in the page [[8] where I added some titles. He have segnaled me here and here where the debat was archived. They continue to change all I do. Plus, Collect, for what i see in his talk page has various problems with Wiki like sock and blocks. This is why yesterday I afded some of his pages. Please help me stop this persecution. Please verify. Pizzole (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

See also his WP:ANEW complaint, his multiple AfDs and PRODs etc. Note also his SPI file. Then kindly tell him what the result of his harassment is. Collect (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The user Collect reported just now for the second time in one week an issue regarding biographies of living persons for an article I created. The first one it was archived. Please stop this persecution. Pizzole (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
They brought it here because they were told WP:ANEW wasn't the right place. LjL (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no "right place" for blatant harassment. Check out the AfDs and PRODs he did to "Get at" others. Really. Collect (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Collect, I already reported what's the problem for my AfDs. It's you and your bad faith. And I have withdrawn the AfD just after some minutes because I'm here in good faith.Pizzole (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Um -- two hours is not "some minutes" and you CSDed an article about the first African American letter carrier, and an article about the world's most renowned publisher of reference works on artists. And did not even apologize on the talk pages for the nominations. "Just after some minutes" is pretty brazen. Collect (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This editor started going after Collect yesterday with frivilous AfDs[9] [10] and [11], all of which were closed Speedy Keep. I believe it has something to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Horror Movie Database possibly relating to some COI the editor may or may not have [12]. This looks to be just another step in that same harassment. I think they have passed the threshold for at least a WP:BOOMERANG block for disruptive editing. JbhTalk 00:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I withdrawn the AfD. Collect are persecuting me for days, not yesterday. No COI for me. And for Collect? Please check out his history.Pizzole (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The real problem here it's that I'm not english or american and I dont't know well the language. I can't well protect myself from your bad faith.Pizzole (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This matter was discussed yesterday at Jimbo's talk page. I will repeat here what I first said there: Pizzole "is retaliating against people who support deletion of their overt SPA self promotional editing by nominating for deletion articles those other editors have written, on spurious grounds. It is naked and it is ugly. Fortunately, it will not be successful, but it gets people riled up and wastes people's time. Classic tendentious editing." I hope that a boomerang gets taken out of storage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Damn, it isn't true. I want to stop the persecution from Collect and his negative behavior towards me. I have withdrawn the AfD by myself because I was wrong. But who protect me from Collect? Pizzole (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: you talk about Classic tendentious editing. Take a look at the last edits on one of the pages I created: [13]. Check out the two nominations in one week of this page in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Is this Classic tendentious editing or not? Pizzole (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is a direct question for you, Pizzole: Do you have an undisclosed financial connection with Antony Coia or any of these other articles? Your behavior at the website AfD and the various related articles tends to create that impression. I do not want to violate your privacy, but if by chance you have any financial interest in these topics, you have a legal obligation to disclose it immediately. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) I am glad you followed my suggestion and withdrew your AfD nominations of articles created by Collect and Onel5969. Nobody is persecuting you. Wikipedia is an collaborative effort, and you can not expect the rest of us not to edit e.g. Antony Coia or have an opinion on Internet Horror Movie Database. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 00:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello Sam Sailor, and I'm glad that you are a reasonable person. I not expect all of you to have an opinion on Internet Horror Movie Database but I want a real debat and not a persecution without proofs. This is not mature. And if comments are immature and the same user persecute me in all pages, I think that not all wikipedians are really correct.Pizzole (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
