Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:32, 11 June 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Disruptive, edit-warring editor

In early July 2007, User:Peterdjones did his first beer article edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trappist_beer&diff=142217813&oldid=135505666 The information he added was generally inaccurate and seemed to reflect the POV of Beer Advocate or another beer fan website. He edit-warred with knowledgable editors (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Trappist_beer&diff=146165701&oldid=146159214) and by 21 August 2007, he was gone. All the articles that he had inaccurately written and protected with edit-warring had to be rewritten.

A few weeks ago (25 May), he returned. The edit-warring is back: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Quadrupel&action=history Plus endless and pointless discussions: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Quadrupel#Links

His lack of knowledge about Dutch/Belgian beer is enough of a problem. His edit-warring and pointless discussions prevent editors from working since we need to spend time undoing the damage he caused and trying to explain to him why he is wrong.

I have reverted many of his edits because I: a. hoped/expected he would soon go away, as he had before, and b. it was quicker than having to go through his history to collect diffs to file this notice. Please ban him from the beer article so that we can improve instead of defending the status quo. Mikebe (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As an independant third party, I have to say that Mikebe is as much to blame as Peterdjones. Pay no attention to this post.Beakerboy (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Two points Beakerboy. One is that you haven't provided any diffs to back up that assertion. Two is that in posting here, Mikebe is also inviting scrutiny of his actions in regards to this dispute. Administrators will look at all actions by all editors when formulating a response. Suggesting they ignore this post is ill-considered. Exxolon (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What I thought I was doing is making some small and uncontentious amendments to some articles. It seems to have blown up into a huge battle that I don't really have the time to take part it. I find it odd that I can amend the article reality without comment, as I recently did, but the minutiae of Belgian beer have to be argued out exhaustively. If anyone wishes to pursue this

matter (and I can't think why they should) further, I can provide examples of mikebe making misleading edit summaries and getting facts wrong. 1Z (talk)

Peterdjones, you don't help yourself when you refactor the comments of others to remove a diff (see here) at the same time as stating your case. I have reinserted it, you should note I spotted this and am not even involved in your dispute. Mine's a Leffe Tripel ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That was accidental. 1Z (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain how you accidentally removed a specific piece of text, that just happened to show the reason you were brought here, without disturbing any surrounding text, when your response was some paragraphs away from the link you accidentally removed? //roux   17:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was an accident, why didn't you undo it?

It's occurred to me that it might be useful to explain why I say his edits are inaccurate since not everyone is familiar with the subject. In the first diff I posted above, he calls Trappist "styles". Trappist is a designation of origin, not a style. Secondly, enkel he has confused with patersbier. Thirdly, tripels are not "usually golden". And fourth, no Trappist make a quadrupel (however, one makes a beer with the brand name Quadrupel). His description of dubbel, however, is generally correct. Mikebe (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The 'first diff' is two years old.

The recent edits mikebe has been reverting do not mention styles, so his grounds are spurious.

Mikebe's claims about trappist beer styles are his own POV. Many authorities disagree. I am unable to get mikebe to edit according to WP:V.

Mikebe's claim that La trappe Quadrupel somehow is not a quadrupel defies all logic.

Mikebe is reluctant to admit the existence of non-Trappist and non-Belgian Quadrupels since it spoils his POV theory that quad is not a style.

There are verifiable sources that can be quoted on quad's status as a style, but mikebe appears to prefer censorship.

The use of Enkel as a 'Patersbier' (for consumption by the monks) is verifiable.

1Z (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Trappist_beer&diff=next&oldid=149962845) we've got Peterdjones declaring that authorities like Tim Webb recognise Trappist beer styles. That would come as a big suprise to Mr. Webb because on page 52 of his "Good Beer Guide to Belgium and Holland" (ISBN 1-85249-174-4) he wrote: "There is no beer style called Trappist. The term 'Trappist beer' is a designation of the brewery of origin."

The difference between 'style' and 'styles' is key. There is no one Trappist style, but Webb and others do recognise Dubbel and Tripel as styles. 1Z (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but not specifically Trappist styles.Patto1ro (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? None of the material I want to add says anything at all about styles. Mikebe's POV-pushing of his styles-don't-exist theory has reached the extent where he deletes completely neutral material.1Z (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And here (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Trappist_beer&diff=next&oldid=150440750) is PeterDJones again playing the POV card against an editor trying to correct the Trappist beer article against the edit warring of Mr. Jones. This anonymous editor, by the way, is one of the foremost European authorities on the Trappists and Trappist beer . Mikebe (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here again we have something dug up from years ago. 08:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am not up to speed with this latest dispute and Mikebe may well be warranted in filing a complaint about this other editor's actions, Mikebe has been known to push his own POV too. He has sytematically worked his way through beer articles over the last couple of years removing all links to the BJCP organisation to the chagrin of many editors and sparking off several edit wars in the process. So if someone looks into this I advise they look over the complete edit history of the article extensively because this other editor may be just restoring something that Mikebe removed at some point without consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a consnsus about those links until you came in and ignored it. Having shown no interest in the beer articles before you suddenly arrived and started reverting all of mikebe's edits. That couldn't possibly be connected with the fact that he'd removed irrelevant details about vegetarian beer you had added to some article, could it?Patto1ro (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for information about standing consensus. In the only case where it was supplied, it was in favour of my edits. Mikebe has misrepresented consensus before. I have no recollection of the vegetarian beer incident. 1Z (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Talk:Tripel

"Since two of my quotes are being used in this discussion, I'll chime in here. My thinking is most in line with 1Z. If a specific brand of beer is noteworthy enough to be called out as an important representative of a particular "style", a sentence or two should be written within the article about that particular beer. In effect, working the notable examples into the body of the article. I've been pretty hands off on these articles for a while, and I'll continue to be for the foreseeable future.Beakerboy (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)"

1Z (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The above post by Mikebe might contain an unintentional outing of an IP editor. Unomi (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Refactored. If the anonymity is important to the editor, should the intervening revisions be oversighted? user:J aka justen (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was indeed restoring one of mikebe's deletions with one edit: Here is a diff showing mikebe removing some material -- which is in fact verifiable--with the misleading edit summary of 'cleanup'.

Assuming that is Peter just above, here is a later diff showing what he claims is "verfiable fact" was, in fact, not: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brouwerij_de_Koningshoeven&diff=next&oldid=294415007

Peter has chosen to defend himself here mostly by attacking me. I hope you will agree his reactions in this notice have given a good example of why I said he was disruptive and edit-warring. In defending himself above, for example, he uses phrases like "Many authorities disagree" and "There are verifiable sources..." But has he posted a single one? That is exactly why I brought this request. Mikebe (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clutching at straws. My source is ambiguous on the issue of the use of Blonde as Patersbier. That is a small detail. Patto1ro was wrong to delete the whole passage over one word, and now seems to have accepted that he is. I amended the passage to remove the reference to Blonde as it is not unequivocally supported by the source, and mikebe deleted it anyway, as this diff shows: .Mikebe is still wrong to say that I am "confusing" enkel and Patersbier. I still have verification for that claim. Mikbe is still deleting verifiable material and arguing from self-declared authority.1Z (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a grand total of one. And that IS a fact. Mikebe (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And here are some of the references I have been using (I put them on the talk page to protect them from mikbes deletions). A glance at talk:quadrupel will show that it is mikebe who is making unverifiable claims:-

Here's one that brews a Tripeland a quad: Weyerbacher Brewing Company
here's another Boulevard Brewing Comapny
And another Midnight Sun 'Venus'

1Z (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And once again, proof of Peter's lack of knowledge and understanding of beer. Here, for example, are five other breweries:

http://www.churchendbrewery.co.uk/
http://www.drinkdrakes.com/home.html
http://www.emersons.co.nz/
http://www.falconbrewing.com/
http://www.thebackyardbrewhouse.com/

All of these breweries brew a beer called "George." According to Peter's logic, this "proves" that "George" is now a beer style. One of these breweries even produces a "tripel". This, according to Peter, would "prove" a connection between a George and a tripel. Clearly this logic is flawed and the claims are untrue. Should Misplaced Pages continue publishing fiction about beer? Mikebe (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The status of quadrupel as a style is doubtful, and I have reference , and I am happy to mention it in the article, and I haver already told mikebe that I am. Mikebe thinks it isn't a style and that there are in fact no beer styles at all. He has no evidence for any of that, it just his personal theory. Mikebe must stop removing verifiable material, and start editing according to the guidelines and not according to his personal theories. 1Z (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Peter writes: "Mikebe's claim that La trappe Quadrupel somehow is not a quadrupel defies all logic. Mikebe is reluctant to admit the existence of non-Trappist and non-Belgian Quadrupels since it spoils his POV theory that quad is not a style." (These quotes are taken from his posts above.) And now, suddenly, "quadrupel as a style is doubtful." Who is writing this? One person says it is a style, then says its not? Peter writes/edits ONLY without sources, and when sources are requested, he either uses flawed sources . He wrotes ONLY his POV, then turns around and says that information that contradicts his are "personal theories." Likewise, he criticises editors for "reflexive reverting" (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Patto1ro&diff=prev&oldid=294418679) but, look at his history and what does one find? Why HE's the "reflexive reverter" (e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brouwerij_de_Koningshoeven&action=history). Have we somehow slipped into an alternative reality? And finally, as I have already said above: Peter tries to defend himself by attacking me (again).Mikebe (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The verifiable claim about quadrupel's status is specific, and not part of an all-encompassing theory about the non-existence of beer styles. Moreover, it is not conclusive, although mikebe's very strong prejudices on the subject naturally make him read it that way.

I have sources for everything I want to say, and I have demonstrated I do repeatedly despite mikebe's false accusations to the contrary.

Mikebe has still provided no sources for his no-style theory.

I cannot continue editing beer articles until mikebe is prevented from making spurious deletions, hence I must criticise his approach, just as he is attempting to criticise mine by starting this investigation.

08:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical post: 1. claim evidence, but don't provide any, 2. make baseless accusations against someone, but don't provide any evidence, 3. claim it is possible to prove a negative. If Peter actually knew anything about beer instead of just claiming to, he would provide evidence. But he doesn't, which proves the point of this notice. Mikebe (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia,negatives are "proved" the same way as positives: you find a notable source saying "there is no X". If you can 1Z (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Uuuuuuuugh. How about a pair of topicbans from the entire subject of beer? Anyone object? //roux   16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to my world! It's not fun, is it? Isn't there enough evidence here of what I said at the outset? - Unfamiliar with the subject, argumentative (edit-warring), disruptive. I say end it. Mikebe (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter for this noticeboard. Content disputes are a matter for Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution or Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. As the content is specialised, and the dispute is deep, I suggest Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal. Further discussion on this matter should continue on the talkpage of the articles concerned, and/or at Mediation Cabal. SilkTork * 11:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Need an admin to restore a merged article

Resolved – article restored & redirected. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Striking "resolved" as the article was hastily redeleted. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bugbears in popular culture was closed by Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as Delete and merge, which I believe violates GFDL licensing requirements. Rjanag declined to restore the file and redirect to the merge target, so I'm asking here for an admin who can do so. Powers 21:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• It does, both because of the deletion of the origin but also because of the failure to follow Misplaced Pages:MERGE#Performing the merger, which notes the GFDL implications of not leaving clear edit summaries with mergers and gives a model. The options at an AFD include Deleting and merging but not both. The deletion and the cut paste merge should both be undone and the merge redone in accordance with WP:MERGE.--Doug. 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of it. Back in a moment. KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • And done. Marking resolved. KrakatoaKatie 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You'll find that it was just undone again by Casliber, whose edits merging content can be found here, and who also participated in the AFD discussion. It seems that at least two administrators need a refresher course in the requirements of the GFDL. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, what's going on here? The response from Rjanag is underwhelming (to say the least), and the immediate redeletion by Casliber (without discussion?) is a bit bizarre. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Underwhelming? I told LtPowers that he could ask an admin to restore the deleted edits if they wanted, and that was done right here. As for Casliber's redeletion, I agree with it. If you leave a useless redirect like people are suggesting, there's just going to be an RFD later when people realize we have a redirect for a search term no one is ever going to use. And, in case anyone missed it, I did tag the Bugbear talkpage with a notification that content was merged, and Casliber added a link to the AfD, so I don't really see why there are serious attribution issues. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 05:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag, that's a bit defensive and snippy. Tagging the talk page is not a GFDL compliant way to note a Merger. Admins of all people, need to be familiar with GFDL and with the requirements of WP:MERGE. This is nothing personal Rjanag, but I'm very concerned when I see an Admin respond after deleting a page: "I'm not familiar with the GDFL issues". --Doug. 06:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I just looked at WP:MERGE and noticed "Merging should always leave a redirect", which I was not aware of, so for the record I guess I was wrong there. Although, for what it's worth, I think that's a bit of a silly rule to have if the redirect is useless (I've seen redirects like that come up at RfD, and if I had left Bugbears in popular culture as a redirect I have no doubt someone would nominate it, who knows when, maybe several months from now after everyone has forgotten about its AfD) and the entire article history is still visible to admins and linked from the tag on the talk page. Anyway, this is not the place to argue over what the merging rules should be, so I'll just leave it at that for now; you guys can come in and do whatever you want with the article, I just wanted to explain why I deleted it. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 06:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't preserving the redirect so much as it is preserving the specific edit history of the content that is being copied over elsewhere. Attribution is a key issue for the project, and without that edit history, we're violating the license under which the contributors donated their work. (I think you might also have previously highlighted that administrators can still see the revisions, which doesn't satisfy GFDL.) user:J aka justen (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, and it's the edit summaries that provide the necessary link back to the history. If a redirect comes up at RFD a closing admin should be checking the redirect's (and target's) edit history for the "merged to" language given at WP:MERGE before deleting, among other things. Without the edit summary the history may be somewhere on Misplaced Pages but we'll never find it and that doesn't satisfy the GFDL either.--Doug. 06:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the redirect should be tagged with {{R from merge}} to make it more obvious. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to do what you need to do to restore the attribution the way Misplaced Pages wants it. I understand the arguments and I don't see a need for anything more to be discussed (with me, at least). rʨanaɢ /_contribs 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you've been sufficiently trouted. I don't think we can resolve the specific page problem though without Casliber though. --Doug. 06:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, been offline. I am not fussed either way, I deleted as I couldn't see it being a valid search term. As far as history, the individual edits adding the bits of the IPC were added when they were part of the bugbear article before being hived off (I think). I am happy to restore if someone wants to do a history merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll take a look at the history but generally a full-history merge is not a good idea for an ordinary merger as it mixes the history of two different articles. Of course, now it's all confused, I'll see what the situation looks like.--Doug. 11:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, just let me know what you need me to do, if I can help. Sorry to have contributed to the confusion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For my own future trouting, when I restored and redirected, did I do it correctly, or did I screw it up? KrakatoaKatie 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you handled it correctly. Unfortunately, as of right now, the article remains (re)deleted (twice over), and the content remains unattributed to its original authors...  ???  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I took responsibility for this and then didn't have time to fix it yet. I am just on for a minute and then off again. It needs to be undeleted then merged in accordance with Misplaced Pages:MERGE#Full-content_paste_merger. The important steps are: 3. Edit summary with "merge content from article name" and 4. replace source with "#REDIRECT ] {{R from merge}}", note the merger (including the page name) in the edit summary. These seem to keep getting missed, people keep saying just "merged" or "merged per AFD xyz" which aren't enough. The only thing keeping me from doing that right now, is I wanted to take a closer look at the mess of a history that everyone (including me - I goofed and forgot what tab I was on and accidentally posted a message to Casliber on the deleted article) has made. A history merge is NOT required normally for mergers but the history may be dorked up now and I wanted to check.--Doug. 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I broke the transclusion using nowiki tags. If anyone thinks the directions should be rewritten, let me know – I've been planning to do so for a while. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed that but was in a huge rush (BTW, I just moved the first nowiki tag back to cover the "article name"). What are you thinking about rewriting? Do you think they just need clarification or is there some point on which they are wrong? I think they are fairly straight forward, they've changed little in the past couple years and I learned to merge by following them, but I'm sure they can be improved on.--Doug. 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I started Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Rewriting merge instructions with some small ideas a few months ago, but never went back to it. Alan Liefting has started splitting the page, which seems like a fine idea. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a closer look at all this again tonight. I think the pages that merged just need a selective undelete and a corrective edit summary, if that hasn't already been taken care of by someone who hasn't been commenting here. I'm very interested in possible changes to the instructions and will take a look there too.--Doug. 04:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a big deal, just for transparency

Through a random chain of edits, I noticed those of Special:Contributions/68.60.198.175. There are two edits, one is vandalism, the other I think was probably me.

The vandalism occurred mid evening (local time), 17 Dec 2007. At the time I was living in Chattanooga and sharing internet with four other room mates (long since moved, long since not sharing internet). My only edit for the day was here, which to my recollection reflects my work schedule. I have not edited without being logged in since '05.

There is no issue to deal with here, it is simply an "incident" from a long while ago that I would like to make public upon finding it out nearly 18 months later. Keegan 07:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I haven't made an IP edit that did not mark me in the edit summary since '05. Less than a half dozen, and that second edit from the IP was made on Christmas morning at around 2 AM and probably was me tweaking my essay and didn't notice I hadn't logged in, IIRC the cookie expiration was new. Other than that, yeah. Happy editing. Keegan 07:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares? :-) I usually use my talk page for purely inane conversations with myself. Though this thread is arguably better than any other currently on the page, so.... --MZMcBride (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually talk to you for purely inane conversations in general. When my cat talks to me it is more informative than dealing with you. There's nothing more disinteresting to me in my life then hearing your thoughts and or feelings, and they surely may be valued on Uncyclopedia. Everyone cares about what you think, so you think, and I suggest you crawl back into your hole. I say good day, sir. Keegan 08:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that a lengthy block is required here. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find any long blocks, but this large one is pretty.. --Versageek 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly hope that Keegan & MZMcBride are friends. -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he is a friend, more of an lolcat. Keegan 07:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

i can haz running joke? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You can haz a good try. Keegan 07:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sisyphus :O --MZMcBride (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cared about Sisyphus. For some reason you are unable to stay on topic, which is my concern for my reputation on Misplaced Pages, because it is the most important thing on Earth. I don't konw who you think you are, but my username is everything. Learn your wiki, child. Keegan 08:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is srs business. I think the community can "good day sir" you if you can't understand this fundamental principle. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice, you win this one. I still expect my dollar. Keegan 08:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I know, DFTT -- but there was this shiny hook lying there that looked so nice & tasty... -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia ArbCom Case

This is absurd, and I strongly encourage others who feel the same way to stand up and say so. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I second this encouragement. While I know many will sneer, I do belief this judgment is dreadfully punitive and threatens to undermine Misplaced Pages's core content values; it gives one-purpose CoI tendentious nationalist users a victory over one of the few admins who has put his neck on the line to stand up to them; it punishes a user who has given so much to maintain wikipedia's first two pillars, "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia" and "Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view". It is a judgment which sends a message to all Wikipedians and to those outside that our leadership care less about our first two pillars than they do about attempts to subvert them in pursuit on anti-encyclopedic ideological goals. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. We have a serious problem with 'no go areas' already, and recent actions are likely to make this worse. Bottom line, is this going to have an effect on Admin involvement in these problem areas? I think it will and that effect will hurt Misplaced Pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopaedia any more, it's a social-networking site. Conduct is more important than content. The information in our articles may be biased, tendentious nonsense but - hey - at least it was written by polite pushers of biased, tendentious nonsense. Britannica must be kicking themselves they never used this way of compiling a reference book. --Folantin (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse the comments above. - Ev (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So it's OK for admins to return incivility for incivility without restriction, as long as they don't use their tools to block people? That's what I'm gathering from a brief reading of that set of rants. Jclemens (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Rants"? Very civil. --Folantin (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this a bit ironic with your post a few lines up. Also, compared to some of the stuff we see daily, the comment is relatively civil. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was using irony. Well spotted. No, I don't care about "civility" as much as editing a decent encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. :P Tone just doesn't pop out as well on the internet as well as in rl conversation. ;) Icestorm815 • Talk 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll just post here what I posted there: FutPerf is a one-purpose admin, the best kind; his purpose is to disallow nationalist bullshit to disrupt the project. More people, Arbcom especially, should be lauding him for doing the right thing. This... well, I have to call it a 'proposal' as any of the more accurate words would get me blocked... this proposal is an utter travesty, and a complete betrayal of everything this project stands for. I call on every admin to resign the bit en masse, and request that Arbcom deal with all admin-attention-needed problems from here on out. They are unequivocally stating that they know better than a hard-working admin how to handle the relentless nationalistic idiocy that infests large chunks of the project, not to mention the other excellent work FutPerf does. So I say to you, admins: let them. Show them exactly how shortsighted this ridiculous proposal is by either resigning or going on strike. Misplaced Pages should be cheering the admins who are brave enough to stick their faces in these blenders, not removing the very tools they need to enforce one of our core principles. //roux   17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