One of the first edits of Collect in the page Antony Coia i created was to modify "owner of the internet horror movie database" to "owner of a commercial site". What is this? Is a genuine edit? No. It's vandalism? Yes. And it was a week before the AfD close.Pizzole (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't sound in the least like WP:Vandalism. LjL (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Look at here: [14]. It isn't vandalism? He changed the text to insert about a site that sell movies. But the site don't sell movies. Is this a correct edit for a Wikipedia. I don't think so.Pizzole (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere does it says it "sells movies", it just says it's a commercial website. Anyway, no, that sort of thing is absolutely not vandalism. Vandalism on Wikipedia has a narrow definition: I encourage you to read WP:Vandalism. LjL (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No, that edit wasn't vandalism. It was the removal of a link which looks to me like an attempt at advertising a site. Your inclusion was inappropriate, the removal was appropriate.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but you are wrong. There wasn't links. Stop talking about untruth. I'm new but i'm not an idiot. This is Wikipedia and not a forum. And Collect reported that website sell movies in the debat: [15] just after editing the page Antony Coia. Ok, it's not vandalism but it isn't a correct edit for a wikipedian. I'm forced to add tons of sources but Collect can edit articles with untruths and to ruin a debat with unsourced comments? Pizzole (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
At the AfD discussion on the Horror db page, I repeatedly asked Pizzole to drop the stick. Which he refused to do. His engagement in this discussion is a continuation of that behavior. He then proceeded to target editors who disagreed with him. I suggested that he withdraw the bad faith AfD nominations, which he refused to do, more than once. Eventually, after other editor(s) (I'm not sure if it was more than one) also suggested this course of action to him, he did withdraw those nominations. He is a new editor, so a certain amount of slack should be given him. But this continued behavior is becoming very troubling. Please, Pizzole, read the links that other editors point you to. Don't argue simply because you feel wronged. Arguing with experienced editors is not a good start. Onel5969 TT me 01:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but it was a trial. This isn't the right place for me, maybe. I can not stand untruths and ambiguous behavior. I know that here there are a lot of valid people and good volunteers but I expect that in Wikipedia, all the comments are truthful and grounded. I keep reading unsubstantiated claims and no one checks the truth. It's very frustrating for a newbie. I am a consistent person and I can't wait for stars and merits to have to be considered credible. No one will believe me because I'm new and because you, old wikipedians are in bad faith with me. Thank you. Pizzole (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
"I expect that in Wikipedia, all the comments are truthful and grounded" ← It's Wikipedia, not Dreamland... you really are off to a bad start if you're just in the business of feeling persecuted after any potentially less-than-exact comment. LjL (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It's ok. This is your home, not mine. You decide how things go. Guest are unquestionable and base more on stars and merits. I'm not interested anymore in the debat. Things are misunderstood. Maybe because I don't know well english. Don't worry. I'm adult. ;)Pizzole (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cullen328, I don't have any undisclosed financial connection. My behavior is matter of principle. If anyone claim for a delete has to comment with truth and not with assumptons. The debat was a farce. I'm not interested in talking anymore about it. Pizzole (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much to add here. If someone is an WP:SPA whose only actions have been to create two articles on non-English subjects and have them merged into one by an AfD, then they're likely to see some of the same names commenting on "everything I add to Wikipedia pages" as they comment on that AfD and cleanup the merge. My AfD !vote certainly wasn't "without reason", and my only edits to Antony Coia have been to flag or remove unsourced content, and some minor copyediting and cleanup. --McGeddon (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The movie database article was about an english subject. Is a english-language website an english subject? Yes. And I edited some other articles here on Wiki but only about horror cinema like Soska Sisters, Bruno Mattei, Lucio Fulci and Joe D'amato. So, if in Soska Sisters page I added horrorsociety.com as source, am I affiliate to that website? No. Pizzole (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
And one of the "frivolous" AfD I opened, received a "delete" claim from an admin just after few minutes. The articles I AfDed was not very well sourced. Now it's different and more sources have been added.--Pizzole (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: look at this article [16] what sources are these? [17], [18], [19], [20] but they aren't the unique. I need to delete them? It's correct?--Pizzole (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A source can, at least in some instances, consist of a commercial site. I don't see anything immediately wrong with those sources, although I think I recall some guideline against linking to Amazon in book sources, but that seems like a detail, the important thing being having the key information about the book. LjL (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
For sure. And the other sources? All is good. Yeah!--Pizzole (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
And this one? [21] What kind of source it is? Oh yeah, everything is perfect.--Pizzole (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not responding to rants and sarcasm. LjL (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't want you to respond to sarcasm but only about the invalid sources I linked here. --Pizzole (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Note In this article [22] where are the sources about de birth date and place? And where are the sources for the citations?--Pizzole (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