First, there are two good reasons why a lot of Admins stay away from these cat-fights: few of us have the patience to handle the grief that comes from groups who are only a few steps away from shooting at each other, & even fewer know enough about the disputes to know when the individuals involved are BSing. That said, if the ArbCom is correct about FPaS, I would be very surprised; he/she has always struck me as level-headed. Maybe FPaS did lose patience & wrote something incivil -- but considering the type of people who day after day push their nationalist POV over all other POVs on a topic, often using language which is hardly civil, I'd be inclined to cut him/her some slack for it & do no more than issue a warning. The ArbCom is going to need to provide a very detailed defense for removing the bit from FPaS if they don't want another round of "vote out the bums". -- llywrch (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see arb com is currently backing off from the sanctions, and, without any personal feeling against any of those involved, I hope they have not yielded to the pressure expressed above and on the talk page linked to. Admins operate in a setting of almost complete freedom to conduct arbitrary action, and this is only tolerable to the extent that all of them retain the trust of the community. this trust is endangered by two things: appearance of non-neutrality, and rudeness. No matter how difficult the issue, someone who can not act calmly in it should not act in it, nor should someone whose neutrality is even subject to challenge. It is admittedly as I too have found difficult to continue involvement in a matter without acquiring a POV in some direct, and probably the only way to handle it is to take it in relays and act independently. Once one feels frustrated at something, one must step back from it as an admin. There reaslly should be no exceptions due to friendship or expertise or even overall quality of editing or adminiship-- but perhaps we need to be slow in transitioning to better expectations, to avoid the appearance of unfairness to individuals. The discussions above and on the talk page have an uncomfortable appearance of admins gathered to protect each other. DGG (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see now that my comment wasn't as clear as it should be, so let me try again. These subject areas -- those touching on ethnic/nationalistic hot buttons are difficult to moderate well, & few people (Admins & non-Admins) try. And Nietzsche's warning about battling monsters also applies here: mediators in these conflicts will eventually lose their patience & cool. (It's not a question of if, but when; even handling relatively uncontroversial topics eventually & unavoidably leads to a potential WikiBurnout event.) And if a mediator has totally lost it -- say, banning all parties & letting the ArbCom sort it out -- that individual deserves sanctions. However, when a person takes on a difficult task -- like moderating these ethnic/nationalistic conflicts -- & does do something unacceptable, then the ArbCom needs to explain very carefully & in sufficient detail the reasons for the sanctions. Because otherwise potential mediators will avoid these topics if it appears that the ArbCom doesn't have their backs, & there will be a backlash against the ArbCom. And I don't think anyone who cares about Misplaced Pages wants to see that happen. -- llywrch (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's already happening. As a direct result of this case, one admin (myself) has resigned; a long-term editor and another admin have retired in protest. Other admins are saying that they never want to have anything to do with nationalist conflicts ever again. The message from this case is that ArbCom does not have admins' backs and there is already a backlash against the ArbCom - the strongest I've ever seen, in fact. FloNight has already explicitly summarised the ArbCom's attitude: "The topic ... needs all editors and admins that make provocative edits to be removed so that the article can include stable NPOV content." Note the criteria being applied here - "provocative" edits are declared unacceptable regardless of context. In nationalist conflicts especially, simply insisting on NPOV and reliable verifiable sources is provocative, because the nationalists do not accept anything that contradicts their fixed view of "the truth". The message from ArbCom appears to be that not being "provocative" is a higher priority than ensuring encyclopedic quality, which of course defeats the basic purpose of Misplaced Pages. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When it gets to a stage like this, people involved with the article have to pass it into other hands. The question of when one is too involved to continue cannot be left to the individual to decide for himself. DGG (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not an article, it's a broad topic area. Lots of articles touch on the Republic of Macedonia, and even more touch on the Balkans. And no one has shown much sustained interested in dealing with the problems in this area except Moreschi, Fut. Perf., and ChrisO. Most admins who have commented at the voluminous talk page of the Macedonia 2 case have said that they're not that interested in getting involved in the topic area, because it's difficult, unrewarding, and seemingly futile...and the arbitration case gives me and many other editors the feeling that the ArbCom doesn't have much sympathy for admins who take on the task. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to take Akhilleus' statement even further. It's beyond just a broad topic area, as the revert war over the name of Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia extends almost everywhere in the project (including such odd areas as a Colombian telenovela and an American musician), and I have no doubt that some of the participants in this long-term war will scream for enforcement the first time one of the parties to the case reverts an edit which changes "Macedonia" to "FYROM". Horologium (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

@DGG: I will rush to the defence of anyone working to protect neutrality, admin or otherwise, and I'm pretty sure others involved in defending FutPerf will do the same. Furthermore, the notion that this is admins defending admins is clearly mistaken because a number of those defending FutPerf are not admins. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye.

(Undoing "resolution") no admin action needed. //roux   19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not close this sort of thing anymore, Roux. Fifteen minutes, for pity's sake. Whether or not you think Shoemaker's Holiday has a point, he deserves to be treated with a bit of dignity and respect. Each administrator or editor may determine personally whether or not they wish to respond here, but a peremptory close by a non-admin on the Administrators' noticeboard is not called for at all. Risker (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you show me what admin action is needed here? //roux   19:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It may not need any admin action at all; however, this dismissive "don't let the door hit you on the way out" closing of the thread is not an acceptable response to a longtime contributor's expressions of concern. Perhaps the appropriate action would be for administrators not previously involved to review the incidents described below and determine if there is a better resolution. Whether it changes Shoemaker's Holiday's mind about leaving, I won't venture to guess. It is, however, a sign that there may be issues beyond this noticeboard that warrant attention. Risker (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It wasn't meant to be dismissive, just keeping the board on-topic and trying to avoid the inevitable drama. //roux   19:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Risker, there's already a section at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alleged abuse of admin powers by Stifle. We have no need of duplication from AN/I to this noticeboard. Nor do we need a duplication of what could already be found in multiple sections at User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday, which is in response to a copy of the below announcement that was already posted to User:Shoemaker's Holiday. There's also a lengthy thread at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup#Please withdraw me from the cup. Let's not have this same discussion duplicated across umpteen noticeboards and talk pages. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And not one of them referenced with the intended close. This thread is hardly a dramafest, compared to any number of other threads on this page and on ANI; on seeing it, most people chose to respond by going to Shoemaker's Holiday's user talk page. If the thread had simply been closed instead of collapsed, with a reference to one or more of the other discussions, there would have been some sense to it. But a thread titled "Goodbye" and almost immediately collapsed with a "nothing to see here folks, move along" message is more likely to attract attention than one that is pointedly ignored by those who spend a lot of time on the messageboard. Risker (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving Misplaced Pages. It's more and more clear that even when policy is on your side, the general adminship will do nothing. Wadester16 modifies my posts, puts them under an inflammatory edit summary, and edit-wars to keep his version up? AGF. Nothing to see here. Someone invalidly non-admin-closes Plot of Les Misérables' discussion, then an admin claims that The changes to WP:PLOT made after a majority of people sid it shouldn't exist at all in WP:NOT were probably forced through without consensus because they watered the old, no-consensus policy down. So he protects the redirect. I complain, I get attacked.

Every time I state my concerns, I get attacked for raisingthem. Durova even often states they havee merit, but urges people to ignore me anyway.

Arbcom have been promising to deal with the Matthew Hoffman case for two months now. Kirril Has twice been asked for progress reports, and told me a statement was being prepared. No statement has ever been forthcoming.

I turn 30 today. That's too old to put up with this shit any more.

I'm out of here.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish you'd reconsider. Your contributions here are highly valued and appreciated. If there's anything I or anyone here can do to help you, please let us know. And happy birthday. 30 is the new 30. Kingturtle (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, can someone explain in a little more detail just what happened here? Comparing the edit history of Shoemaker's Holiday & Wadester16 sheds no light on this. And the AfD for Plot of Les Misérables was closed a little hastily for my taste, but hardly enough by itself to make one shake the dust from one's sandals & leave Misplaced Pages. This sounds like another case of WikiBurnout -- in which case, sorry to see you go SH, but the best of luck to you. (And if 30 is too old for Misplaced Pages, then what is yours truly, a 51-year-old, doing here?) -- llywrch (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, Shoemaker made a more detailed statement at a talk page shortly before announcing his retirement. And in that he made specific accusations of misconduct regarding a dispute in featured pictures, but didn't back any of the claims with diffs. It's a bit awkward: Shoemaker's Holiday names me in the post as someone who agrees with him (which I mostly do), and I do confirm that he was in a conflict with a specific individual there, but I don't recall any of the particular actions he describes (edit warring, altering another editor's posts, etc.). Posted a query to Shoemaker's talk a few hours ago to ask for details. Awaiting reply. Durova 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SH, fortunately there is no "general adminship" --there are almost 1000 active admins who are a very assorted lot of people, not many of whom are likely tamely submit to domination by any attempted cabal. it takes some amount of time and effort to get things moving among them all, just as among WPedians in general. that's why actions like that of Roux who closed the discussion are totally wrong-- we need some time to consider things. And, as durova said, if there are multiple issues, we need to consider them separately. The first-level treatment for Wikiburnout is communal support & if necessary a change of concentration here--experience is too valuable to be just discarded. I'm even older than Llywrch, and I would hate to think the young people here did not have our stamina. DGG (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed baffling that "not plot" would exist given the clear lack of consensus behind it, but hey when it is clear something lacks legitimate support, then WP:IAR anyway. But look, do not allow one incident to bully you away from here. I see things that baffle and disgust me frequently on this site and frequently wonder why sometimes I am even arguing with non-experts on certain things (I tend to avoid discussions concerning content of which I am largely ignorant) and yet, I still find Misplaced Pages useful and worth volunteering my time for, although I am increasingly thinking some kind of reform may be needed, i.e. we had the model that we have had and seen its flaws. I realize the whole appeal of "anybody can edit," but I do not think some of that is working, and the fiction and bilateral relations discussions are really showing me the downfalls of having certain blocks of accounts wanting to deletes specific kinds of articles for which they just do not like them, but clearly have no real, even amateur knowledge of the topics, they just do not like them (and no, I am not saying "everyone" who says to delete them, but a disconcerting number nonetheless). Perhaps even now to be qualified to say comment in AfDs on fictional characters, you have had to have created at least one DYK worthy fictional character article or something? The same for bilateral relations articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday has quit wikipedia before. This is not something new. Not everyone has the necessary patience, skills and temperament for editing online. --Kleinzach 06:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but a tolerance for getting #(@*-ed over by ArbCom really shouldn't be a requirement to edit here. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Only two Misplaced Pages arbitrations have ever been vacated and Shoemaker's Holiday was the target of one of them. Kleinzach, please consider withdrawing that post. Durova 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits and Kittybrewster

Vintagekits (talk · contribs) and Kittybrewster (talk · contribs) were given some sort of topic ban by the community a while back, which was confirmed by ArbCom without ArbCom taking the case. The motion they passed is here. From my reading of that motion it seems clear to me that they are not banned from article editing on Knights and Baronets, only from page moves (plus pointy AFD noms). However, ArbCom also says that the community enacted topic ban is recognized and confirmed, and in that discussion, it was definitely not clear that the ban applied to moves only; in fact, at least one admin requested Kittybrewster be blocked for article edits: . Both Vintagekits and Kittybrewster seem to believe they are banned from article edits as well. If that's the case, it's due to the community, not ArbCom. I'd like the community to follow ArbCom's lead and agree that the topic ban applies only to page moves related to knights and baronets, not to article edits. Mangojuice 12:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Community topic bans normally include article editing. Got the link to the community ban so we can read it? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It's the constant fighting over the entire topic of nobility that causes this, and my understanding at the close of that latest AN/I discussion was that both were banned from the topic, writ large. ThuranX (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The (lengthy) thread is here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive536#Vintagekits, Kittybrewster, and BrownHairedGirl –xeno 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support this motion. I am of the opinion that the community consensus was somewhat shaky, especially considering a good number of the community who commented were hardly neutral observers, having long histories of animosity with one or other of the subjects. There was no evidence presented for a history of problematic editing, which leaves a complete topic ban without much justification. I suggest both editors are given indefinite community page-move bans on the subject, with a strong message that any further issues on this topic will result on it being expanded to a full topic ban. Rockpocket 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me also add that ArbCom actually rejected other motions that were unambiguous about the ban applying to article edits. And, furthermore, the proposal to ban, from Tznkai, was originally worded as a temporary measure until arbitration can be pursued, and some people (like me) supported it on that basis. And while we're on it, is the community ban temporary? It was originally proposed that way. Mangojuice 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That thread is extremely hard to follow. I suggest the community start a new discussion with a precisely worded proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Without going into personal details, I am very busy in meatspace, and that takes priority, but I will clarify briefly, and hopefully be back onwiki tomorrow. The wording on the community ban was rather specific "I think the amount of energy spent here shows quite clearly that all three disputing users are too passionate to remain suitably objective for writing on the topic. That, and there is obviously disruption, so I suggest a community topic ban on the the topic of Baronets (edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive) on Vintagekits, Brownhairedgirl, and KittyBrewster until disposed of by Arbcom or six months time, whichever comes first.'--Tznkai (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)" I found sufficient consensus to enact that ban on Vintagekits and Kittybrewster both, that ban was in fact confirmed by ArbCom. The subsequent discussion is confusing, especially on the matter of time, but I think there is definite consensus for the topic ban to go far beyond pagemoves, but is in fact a complete vacation from the topic area. Statements on the request for arbitration should be illuminating as well as to the reasoning involved. The motion passed confirmed that ban, and then restricted page moves indefinitely as a separate clause.

I am of the opinion that the record shows that the Committee avoided arbitration because they thought a topic ban + moveban was sufficient and reasonable, and that actual arbitration was unnecessary. If we want to argue this all on the merits, I think the committee should be invited back into the discussion. --Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with a community ban (in practice, someone proposes and a sufficient proportion of those who comment - often those with axe in hand, ready to grind - agree) is that there it is difficult to interpret and enforce. As we found with Vk's all-but-boxing ban last year, community bans are ripe for lawyering and exploitation, even if the terms are carefully stated, because all it takes is a small cohort of like-minded editors to artificially sway the community consensus one way or the other. This one, quite frankly, it is going to lead to nothing but more problems. For example, Kb recently got in trouble for moving an article on someone who was not a Baronet, but, partly because the subject's father and brother were Baronets, it was considered justifiably within the topic ban. So Kb quite rightly would like to know where the line is drawn. Are they banned from editing bios about people who have brothers who are Baronets? How about fathers? Grandfathers? Husbands? Cousins? Who decides and how do we know that was how "the community" interpreted the ban at the time it supported it? Unless someone - and as proposer I guess it falls to you, Tznkai - is able to define what the ban to those affected and demonstrate those limits are what the community agreed on, I don't see much point with continuing it. Because as it stands only Tznkai seems sure about what the terms of it are. Rockpocket 03:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And furthermore, I wish I had a better idea of what exactly Kittybrewster was doing wrong this time around, apart from the inappropriate AfD nomination. As for inviting ArbCom in, I think their solution was poor and they should have taken the case. Mangojuice 04:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that Kittybrewster's has a known/suspected (depending on who you ask) significant conflict of interest in the area of Baronets, in addition to a flare up in a known user interaction problem (the AfD nomination the latest in a series of failures). Kittybrewster and Vintagekits do not get along at all well, and both have demonstrated an inability to write neutrally and without causing trouble in the topic area. I'd ask Fozzie, Giano, and Alison to back me up on this, but I believe they've all left with their hands thrown into the air.

As for the topic ban itself, I generally make pains to define my proposed bans as widely as possible, and I believe most supporters understood that. Now, we can argue whether or not Arbcom was wise or not to do something, but the fact is, they did confirm the ban, wise or not. You may want to ask them to clarify what they thought the ban was on WP:Arb/R or whatever the shortcut is now, and you can argue that I called the consensus wrong the first time around, but I think thats going too far down the Misplaced Pages as a game path of problem solving. Instead, I invite those who have a problem with what I've done to come up with a better solution, take some time (a few days) and forge a new consensus. I however, remain adamant that whatever solution is found, the Baronetcy area needs to be quarantined from these two for everyone's good, and that the efforts by one or both parties to edit nearby should evoke more concern than sympathy.--Tznkai (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

First, can you explain the Conflict of Interest allegation? As far as I remember it was that Kittybrewster is titled and thus has a seeming interest in titles being respected? Because that is not really a WP:COI, just a viewpoint. Second, at least one commenter (me) supported the ban only as a temporary measure until ArbCom ruled. In fact, that wording is there in your ban: ArbCom has now ruled, doesn't that mean the ban has expired? Mangojuice 11:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The COI issue has been "cold" for well over 18 months. It was in relation to Kittybrewster writing articles on his own family members. It was raised (somewhere) and addressed - Kb was told not to do it again and has refrained from doing so. There is one "exception" I'm aware of, where he edited an article on a geographical feature named after (I think) one of his family. So I don't know why it was raised again.

In addition, I am not aware of problems in the area prior to this issue blowing up last time. Kb had been working away in the area without any issues being raised, here or elsewhere. Vintagekits year-long topic ban ran out, and within hours he was moving baronet articles. Kb reported it here. And, somehow, bizarrely, ended up with a topic ban from his area of interest. Apart from his ill-advised and pointy AfD nomination of a Vk boxer article, Kittybrewster had done nothing wrong apart from follow procedure. Bastun 11:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you are saying all that out of blind hatred for me or you've had a wee bout of amnesia! I think you need to go back and read the ANI reports if you think that Kitty did nothing wrong except stupidly AfD Ben Flores.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits year-long topic ban ran out, and within hours he was moving baronet articles. - the flip side of that is - Members of the Peerage Project ignored that articles were systematically titled incorrectly and it was not until Vintagekits topic ban ended that this issue was hightlight - said members of said project didnt like that because they owned these articles and created a shit storm as a smoke screen to stop it happening.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The CoI cannot be discussed without risking an WP:OUTING violation, so I recommend that stop. We all know he's got one, so we should move on from there. This went through the community once, as I read it, it was clear that there was a topic ban from the community, but at the last second a couple people swooped in and sent it to arbcom, hoping to derail the topic ban. It seems to have worked. If people would knock it off on the asinine infinite good faith with obvious problem editors who continue to war and POV push, we could get more done around here. The topic ban clearly has great support for KB and VK, and a not as much for BHG. I see no reason to show up over here on a different AN, to restart this entire process after the events have cooled again, to see if a new consensus from different editors can be found which is kinder to VK and KB. Block them both for a year, let them actually go write articles that don't push their personal agendas or buttons, and get on with things. ThuranX (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it would be an "outing" as Kitty had on his user page who his is and a link to the page which had details about who he is.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Entirely agree with VK here. It's not "outing", given that Kittybrewster (to his credit) has always been scrupulous about making his COI as regards the Arbuthnot family clear – see here. – iridescent 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The big deal part COI issue is discussed above, but my concern is mostly with the little deal portion of it - in my opinion KB has demonstrated that his viewpoint is held strongly enough that he cannot keep his cool in editing disputes on the topic - black and white thinking, behavior in ANI threads, so on and so forth. VK is the same way, and more than a few administrators felt this was a long extant baiting/escalation cycle between the two. As to the temporary nature of the ban (Answering mangojuice's question directly) it was specifically worded as a topic ban that would last for six months, OR until disposed of by Arbitration, whichever came first. Since ArbCom has not seen fit to overturn the ban, that condition has not happened. It is still feasible that ArbCom may still get involved, at which point they will get another chance to dispose of the ban. As far as I'm concerned, that means ArbCom agrees with the ban as it stands, but has pawned off responsibility back to the community for changing it through normal means.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The disputes between these two have been extremely disruptive. The topic ban seems to have worked and I don't see any need to alter or lift it. If the topic ban on these two users is lifted then I'd support proposal to replace it with a community ban.   Will Beback  talk  18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to have a dispute. Vintagekits' topic ban had already been reimposed on an indefinite basis before the temporary three-way topic ban was proposed. If we go back to that solution, we are still preventing them from fighting over these topics. In carefully rereading the discussion, here is everything that has been pointed out about KB's actions. (1) He created Arbuthnot Lake, and included a link to his personal website in describing it as named after a specific Arbuthnot (this is the point you raised.) KB is right that this is not exactly the issue he got in big trouble with in 2007, but at the same time, the link to his own website was not good and this is a topic he should have steered clear of. That said, I don't see how the topic ban prevents a similar situation from arising again: if it's Arbuthnots or WP:EL we're concerned about, that should be the issue in the ban. And in any case, KB has steered clear of trouble relating to Arbuthnot bios for 2 years. (2) Some of his actions were baiting, including his support for VK's topic ban, some personal comments about him, and the WP:POINT violation. This is handled by the ArbCom motion separately: they are restricted from nominating pages created by the other for deletion and generally warned to keep away from each other. Finally, (3) he is the other party in some of the page-move reverts, but not many compared to BHG. Again, this issue is handled by the ArbCom ruling in that he is restricted indefinitely from page moves in the area. So I think we should just lift the article ban for KB, or at least open that part up for discussion again. Mangojuice 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you really open with "It takes two to have a dispute.", then spend the entire rest absolving KittyBrewster of his actions while insisting that only VintageKits be topic banned? That's rich hypocrisy. Both should be banned, as it DOES take two to tango, Mango. ThuranX (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All we have to do to stop the disruption is to keep them separated. The ban on Vintagekits, which has very clear support and for good cause, accomplishes that. Kittybrewster has been largely behaving himself for two years; he got defensive when Vintagekits' ban expired and he went on his ill-advised rampage. His behavior does not justify this. Mangojuice 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Kittybrewster has been largely behaving himself for two years" - poppy cock! "when Vintagekits' ban expired and he went on his ill-advised rampage" - extreme poppy cock!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept the COI argument. I have a PhD, but does that mean I have a COI when editing an article about anyone else with a PhD? Of course not. Banning Kb from editing all Baronets because has happens to be one is ridiculous. Fine, ban him from editing articles about his own family on that basis, but not just because they share a post-nomial. But that notwithstanding, no-one has yet addressed what is and is not covered by this topic ban. If we - as a community - are going to restrict an editor from a topic on threat of blocking, we should at least have the courtesy to explain to them what the scope of it is. Are they permitted to edit articles of relatives of Baronets? Rockpocket 00:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you edited every PhD you found by adding "Dr. so and so PhD" at every instance of a name (for example) then yes, you would have an unacceptable editing pattern relating to a conflict of interest. And Mangojuice, I your willingness to slice and dice the ArbCom ruling a bit disconcerting they addressed the situation as they did, by confirming a community ban and then adding a separate clause about page moves.

As to the details of the topic ban, to requote my original proposal "edits, articles, and policy pages inclusive". I would also point to the wording I used in Vintagekits' topicban worked well: "anything that related substantially to Baronets, Baronets by name, a group of them, or the actions thereof". Inevitably, there will be some administrator discretion involved (as their always is) but yes, I would include family members - this is a topic involving heredity.--Tznkai (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it suggested I have edited every knight I have found by adding something? Where have I done that? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, no-one has provided evidence that there is an ongoing problem with Kb editing in such a manner. Where is the record of problematic edits to the relevant articles leading up to this ban? Secondly, that is not a COI issue whatsoever. If anyone went around adding "Dr. so and so PhD" to every article on an academic it would be a problem, solely because it runs counter to our MOS. Whether I have a PhD seems entirely irrelevant. These two accusations - COI and problematic editing - are being linked as a justification for a topic ban, but I have yet to see any significant evidence that either is an ongoing issue, never mind both. Therein lies the problem of a community enforced decision, the burden of proof is very low (or in this case nonexistent). Rockpocket 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I added some relevant information regarding Vintagekits and the Charlie Zelenoff article at the bottom of the page. I believe his recent behavior may warrant disciplinary action. (see below). Lordvolton (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Allow the guys to edit those articles-in-question. Just don't allow 'em to move articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I am extremely interested in seeing them moved!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps they will be moved 'someday'. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul R. Traub

Paul R. Traub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created by Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) on 6 June. It uses this site as a source, as well as court documents, and was entirely written by Furtive admirer. Less than 3 days later, the article was given a prominent link on the same site. His writing style and the one on petters-fraud.com are practically identical. The article, in my opinion, is original research, and is not even close to neutral.