If you find that sources are lacking for basic facts in articles, feel free to add them. The citation is sourced. LjL (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This text sound me like advertising, am I wrong?: "Dr. John Phillips, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities praised Seymour's work at Rollins. According to Keith Henderson of The Christian Science Monitor

What Seymour has accomplished in his eight years here is "pretty remarkable," according to John Phillips, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. "He's gone against the trends." When others have been willing to say, "whatever people want, let's provide it," Seymour has never veered from his purpose -- the establishment, as Dr. Phillips puts it, of "a high-quality liberal arts institution in a place that's associated in the public's mind with Disney World and fun in the sun."--Pizzole (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:POINT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LjL (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Pizzole: My firm suggestion is that you not go off on any source deletion sprees as right now, it would be seen as WP:POINTY behavior and you would likely loose your editing privileges for a bit. Just because other articles have poor sources is not a reason to include more. If you have not done so please read our policy on reliable sources and maybe look through some of the discussions at the Reliable Source Noticeboard to get a feel for things.

Since English is not your first language you might want to reconsider the use of the term "persecution". It is a very strong term in the English language and I can think of no circumstances when it would be appropriate to use it in the context of behavior here. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and if someone disagrees with you assume they feel they have a valid reason for doing so and figure out what that reason is. Wikipedia has rules but you need to read the blue links quoted to you, not just the name or the first few lines. Look for the parts of the policy/guideline that disagree with your position not just what you think supports it. It takes time to learn the how to edit here and if you get stuck on what you think should be rather than what is you will only be frustrated. Cheers. JbhTalk 14:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have understand your messages. I'm an idiot and you have stars. I show you reliable and independent sources but I'm wrong. I tell you that other articles have not valid sources (something like 404) and so, I'm wrong too. Here I'm the newbie and I can't have any voice that matter. I already read the policy about realiable sources. Dozens of times. So there are 2 possibilities: 1. I am really an idiot. 2. I'm only a newbie and a spammer (for you). But sorry, here I'm the italian boy who knows how to open a real debat in english language. --Pizzole (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Your attitude is being awful, honestly. This is not just about WP:RS, far from it. And by the way, dead links ("404") aren't automatically unreliable sources at all. Read WP:Link rot. LjL (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try for the second time. What source is this one? [23] And this one? [24] Please... I need your help to understand Wikipedia. Are these two sources, valide and reliable? Thank you!--Pizzole (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm the opposite of an expert on TV/film topics, but I'm not sure why that source is there since it doesn't seem to mention the fact that David P. Levin was in any way related to TV Land Confidential. Maybe it should be removed. But do you understand that the fact some articles may have bogus sources doesn't authorize you to do the same? LjL (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
But I don't do the same!! I'm here to find help! My sources was reliable. They was sources from newspapers, blog and website written by journalists, blogger and professional writer. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand why I can't stop to have a voice here? This is not justice.--Pizzole (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Blogs, for instance, are usually not considered reliable sources. LjL (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Only because is wordpress? And I talked about registered newspaper written by journalists. Collect claim a watch on the article Antony Coia because some sources are written on Wordpress!! Even if there are a staff page. In the article about the website there was 17 reliable sources. In the article antony coia there 21 sources, even from newspaper (La Gazzetta del mezzogiorno) but my pages are under continuous attack.--Pizzole (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

───────────────── Pizzole: Please try to believe me when I tell you with kind and good intentions: take some time off from Wikipedia for the next couple of days. You do yourself no favor with this discussion. Tanti saluti -- Sam Sailor Talk! 15:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem, Sam Sailor. Why I can't have a voice? What is my fault? Why you threat me? Why do you all think I'm in bad faith? If you can't believe me, you can block me because there is no chance for me to find the truth. I'm italian and I have a big pride. I'll never shut up near the untruth--Pizzole (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Your nationality has nothing to do with this, and the idea that it would influence your amount of pride is borderline offensive. Sometimes I choose to hide or downplay my nationality to avoid being associated with people with your sort of attitude and behavior. LjL (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
You're italian, right? :D Please stop to quote only my negative comments. ;)--Pizzole (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

NoteOk, stop. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talkcontribs) 15:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Pizzole, take this from someone who edits occasionally, there are core secondary sources that establish notability. The articles you have linked have those. Then there are primary sources that you have been linking to above that have minor details that are above the level of trivial information and add useful, uncontroversial information. These are used throughout Wikipedia to add further detail about articles that have robust secondary sources. Articles from the lowest stub to many Featured articles have them. 129.9.75.194 (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment IMO it's way past time for a WP:BOOMERANG. This user displays severe ownership issues, retaliates against anyone who tries to enforce Wikipedia policy, and is wasting the time of dozens of editors with their frivolous complaints. Enough already. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agree with MelanieN. The retaliation is actionable. Jusdafax 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • He said he'll stop, though. Unless he doesn't, why be punitive? LjL (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
He didn't say what he would stop doing. He said "Ok, stop. I'm sorry." If he actually does stop retaliating and complaining, then that solves the problem, hopefully lesson learned. We can wait a little bit and see what he does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Note. What I stop is my wrong behavior. It was because I'm new. Lesson learned. I'll do my best to have a honorable behavior.--Pizzole (talk) 11:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And to relax myself about Wikipedia, of course. --Pizzole (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies to Collect, McGeddon and to all editors that wasted their time. Sorry--Pizzole (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that there has been no disruptive editing in the past two days. Looks like we are done here, with no action needed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2015 (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 user 173.21.188.179[edit]

IP blocked for 72 hours by Jehochman. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:12, 28 October 2015 (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.

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

Numerous past warnings on their talk page over the last three months. Persistent disruptive edits to Solar System articles and templates. They keep adding uninformative images to articles and when told why they are not appropriate for the article in question, they simply revert without comment. They've also been deleting information from templates and again, reverting back changes even when they are explained. ([25]) In the rare cases that they have left a comment with an edit, it's something like, 'OH MY GOSH STOP TAKING OFF IMAGES LEAVE THEM'. ([26]) --Patteroast (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2015 (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.

peacocks, un-RS infos, personal bloglinks in "rakkhi bahini" page[edit]

NOT AN ADMIN ISSUE
Admins are not needed to resolve these disputes. Use the article talk page to discuss the article, use WP:RSN to attract attention to problematic sources, use WP:DRN to attract more eyes to resolve a disupute. --Jayron32 15:36, 28 October 2015 (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.

EndeavorBD add those in page, OP can remove not all, helpMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Endeavorbdfix linkMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about