I am concerned that Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) runs petters-fraud.com, or at least has a conflict of interest. In this discussion, initially regarding an employee of Mr Traub whitewashing the article, Furtive sees himself as "superman", believing in "truth, justice, and the american way". He's quite adamant about 'outing' the alleged crimes commited by several people, leading to to believe he's not exactly neutral himself, even though he may have no link to the people involved. I'm very close to removing the page from mainspace, or possibly deleting it, unless/until it can be scrutinised for BLP problems.

Can someone provide me with a second opinion here?

Thanks, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of the BLP is terrible, the way the article is written draws a line between someone who has been accused of a crime and someone who as far as i can tell has not been accused of a crime, which should be gotten rid of immediately, and i don't see how "petters-fraud.com" could be considered a reliable source, it's an attack page of some sort (says so right on the front page, i.e. "The plan is to GET TRAUB for his crimes and roque DOJ for Cover UP" (sic).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This still needs work but it's looking better thanks in large part to Bali's efforts. As for Furtive admirer, I have no idea if he has a COI, but he is clearly editing with an agenda and trying to publish original research on Misplaced Pages, and in a BLP no less. Also, Furtive's claims need to be checked carefully: I found one that said that Traub's firm was ordered to refund $750K worth of legal fees; in fact, that was what a plaintiff's motion had requested and the judge had denied that motion. Traub does have a PR person on Misplaced Pages (User:W Cwir from Saylor) but W Cwir was just unblocked after agreeing to religiously follow WP:BESTCOI so I hope that part will go away. Mangojuice 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Furtive admirer (talk · contribs) also introduced, more or less word for word, the same sort of original research attacks (much of it demonstrably innacurate, much more of it simply not supported by reliable sources so it's difficult to prove or disprove) in the article on eToys.com with this series of edits.. I've since reverted most of it. More eyes are needed on this, and we should really no tolerate more of this from an editor who's been around for a year, long enough to know better. I'm taking a look at a bit more of his contributions.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

--removed diatribe by Furtive admirer that consisted mainly of personal attacks and BLP problems--Shell 23:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Much of that above diatribe MUST be deleted as a violation of WP:BLP. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate forum for this matter. I support a BLP review and am willing to work with Furtive Admirer and Ms. Cwir to perform one. There is no need for the escalation of a simple content dispute to this forum at this time. While both parties have a POV, I suspect that they are rational individuals who both want a functional and coherent article. I therefore offer my services as an independent reviewer who has no interest in the subject, to work with both parties to scrub the pages. Geoff Plourde (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider my commentary, a narrative, not a diatribe. Since you gentlemen exhibit a default negative POV and experience a catharsis when deleting, do whatever feels good. I have touched up and tweaked the traub page a bit, and it is satisfactory to me. there is no need for Geoff at this time, but i will save you for future issues. thanx in advance.

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Could one the editors familiar with this incident take a look at the comments Furtive left on my talk page? I would like to remove them, but given my COI I am wary of editing any material about Paul Traub, even if it is on my own talk page. I think the comment content might not conform to BLP rules, but I would like a second opinion on that. Weronix (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Any user is free to remove whatever content they do not want from their user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #3 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate!

Requesting user ban

Hi there,

I reported about up to 30 days ago the user Shedarian who was posting on my talk page asking for me to illegeal copy material and send it to them. a admin advbise them nto to do it and left at that. however the user has again today asked me to send them illegeal recording please cna they be blocked?--Andy Chat c 18:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked them, because that was all they were using Misplaced Pages for. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I aint one for reporting people but they are goign beyond what is acceptabel even in my books.--Andy Chat c 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Caldor

A couple of IPs, along with User:Caldorwards4 and myself, seem to be involved in a four-way edit war over Caldor. The IPs keep adding the lyrics to a jingle that the chain used, both in violation of WP:LYRICS and WP:IINFO. One even added an Urban Planet forum as a "source". I don't want to violate WP:3RR so I could use some help in stopping this edit war. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Paid Editing

This is overdue, probably: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Paid Editing. Given that this (and related WP:COI issues) seem to be coming up more and more, I've launched this basic RFC. We've never had an actual community discussion or mandate about this. Please review the statements, leave yours, endorse as you see fit. Should make for an interesting and enlightening discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Ostrich page

On the June 8 Late Late Show, Craig Ferguson provoked an edit war on the Ostrich page by claiming "Misplaced Pages says the Ostrich can run at 85 miles per hour". Since then, multiple edits to the page have been made adding that (false) detail. All are being reverted by various users, but this is likely to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunniff (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for 3 days to allow the meme to run its course. That's probably quite harsh for only minor vandalism that has been quickly reverted so far, so other admins should reduce/overturn if they disagree. ➲ redvers 20:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I tried parsing through the various warning / vandalism templates but could not figure out the right thing to do (I'm a relative newbie at official Misplaced Pages culture, sorry...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunniff (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They're hard going when you're new at it, so asking for help is the best thing. Thanks for doing so! I've dropped you a generic welcome template with some useful links that may help in future. ➲ redvers 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Far better than simply having your head stuck in the sand, and not asking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Easy speedy AfD close please

I'm involved so would someone please visit and close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Knowthyneighbor.org? -- Banjeboi 20:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

neo-Nazi activist at work on White People article

Apparently endorsing Adolph Hitler's "the Jews aren't white" theory, Arjacent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying remove all images of Jewish people from the White People article , as well as censoring information that might make Nazi Germany appear anti-quantum physics; see my talk page comments for further elaboration. Since Misplaced Pages isn't an appropriate forum for blatant antisemitic activism, I am requesting administrative assistance in stopping this nonsense. Erik9 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The account only has two edits and nothing but a welcome template on their talk page. Maybe try discussing it first and make sure its not a misunderstanding? If it turns out they're aware of policy and intend to ignore it, I'm all for taking action. Shell 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I've lost it, but could someone explain why we prominently discuss Nazi Germany's attitude toward quantum physics in our article on white people? MastCell  16:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean the caption to the photo of Heisenberg? That is something that does not clearly tie into the rest of the article. (It seems to be a remnant from an earlier, less NPOV draft.) I have some other criticisms of this article in general -- for example recorded European racial opinions of the people of Ethiopia & how they have changed -- but seeing how I might get my toe bitten for dipping it into this controversial topic, I'll decline. -- llywrch (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My block of User:Diete003

Diete003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just did this in response to this. The user has a history of incivility, eg this edit summary and this comment, and therefore I felt my block was appropriate to prevent further disruption. I brought it here in case anyone felt otherwise, and I will not consider any reduction of the block a wheel war, though I'd hope that any reduction will be held off unless and until the user has a chance to make a comment. However as I was typing this I changed the block to prevent editing of the talk page as he restored the text in question. Nja 09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hrm - looks like they recently had a dispute over content that got out of hand and ended up blocked for edit warring. It seems likely that the rant is probably a bit of blowing off steam after all that; I didn't notice anything in the post that prompted your bock was particularly shocking. It does look like they might have had some snippiness in their history, especially during that edit war but I'm not seeing anything here that warrants an indef block. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think I would have have blocked for that at all. Shell 09:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the text in question referred to Wikipedians as a bunch of amateur pricks. But most importantly he called a specific editor (who he named in 2nd paragraph and called his enemy WP:BATTLE) a capricious son of a bitch and a crook. And five days ago "Yankee sonabitch you die!". Nja 10:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This text is unacceptable, as was the restoration of it. That being said, I've re-enabled the talk page privileges so that the editor can request unblocking if he wishes and asked him not to restore the text in question. If he does, the talk page privileges should be revoked again. Indefinite =/= infinite and I hope that this user might issue an unblock request after calming down. –xeno 14:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

He restored it again... Talk page priveleges disabled, block endorsed. –xeno 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

CU

Can someone please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tajik and take care of established sock accounts? Thanks. Grandmaster 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There hasn't been any violation of WP:sock to "take care of". I am nobody's sock account, the accounts listed as "related" to me, are merely my alternative accounts used on different topics, which should not have been revealed by the CU in the first place (the CU was filed by an obvious sock puppet of the banned editor User:NisarKand fishing), since I am neither a banned user nor have used my alternative accounts to evade 3RR or vote-stack. I've already raised the issue with the admin who conducted the CU. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that at least one of the sock accounts was used for edit-warring to re-introduce some rather blatant WP:BLP violations here, and that the whole scheme of half a dozen accounts was clearly used to "cover your tracks" over your total editing pattern, the story of "legitimate alternate account use" is not very convincing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And why do you need so many accounts to edit the articles that are mostly Iran/Afghanistan related? From what I see, you use multiple accounts to edit war on various topics, and 3 of your accounts have been blocked for edit warring/3RR: It is so convenient to jump from one account to another to edit war on different topics. Grandmaster 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That was an honest mistake, I was merely rolling back an IP removing sourced material, and did not pay enough attention to the content. Regardless, I am neither a sock, nor a banned user. My active alternative accounts were used for four different topics, namely politics, geography, history, and film. The accounts should not have been revealed in the first place, because it's an infringement of my privacy. Furthermore, the the person who filed the CU, is actually a banned user (User:NisarKand), who was clearly fishing after I reverted the edits of his latest confirmed sockpuppet User:Mullaji , per WP:Ban#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have 9 blocks for edit-warring yourself . My 3 blocks were on completely different topics (sport, politics, history) in the span of 3 months, and I have not had a block in the last 6 months. Fact remains, I am neither a banned user, nor have used alternative accounts for evading 3RR or vote-staking. In fact, I have tried my best to be an exploratory editor lately, and have been rigidly following policy --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Kurdo very well but he has been perfectly reasonable in the interactions I have had with him on Iranian topics (I don't really edit Afghan stuff except in so far as it relates to the Safavids). It's a shame if he turns out to be a sock account. --Folantin (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kurdo might be Beh-nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Certainly the use of multiple accounts is ill-advised, especially when the topics overlap so much. Thatcher 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note, other smart folks think he is not Beh-nam. I might be wrong (after all, I only said "might" anyway...) Thatcher 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

general watch for Gabon articles

The entire country of Gabon has suffered an internet blackout since Sunday. This may be related to the death of the President Omar Bongo or a optical fibre problem, depending on the source. Some of the articles seem to be written by Gabonese (who now have no internet access) so a watch on these articles for vandalism is in order. Thank you. User F203 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed standstill agreement on Bilateral Relations articles

There has been a huge amount of heat lately, and very little light, about articles named in the form "Foo-Bar relations" (hereinafter "FBR articles"), Foo and Bar being countries or adjectives derived from country names. This has led to divisive disputes at AFDs, DRVs, and across an assortment of talk pages. A discussion was formed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force, but this has had limited success to date.

In summary, the same sets of people tend to show up at all the discussions, and some of them tend to !vote the same way on all discussions. This has the effect that the decision on any given FBR article, once nominated for AFD, depends on how many of each side show up to the discussion. If additional references are found in time, the discussion focuses on whether they are substantial, but because of the many ongoing discussions, views have hardened to the point that very little either side does convinces the other.

DGG and I want to jointly suggest that it would be a good idea to freeze all AfDs and related actions on these articles, and defer creating new ones. This is not meant to inhibit adding information to articles, working on deleted articles in userspace, discussing existing articles on their talk page, and discussing policy at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force. This would be enforceable as a community sanction.

This standstill, if agreed by consensus here, will apply up to and including the end of the month (UTC). During the standstill:

1. New AFDs and DRVs created on FBR articles are eligible for speedy closure with no action
2. New FBR articles created after the standstill is commenced are eligible for speedy deletion
3. Persons disruptively violating #1 or #2 are liable to be blocked for a short period
4. Existing AFDs and DRVs will be allowed to run off
5. Nothing in this inhibits improving existing articles or working on deleted articles or new articles in userspace

The principal objection to #1 above in the past has been that it would give free reign for non-notable content to remain in the encyclopedia. This may very well be true. However, the damage that the AFDs, DRVs, and other discussions are doing outweighs any potential damage caused by leaving potentially non-notable articles to exist for a month or two. Having seen the result of several such polarized topics in the past (Macedonia, Sathya Sai Baba, Ireland, route names, etc.), I am very keen to avoid this matter going down the same path.

Should it appear necessary to extend the standstill, this can be considered here shortly before the expiry.

Please consider not immediately going into support and oppose mode, in favour of a discussion as to the merits of this standstill. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

what exactly is the point of this standstill, what happens at the end of the month? Loosmark (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully people will discuss the issues and come to some sort of consensus on the notability of FBR articles and/or an alternative structure for them. I am going to be away for the next two or three hours but in the meantime I'm sure there'll be plenty more discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially a dispute over notability and sourcing guidelines, writ large. The best place to determine which of these should be retained is AFD. It is a mistake that wikipedia allow the creation of unsourced stubs of, in most cases, not even claimed notability, but that is the system at the moment. To both allow for the creation of unsourced stubs that quite frequently are not suitable for inclusion and not allow for an afd process on them (a process, i might add that skews in favor of retention since there are 3 possible outcomes, 2 of which yield the articles continued inclusion) is a rather radical departure from proven systems here, and for no clear need. To call something "disruptive" does not make it so. That people have strong feelings, one way or another, on this issue is not a good reason to shut down a process (and in service of nothing since all efforts to get consensus on this matter have failed). That there is a group of people who are more interested in this topic than average also does not seem a problem -- that's always the way wikipedia works. People work in the areas that interest them. There really is no problem here, and i don't see what the "damage" is. The various systems here should be robust enough to deal with issues of both individual editor conduct as well as determining what is, or is not, considered notable by the community. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposed standstill. To get a sense of how intense these disputes are getting, please note Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/The League of Extraordinary Deletionists and to see the problems with how some are "voting" in these discussions, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting. And we also had this recent incident. AfDs are being flooded by these nominations, renominations, and subsequent DRVs that are needlessly overwhelming our ability to focus on improving those that can be improved by forcing us to have to go back and forth in one AfD only to have them faced almost immediate renomination or DRVs. Why we would rather be a collection of AfDs and DRVs rather than articles that are relevant to someone always baffles me. Moreover, in these discussions, in loosely related MfDs and on user and article talk pages, the animosity among those saying to keep versus those saying to delete is escalating with little sign of decreasing. If Misplaced Pages does not have a deadline then there is no urgent need to rid us of all of these now, just as there is no urgent need to have to hurry up and create as many new articles as possible. Thus, I for one will not create any new bilateral relations articles during this proposed standstill, nor will I nominate any for deletion. If we do not take a time out from these disputes across multiple threads, I do not see how the participants will come to any understanding and how we will avoid an RfC and eventual ArbCom on bilateral relations. We should be here to build an encyclopedia. Let us stop the arguing and get back to improving our existing content in a mature and collegial manner. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - allowing the situation to cool down is certainly a worthwhile idea. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I propose immediate deletion of all unsourced stubs on this topic (no information is "lost" when it amounts to "x y relations are relations between x and y. Y has an embassy in z.") with no prejudice to recreation by any editor in good standing who sources and writes a proper start class article. In exchange, a one moratorium on the sourced x-y stubs can be declared, so that those who think these articles have merit can seek to improve them. I have no idea why any of this would ever end up at Arbcom or anywhere else. Again, when we have a system that allow sockpuppetss to serially and abusively create stubs, derailing the process by which the mess the sockpuppet created can be evaluated and dealt with (and an open, transparent process at that) is very much against the encyclopedia's best interests.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why we would want to force editors to start over when they already have a framework or foundation from which to expand. We should try to expand first per WP:BEFORE and then remove what we cannot. And yes, even if that takes years, that is no big deal as we hope to be around for years anyway. Sincerely, --A Nobody 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily oppose it but I think that this standstill would only "move" the problem 1 month forward and then we would have exactly the same situation with the same "players" with the same attitude. Actually Bali ultimate hit the nail with his comment that the system should be robust enough to deal with these situations. At the moment it doesn't seems so maybe some modifications would be in order. Loosmark (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would support this 100% if all the articles created by the banned user who cranked these out are removed from the main space first. Most of the discussions are between those of us who believe the subject of an article has to meet notability requirements and editors who think a collection of verifiable factoids constitutes an acceptable article. There are other complications but that's the primary issue. I don't think a moratorium on creating articles on a certain topic is appropriate nor do I believe it is appropriate to stop deletion of inappropriate articles, especially since no one has worked towards a solution on the real issue. I have a lot of respect for you, Stifle, but I can predict who will line up to support this or not. Drawn Some (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think some of the above commenters are missing the point of this standstill. This standstill has nothing to do with the suitablity of these articles for Misplaced Pages. The point is the escalating acrimony among the editors who are involved in this issue. The standstill would allow everyone to take a month and discuss the larger issue, gathering as much of a consensus as possible. Once a rough guideline has been formed on how to determine notability on these, then things can go back into motion, with individual AFDs determining how these articles meet the new guideline. While I hate instruction creep as much as anyone, new guidelines are written for exactly this reason: to provide a consensus document that people can refer back to in future discussions, whether they be WP:XFDs, move requests, or anything else. I think a standstill would be a good idea, so that the same identical issues aren't argued over and over in little discussions, but instead are addressed in a larger discussion where all interested parties can have input. That's my two cents, anyway. I like the idea of a standstill. I just hope a month is enough time to calm the raging waters. :)--Aervanath (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am generally no fan of the "sit still and wait" method of dealing with problems, but this is a special case. Given the vast number of articles, discussions, disputes and arguments covering the issue it is nearly impossible to centralize our efforts; there is little use in trying to tackle this issue piecemeal. Therefore I support the proposal of a cooldown period, so long as efforts to tackle this issue in a more centralized fashion are not stifled by the lockdown. Shereth 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• It's wider than just one user creating these. Too much effort has been expended on AfDs and all (as noted, often along party lines, and whichever side shows up in more numbers wins). It would be useful to let these all rest for a month or two. If they develop to include what editors (not all) consider notable content, then they live on. If they remain a stub, then they get AfD'ed for quick delete. All too often something is created and editors rush in to nominate for deletion, sometimes because they believe it deserves to be deleted, sometimes because they want to harass the editors they know don't think it deserves to be deleted. Support see comments further below PetersV       TALK 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's the problem in a nutshell, it's not enough for an article to have verifiable content, even notable content, the subject of the article itself has to be notable. That's the problem and a moratorium won't solve it. Drawn Some (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're hearing everything I said. The month is useful for an opportunity for notable content to be created—if there are notable items in a relationship then those should bubble up to the article/topic being notable. If content of a notable nature is not created, then after a month the AfDs come out again. The problem right now is that articles are being nominated because editors maintain the topic of a particular A-B relationship in and of itself is not notable. That is a personal, not editorial opinion. Only after content is created can a judgement of notability be made. There the moratorium will be a tremendous help. see comments below PetersV       TALK 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I understand exactly what your saying and it reinforces my point. Every day at AfD something like 100 articles are evaluated not on the basis of the content but on the basis of whether or not the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines in some way, most often through significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Frequently they are stubs and rarely are they big articles. The content is almost irrelevant. You can add 500 verifiable facts to an article and the subject still isn't notable. All of the bilateral relations articles are either notable or not, right now, today, regardless of content. AfD discussion determines which is the case. Waiting a month won't make any of them notable that aren't already. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the standstill is a good idea, but suggest that instead of speedy deleting any new entries, they be speedily userfied / projectified instead, so as to preserve the work of any editors who are unaware of the standstill. Part of the problem here is that there has not been enough consideration by the community before now about whether we should restrict ourselves to particularly noteworthy bilateral relations topics, or whether all such subjects are potentially worthy. The standstill would give a time for that discussion to take place, centralized, and publicized so that it draws in more than just the two active factions. Mangojuice 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Vecrumba, I'm not sure you've really looked into this matter. Take a look at the article creation log for the indef-blocked sockpuppet Groubani (talk · contribs) here . Also look at the total failure of Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations which started sometime in the middle of April. Most of the articles have been around for a long time and there has been no "bubbling." In many cases where there has been bubbling, some of us feel that they are "puff-bubbles." (i.e. i once saw a reference that noted a passing similarity between costa rica and swiss banking laws that made "costa rica look like the switzerland of latin america" used in an effort to establish they had a notable bilateral relationship). There is no need for separate notability criteria for this class of article. The only reason this class has become "special" is because we tolerated serial, unsourced stub creation (it's amazing to me that we allow the creation of unsourced articles -- even BLPS -- every day by irresponsible editors) by a user making some kind of weird point. At any rate, an effort to create a special set of guidelines for these articles failed rather spectacularly, as any effort at the moment (not much time has passed since that resounding failure) will likewise fail. The answer is for users interested in the topic, to evaulate these articles on a case by case basis, with the outcome in some cases being deletin and others retention, just like every other article on wikipedia. I'm sorry people are upset that, well, that editors here might hold strong and opposing viewpoints. But wishing that away, or dismissing the real questions at play here about content guidelines as "disruptive" is not healthy for wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My response was based on my personal experiences in my neck of the "A-B relations". I did look through Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations since and I have to agree that as a whole it has been a spectacular failure. In all honesty, I did the math myself some time ago on the minimum number of articles (all combinations of U.N. members taken 2 at a time). I do have to observe that a more manageable solution might be—as has been suggested—"Foreign relations of A". Any significant relationship can be denoted with a "A-xyz relations" category being defined and noted for the article. That way one can answer "does Chile have any interesting relationship with Estonia?" without a Chile-Estonia relations article. "A-B relations" would revert to being reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree that "a-b relations" articles should be "reserved for those relationships which have merited significant scholarly study." But you will never get consensus for this proposal at the moment. A number of people will even call you mean names for requiring that the topic of an article in and of itself be the subject of in depth coverage.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I also think a standstill is a great idea, since I believe (as do, I think, DGG, A Nobody, and others) that it is easier, more inviting, for editors to fill in the blanks, so to speak, than to start from scratch. That's how it works for me. The flood of AfDs prompted a bunch of people to get to work on the stubs with some decent results, but that initial enthusiasm to save them seems to have waned a little--certainly in my case. That these things were created en masse is unfortunate, of course, but these many, many nominations only antagonize editors. Let's leave them be. They're here, many of them are not great articles, many might be deleted later on. But let's leave it for now. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Some editors feel atagonized by the existence of non-notable "topics" unsupported by any reliable sources. Some other editors feel that any combination of x-y is, ipso facto, notable. Why should the AFD process be suspended to spare the annoyance of some, while adding to the annoyance of others? Is there some better community way for sorting out what should be included than afd? No one has proposed anything remotely workable in the months that this has been going on.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • • Cutting in here--Bali, you and I have butted heads on a couple of those, and have agreed on a few others. I personally take offense at unsupported articles, and I don't believe that every combination is notable. But it's a given that we have these stubs, and that apparently AfD is the only way to get rid of them (by deletion or by improvement--and I know that AfD is not for article improvement, but we all know that's how it often goes anyway). An AfD discussion should take some time, and I have not voted on a lot of them simply because I didn't have time to look into them. You may have noted that I did not copy and paste my answers, and have voted delete on quite a few of them. Oddly enough, I do agree with you that there probably is no better way than AfD--but if our interest is improving the encyclopedia, and if we agree that (at least some of) articles that were kept are now indeed worth keeping, and that improvement has come about precisely because stubborn editors (I won't name names, but I have been stubborn on occasion) have fought tooth and nail and have found and added sources and significantly rewritten articles *deep breath* well, if all that is true, then a slow trickle of those articles at AfD rather than a flood can only improve the project as a whole. Some will get deleted, some will be (improved and) kept. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think if anyone had stopped to do the math before thinking "A-B relations" were a good article to have, we wouldn't be in this mess. When articles are generated based on mathematical combinations and not topics explored in secondary source materials, nothing good is bound to come of it.
        In all of this I "voted" for Chile-Estonia as significant for my editorial reasons; that, based on "as long as we're going to have A-B relations articles, then there are items here of significance that merit being in such an article." If, on the other hand, that were a category (at best) and the normal thing to do was to document Chile-related items in a "Foreign relations of Estonia" article, that would have been just as fine.
         The mere existence of this type of article is what has led to the intractability of the morass.
         This issue can only be solved by appropriately combining the articles into the appropriate "Foreign relations of..." articles and then delete all A-B relations articles except, as mentioned, those involving areas of significant scholarly study. PetersV       TALK 21:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Drmies, you illuminate another problem: Misplaced Pages is created by volunteers and articles are created and improved because people want to do it, not because one user matches every object in a set to every other object in the set. 95% of the non-notable ones wouldn't have been created in the first place because they aren't notable and no one would have wanted to create them. The normal flow of article creation was interrupted by this one user in a cataclysmic event. Now we have all the articles to deal with. Why not move them out of the main space into user space and then let people work on them when and if they choose to do so? I don't have a problem with that at all. But some people don't want to let even one of these articles be deleted. Let's remember that they shouldn't exist in the first place and restore the status quo ante bellum by moving them out of the user space. Also, let's not forget that articles can be undeleted. Drawn Some (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I know, Drawn Some. But I'll say what I said before: a bad article is for many editors a reason to work on it. I would NEVER consider making something up out of whole cloth on, say, relations between Mexico and Belgium. (Never mind that I'm Dutch and am not supposed to care for the Belgians.) Yet AfD alerted me to the article, and it's really kind of interesting (the Belgians bringing beer to Mexico?), and I found a book (De Belgen en Mexico), and then Richard Arthur Norton, like a terrier, bit into the article and is not letting go... As I mentioned above, AfD is fine with me--I think it's fair, usually anyway, and for better or worse it's a forum of sorts. Yes, again, they probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, and maybe the majority of them might end up getting deleted, but they do exist, and my interest here is to make something good come out of it. Thanks, and I'll see you at the next one, I guess! ;)Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Full steam ahead on all fronts!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Time stands still for no one, not even a nobody. I don't think a work stoppage is enforceable. We're not a union. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What happened that made ChildofMidnight come out and speak up on a real topic? Ran out of bacon topics, did you? Drmies (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, I do not see why we should allow a handful of accounts to act as self-appointed policemen with regards to a certain type of article. Sincerely, --A Nobody 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

If anyone has read this far, then it will be obvious just what kind of deadlock this dispute is in: both sides are talking at or past each other, & not at all listening to one another. This is why, after a month, I walked away from this mess. I tried to propose that some articles in this genre were notable, yet had my efforts rebuffed. I would rather spend my time working on content than arguing endlessly in AfD. Maybe if we subject all of this to a 12-month moratorium, the less reasonable people in this dispute will get themselves banned from Misplaced Pages for their habitual misbehavior & the rest of us then can come to a consensus on this issue. -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I cuncur with Llywrch that a 12 month stop would be better. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "A-B relations" is unworkable because it is simply an unusable framework. To read about the "Foreign relations of X" one has to sift through a 100+ collection of stubs and articles? Think about it. I struck my earlier comments supporting the moratorium (which were based on my earlier more parochial experiences). We need an elimination, not a moratorium. PetersV       TALK 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• No one has suggested that they all need to be deleted or that none of them are notable. There are hundreds or maybe even thousands of them that are notable but that leaves thousands of A-B intersections that aren't. No one has said Colombia-Venezuela or Israel-Egypt or US-Mexico relations should be deleted. In investigating certain stubs I have been surprised at what I have learned. Drawn Some (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually a few accounts have said to delete Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations when the countries in question actually border each other, have been the subject or reliable, independent sources due to their border conflict issues. It is from such discussions as this example that some indeed are indiscriminately saying to delete pretty much all of them rather than working to improve them. Sincerely, --A Nobody 22:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations is not a good example, it was originally created in good faith as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and referring to the combined land mass . Many in the AfD said this was a misdirected create and that they would not support Indonesia and PNG but rather Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations including me and I have since changed my vote to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How much better would it have been instead of saying to delete initially to have just proactively moved it as I did and started the article that everyone seems to think is now an acceptable start instead? I never get why anyone would say someone should do something instead of just doing it his or herself when he or she is indeed capable and able to do so. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

of course that is possible, but if the AfD was originally listed as Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations it would have got a lot more keep even if it was a stub. In fact, that's the first X and Y article I've seen nominated, and it's not in the same class as X-Y relations. so let's forget this example. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we are urged to be WP:BOLD and what I did to improve this content I am confident my colleagues in the discussion are also capable of doing as well. Please remember that deletion is supposed to be a last resort per WP:BEFORE and as such, editors should try renames, merges, etc. first and then when all else fails take it to AfD. Best, --A Nobody 00:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • That's why we have a discussion at AfD, to share ideas and come to the right decision. Also, just because two countries share a border does not mean that their bilateral relations are notable. The relations probably are notable but we use Misplaced Pages guidelines on notability to make a determination. Once again your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Fortunately, my way of thinking about these things is consistent with the majority of our editors and readers, which is why we have no need to kowtow to a minority viewpoint that is inconsistent with established consensus, which overwhelmingly suggests these notable articles are worth including here. Best, --A Nobody 23:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Knock off the cheap shots at other editors. Your reply above is strong evidence of Llywrch's comment that too many editors are stuck on the rightness of their position. Also, cowtow, not cowtail. ThuranX (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree that Drawn Some should not make cheap shots at other editors. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Har-har. I was talking to you. Stop baiting him. ThuranX (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
              • An editor should not bait another by saying that "your entire way of thinking about these things differs from the consensus of the editors of the encyclopedia," which any reasonable editor would respond to in at least the manner that I did, although many might respond much more harshly. I can only take seriously any comments that first takes issue with that initial post. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                • For a guy who spends an awful lot of time monitoring others, you sure seem unable to be the bigger man when you are involved in something yourself. Be the bigger man, and move on. Besides, DS is bringing up issues as he goes, and it doesn't look like you're in a vast majority. learn to move on, or stop commenting so often on the behavior of others. Hypocrisy's a poor color for anyone to wear. ThuranX (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • Yes, his post probably should not have been dignified by a reply in the first place and it is exactly hypocrisy that concerns me, i.e. saying something to me while ignoring the initial less than civil comment I replied to in the first place. Regards, --A Nobody 02:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
          • It's really "kowtow". Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, I agree with you on that one per Kowtow. Best, --A Nobody 00:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support All of these articles have possible value. Until we've established how useful we think that is, there's no reason to get rid of them one by one. Shii (tock) 22:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That really doesn't make much sense. Some of the articles have value and some do not. How do you propose we sort out which is which if not "one by one?" I have seen no one with a proposal for a new method yet that would have any chance of adoption. Does anyone have one? Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of the standstill: to remove everyone from the immediate "must rescue/must delete this article RIGHT NOW" attitude and give everyone some breathing room to calmly work on a consensus guideline for this.--Aervanath (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The obvious solution is not a standstill or moratorium but removing the articles from the main space. That eliminates all time pressure. People who want to work on them may do so as they are interested and at their leisure. If a non-notable article is introduced into the main space it can be brought to AfD as all articles are. The problem is we have hundreds of non-notable articles in the main space that were dumped there by a rogue editor now banned. Undo that damage that he caused. No one is hurt, everyone is happy. Drawn Some (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

About two months was spent on developing this white whale of a special conesensus guideline. And that conversation was an epic fail. Why would it be any different in anothe month? Special notability guidelines (which will never get consensus) aren't what's needed. What's needed is case by case evaluation, which is ongoing. Some hopeless articles have been deleted, some have been demonstrated to be notable (i.e. PNG-Indo, which will rightfully sail through afd with hardly any opposition) and some have muddled through as no consensus and will need to looked at again in six months or a year. This is all a good thing. Ostriching over the issue (and the meta issue of unsourced content more generally, and the way we're allowing original research to proliferate) will not help matters. Awright, i've said my piece enough on this thread.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the United States have a full set of bilateral stubs based on the US State Department website, and the same rational is used to delete other smaller countries stubs? Misplaced Pages "contains elements of an almanac" according to Pillar I. What good is an almanac if it only contains information on the United States? We are supposed to be eliminating regional bias, not increasing it. An almanac just has to be verifiable, we accept all townships as notable on the same concept and use a dump of census data from the United States Census Bureau as the sole source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually support deleting many of those US-very small country stubs as most of them can be merged into Foreign relations of Smaller country X. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LibStar, every article on a topic not notable by Misplaced Pages guidelines should be eliminated from the encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages incorporates elements of almanacs but see WP:NOT#ALMANAC. Drawn Some (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#ALMANAC points to raw statistics. You do know what a statistic is right? It is some numerical value. I don't see this at all in any of the articles under discussion. This is another red herring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That shortcut should be speedily deleted as it is inconsistent with our First pillar. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the above comment, I would like administrators to note that A Nobody has already proceeded to change wikipedia policies in order to suit his own interpretations, by simply deleting the section reference to WP:NOT#ALMANAC Drawn Some cited above: here and again here. Is it clear by now that some users are pushing a marginal interpretation instead of consensus by any means necessary? Dahn (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who added that minority and consensus lacking viewpoint to Not in the first place as it clearly contradicts our much older and consensus backed Misplaced Pages:Five pillars. In any event, we cannot have contradictory policies and guidelines. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everybody is wrong but you. I know the drill. Dahn (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Five pillars has said we are an almanac since it was created on 4 May 2005. Now looking at WP:NOT from the same time, I am not seeing anything about not being an almanac. Sincerely, --A Nobody 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1. No guideline has ever said "we are an almanac". 2. The claim about time precedence is ignoratio elenchi and special pleading, misconstruing the mechanisms driving wikipedia. I shall ignore it as such. 3. The entire text accompanying that caption, which is the result of consensus, still evidently contradicts your claim about the "almanac" importance of factoids. 4. Not seeking every possible input at the exact same moment is not the same as lacking consensus, but time can verify that consensus. As it has. 5. My part in this discussion ends here, because I sense it won't be long before A Nobody will start over again with the same arguments (as has happened in the past), and following that trail will leads nowhere. I posted this here for other users, preferably admins, to assess what's going on. If anyone needs further comments from me, let them contact me on my talk page. Dahn (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What consensus backed discussion has ever said we are not an almanac? Also, the disputed addition only appeared on 5 May 2009, i.e. a mere month ago. Earlier discussions, such as Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_9#Not_an_Almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_1#Is_Wikipedia_an_almanac.3F and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not/Archive_25#Misplaced Pages:_Almanac_or_not.3F hardly reveal any consensus supporting a notion that we are not an almanac. Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, the First Pillar of Misplaced Pages itself contradicts you. It says Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of... almanacs.... Elements of is important. If you're going to refer to text make sure it actually supports what your are saying, people are familiar with things and some even check on sources. Drawn Some (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It also says we incorportae "elements" of encyclopedias, so by your logic, we would "not" be an encyclopedia either. Sincerely, --A Nobody 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#ALMANAC was a redirect using the wrong synonym to point to Misplaced Pages is not raw statistics. No almanac I know of is comprised of raw statistics, all info is in tables and comes with explanatory information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

• Support my own proposal. Stifle approached me about this early yesterday on my talk page, and I was delighted to agree; I suggested some modifications in wording, not in principle, which he accepted. He and I tend to disagree about standards of notability and quite a number of other things, but from any reasonable point of view the situation was becoming intolerable. I can accept if necessary an encyclopedia with most of these deleted; I hope Stifle can accept one with most of them kept; what neither of us can accept is an encyclopedia with a random selection of them. Nor do we want to devote the bulk of our energies on WP to arguing about this particular group of articles. At present the settlement of these depends mostly on how much pressure the various sides exert, on on the very varied personal view of whoever chooses to close, and neither of these is sensible. The only people who would oppose finding some means of accommodation here are those who would rather get their own way on some articles, however few, than accept a consistent compromise, and that does not help build a good encyclopedia. In practice the arguments at present depend on whether particular sources found are important enough, but the views expressed on that depend not on the facts of the actual case, but the general idea of keeping or deleting the articles. As I see it, whether the sources are significant depends upon the intended scope of these articles--whether to accept relations in the broad sense or interpret it as formal diplomatic relations only, and if we approach it this way, we may yet agree. We must have a rational procedure for resolving stalemates other than mutual exhaustion. That is what we have used in the past, and I hope nobody will support continuing that way, because it decision essentially by trial by ordeal, more specifically ordeal of the cross. I'd rather lose arguments than have them decided that way. Civilized people rejected that method of decision in more important matters many centuries ago. It's time we followed suite. DGG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is not untrue but it misses the essence of the situation, that a bunch of articles were created without consensus and contrary to our normal flow of article creation and they were dumped into the article space and many of them are on non-notable topics and shouldn't be in main space. It would be better to remove them all from the main space to eliminate the time pressure and work on them at our leisure and on the ones we are interested in as we normally do. All of our processes and guidelines support that normal process and the problem is not with the process but with the dumptruck full of ill-conceived articles dumped into it. Remove that mess. Drawn Some (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am inclined to view this proposal favorably. The AfD process is perfectly suited to deal with articles on an ad hoc basis. This is fine for the normal random mix, but it can break down under the weight of sheer numbers. There is no good reason to burden that system with constantly re-deciding what is essentially one issue. As the proposers of this respite point out, the outcome of the AfD discussions currently is not a function of which articles truly are notable, but instead a function of who shows up to argue on a particular case. The repetitive nature of these discussions has the effect of self-selecting for the editors who feel most strongly about the subject, to the exclusion of those who have not become so firmly entrenched. I think it is worth a break to try to engage some of this latter class of editors into the process, and hope for a new perspective. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 03:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A comment from a completely non-involved editor: I haven't commented on a single A-B relations AfD, nor do I have any real opinion on whether these articles are generally good or generally bad. I have read some, but by no means all, of the discussion on this topic and would like to offer a neutral observation.

First of all, some sort of calming of the situation is needed. There is no way anyone can cognitively evaluate dozens of relations a day (as has often sent to AfD). Not surprisingly, given the volume of AfDs, people on both sides will fall back on standard arguments and not truly evaluate the case at hand. Further, both sides are so entrenched in their view that any attempts to provide evidence in a particular case will mostly just be dismissed by the other side. The community is definitely not served by rehashing the same basic argument hundreds of times. At the current pace, good editors are bound to burn out and leave the project entirely.

Second, this thread is strong evidence of how deeply the conflict runs. People on the "delete most" will largely argue that a moratorium is bad unless the "junk stubs" are deleted first. People on the "keep most" side will argue against any attempts to move "junk stubs" outside of article space. As someone who doesn't really care if these stay or go in the end, I would say there is very little harm leaving things the way they are until people have had a chance to cool down. Misplaced Pages's default policy normally is to keep things the way they are when there is a dispute.

Third, a break from the daily AfDs might not resolve the problem, but it couldn't hurt. When a page is being edit warred over, we protect the page to force discussion. While not an identical situation, of course, I feel it would be a good idea to force discussion into one location, rather than hundreds of AfDs, for now. Without the pressure of "saving" or "removing" A-B "right now", there is at least some chance that the situation will calm itself and the sides can start working towards a reasonable compromise.

Now, some will say the stubs harm Misplaced Pages, or stopping the normal process harm Misplaced Pages. They may be right, but I feel far greater harm will come if the situation is continues on its current path. Misplaced Pages has no deadline and waiting a little bit to give the situation a chance to calm itself down is highly advisable, In my opinion. Thus I support the proposal as written. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2009 (aUTC)

You're greatly overestimating the number of bilateral relations AfDs daily.

6/10 - 2

6/9 - 4, one of which was shut down procedurally even though the relations are non-notable

6/8 - 3

6/7 - 2

6/6 - 1

6/5 - 3

6/4 - 2

etc.

So the problem is not fatigue caused by evaluating "dozens" daily.

Neither is the conflict over bilateral relations articles, it's over whether or not Misplaced Pages guidelines for notability should be followed or whether anything verifiable should be in the encyclopedia.

If the default is to keep things the way they are, it should be the state prior to the dumping of hundreds or thousands of articles on non-notable subjects into the main space by a now-banned editor. When vandalism is committed the default isn't the state of vandalization, it's the state prior to the act. Same principle should apply here. Move the articles out of main space if you want to stop action on them but don't interrupt Misplaced Pages's processes in an attempt to "fix" an interruption of Misplaced Pages's processes, that's only compounding the damage. Drawn Some (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with the proviso that someone get to work on developing Misplaced Pages:Notability (bilateral relations) during the month-long freeze. I am normally adamant against the creation of new notability sub-guidelines, but even I have my breaking point. We need community driven guidance, and while WP:N should be enough, it clearly is not else we would not be here right now. What the community needs is a clear set of guidelines as to which sets of articles are likely notable and which are likely not, or else this will all just start up again when the editing freeze ends in a month. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This appears to be an attempt to do an end-run around the results (or, to be precise, lack thereof) at Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. There is no consensus at all that a notability guideline is needed (see, for example, Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations#What's the matter with WP:N? and no clear views on what such a guideline should include. By definition, guidelines have no hope of being completed or adopted if editors don't think that they're needed and can't agree on their content. As such, there's no reason to suspend AfDs to facilitate something which isn't going to happen. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support—Provided that the freeze is time-limited, the moratorium on creating new X-Y relations stubs/articles is vigorously enforced, and AfDs that already in progress when the freeze comes into effect are allowed to run their course. These are all element of current/original Stifle-DGG proposal, and losing any of them would be a deal breaker for me. I would add that for AfDs already running if & when the freeze is affected, the existence of the freeze should not be considered a valid reason to !vote keep, and closing admins should disregard any !votes using this logic.

  Also, I do not support a freeze solely for the sake of a freeze. Let's use this time to draft some binding notability guidelines or at least try. I realize there is currently a large chasm between two camps, but I think that if we can come to some agreement around the edges, it will still be better than the current situation even if we still leave a large gray area in the middle . So a suggestion: rather than formulate competing sets guidelines, none of which are likely to stand much of chance of gainng consensus, perhaps we could come up with an array of elements of a guideline, and !vote on each one seperately. At the end of the freeze, which ever elements have consensus would become the guideline. That guideline would probably still have a huge gray area, and there would always be a need to deal with some, maybe most, pairings on a case by case basis, but I believe it would be better than what we've got now, which is just the WP:N. (WP:N would still apply, but the emergent guideline for X-Y relations would hopefully help apply WP:N to these specific cases.) Some examples elements of a guideline that I hope would gain immediate consensus include:

• In general, X-Y relations are not inherently notable.
• Relations between any two countries that share a land border are alway notable.
• Relations between states that, in modern history (20th century), were formerly part of the same country are always notable, i.e. relations among former Soviet states with one another, or relations between states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia.
• Websites of X & Y's governments can generally be used verify facts in an X-Y relations article, but coverage of the topic of X-Y relations in these sites does not, by itself, establish notability of the topic.
• Relations between countries having fought a war are generally notable, with the exception of fighting as part of a multination coalition. For example, the Falklands war is enough to establish that British-Argentine relations are notable, but that the fact Polish troops were part of the coalition in Iraq does not, by itself, establish that Poland-Iraq relations are notable.
• Etc.

So I think getting consensus on as many little points like these as possible would be useful. There's a lot a gray area in WP:N and disagreements about how to interpret it. Even if the exercise only narrows that gray area a little and/or clarifies it only slightly, I still think we'd be better off for it. Yilloslime _C 16:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There was already a lengthy discussion on what to do with the information in these pitiful stub articles without actually keeping pitiful stub articles on Misplaced Pages. Most of this work of merging was spearheaded by User:Ikip, but unfortunately he seems to be on an enforced wikibreak for several weeks, so I don't know the status of it or who's taken up the task in the interim. In any case, even then, bringing up articles with valid concerns against them to AfD was never decided to be suspended by concensus, and I see no reason to do so here, given the ability of these articles to be userfied or the ability of users to merge the (scant) information to another article within the week provided. I see no compelling reason not to continue to bring up these articles at AfD, only to end their creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect into userspace

Just a heads up here. I just discovered a link from this catgeory leading to a userspace article. He appears to be fairly new here (may 5). As far as I know, such links aren't permitted (linking from main article space into userspace). I'll remove it for now with a polite note on their page about this . I'm posting here to give notice, and, should anyone (admin or not) find fault, feel free to revert me, and if a trout needs to be applied, feel free!

--_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved – This is the English Misplaced Pages which does not have any authority over other language projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards