Misplaced Pages

I didn't see the request Justus, best to place on my talk page as your article talk pages are very very long and its easy to miss things. If I had seen it I would have advised you against the above--Snowded 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See this previous thread from ANI a week ago, where JM's editing was discussed. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message about this request on the user talk pages of AndyTheGrump and Paul Siebert. Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mathsci, thank you for informing me about this discussion. To make it more productive, can we ask Justus Maximus to do the following:

1. To try to separate a content dispute between them and a number of other editors from behavioural issues, because the former is not supposed to be a subject of the current thread.
2. To provide at least one example when they tried to seriously comment on the quotes from the reliable scholarly sources provided by me. This sources contradicted to the edits proposed by them, however, they rejected them under a pretext that these sources were "Marxist apologist".
3. To answer if they consider themselves a novice or experienced editor. This answer is important, because, if they believe they've already became an experienced editors, they are supposed to be responsible for violations of civility norms on WP pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus yet again chooses to label me as 'pro-terrorist'. I consider this a baseless gross personal attack, and ask him to withdraw this immediately. Should he not do so, I intend to seek Misplaced Pages arbitration over the issue.AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Note:AndyTheGrump has been blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. Access Denied  16:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but per WP:LEGAL the statement that someone makes "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;" is a perceived legal threat, and even much more serious one, because propaganda of terrorism, by contrast to libel, is a felony. In connection to that, taking into account that both Andy and Justus can be both considered as new editors, I request Access Denied to re-consider their decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin; I was only commenting. Access Denied  17:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not consider the comment you just quoted a legal threat. If they had said "I'm going to report you to law enforcement for spreading terrorist propaganda, maybe, but I see no real accusation of terrorist propaganda, let alone a threat of reporting it. Ks0stm 17:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations in propaganda of terrorism are perceived legal threat per WP:LEGAL--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Justus Maximus comment, "...they have chosen to resort to illegitimate and unacceptable tactics such as making unsubstantiated, false, and misleading statements in order to promote a pro-Marxist (pro-terrorist) agenda...." is totally unacceptable and he should be blocked for incivility. Otherwise, his comments are long and rambling, and he does not clearly point out what his dispute is other than a content dispute. TFD (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, "strakh" means a "state of fear" or just fear in general, though for the purposes of Marx and Lenin, it is quite clear that they were speaking and advocating a form of terrorism. In this, the original poster is correct. I just wanted to point that out. Silverseren 17:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Though, Justus, what Paul meant from this is that your quote “One cannot hide the fact that dictatorship presupposes and implies a “condition”, one so disagreeable to renegades , of revolutionary violence of one class against another … the “fundamental feature” of the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat is revolutionary violence” doesn't even have the word terror in it anywhere. And Snowded asked for you to be involved in the talk here. Other than those two edits, you have not been involved in directly editing the article, though I notice there is an expansive amount of discussion on the talk page. Is there really anything that has to do with ANI here? Silverseren 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could someone tell User:Paul Siebert that forum shopping is frowned upon, he has posted here on this thread the Justus is making perceived legal threats (I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked) But he has also posted the same thing Here thinking Access Denied was an admin and he posted the same again Here on Toddst1 talk page. This strikes me as someone shopping around looking for the right result and Paul ought to be told to quit it mark (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that, from what i've seen from the talk page of the article in question, all three, Justus Maximus, Paul Siebert, and AndyTheGrump, have all been editing in a manner that expresses POV editing and/or possessiveness of the article. In terms of this and what Mark has shown above, I believe something definitely needs to be done in terms of these three users together, as they have all exibited editing that is frowned upon or not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Silverseren 18:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I`m guessing in the hope of getting the guy blocked". Had I wanted him to get blocked, I would be able to report him many times, because his behaviour is highly insulting and violates many WP rules. Regarding possessiveness, I admit that the talk page is a mess and that it is hard for a newcomer to follow the course of the discussion, however, before throwing accusations in "possessiveness", one has to read the discussion in full. I proposed to discuss a way to reconcile what Justus' and my sources say, whereas he simply ignored my arguments calling my sources "Marxist apologist". My proposal to edit a dubious section on the talk page and to re-insert it into the article after a consensus is achieved, a tactics that worked fine for, e.g. WWII article, was simply ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the section were you were Bold and removed it, then yourself, Igny and snowed Snowed edit warred to keep it out? With all three of you hitting 3r along with a couple of ip`s which lead to the article being locked out? mark (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean the section which I temporarily moved to the talk page section to re-write and re-introduce into the article. Since this section contained obvious nonsense, it would be incorrect to let it to stay in the article during possibly endless dispute. In addition, I proposed some concrete way to reconcile both points of view and make it neutral. All of that has been ignored by the editors belonging to another party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

My 2¢: that page is a mess. Large sections of it use the rhetorical style of FOX news pundits (illegitimate associations between unrelated ideas designed to promote a particular anti-communist viewpoint - effectively a form of right-wing Mad Libs), much of it is aimed at attacking Marxist theory by leveraging revolutionary practices, and the general behavior of all involved parties is (shall I say politely) less than optimal. If the page weren't locked I'd simply go after it with garden shears and a trowel; right now I'm just hoping that we can settle the issues with some straw polls. if you all want to go and drop your votes on the straw polls I opened, and if we can get a reasonable consensus that way, it might just put a stop (either way) to some of the shenanigans. --Ludwigs2 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is a promising new editor who we would like to keep—funnily enough I was just admiring an edit of his (this one), which turned up on my watchlist. His "legal threat" was so vague as to be meaningless; plus he's a newbie, presumably not familiar with the labyrinthine ways of Misplaced Pages. I think it's appallingly bitey to immediately block him indefinitely for saying "I am aware that Misplaced Pages policy is to discourage recourse to legal measures, but given the grossly offensive nature of this statement, I see that I have little choice." If *I* said that, it would be appropriate to block me, but a newbie? Come on, what's wrong with having a word with him and explaining that talk about legal measures isn't merely discouraged on Misplaced Pages. Unless there is general objection, I'm going to unblock him in a while, and advise him to withdraw the offending statement. Toddst1, I'm aware that you have already advised him what to do, but I don't think starting with an indefinite block is a good way to get people to listen receptively. Bishonen | talk 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

• Please give your opinion below about my intention to unblock:

An undertaking to retract the legal threat is all that is required for a legal threat block to be lifted. I don't think that consensus is required, since it says that in WP:LEGAL. Get the undertaking first, then press the button. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, obviously, this legal threat was just an inadequate response of a newbie on continuous insults and perceived legal threats from Justus Maximus' side (repeated accusation in such a crime as propaganda of terrorism are the perceived legal threat). Obviously, the Andy's response was highly emotional, however, taking into account that both these editors are novices, and taking into account that Justus Maximus has been warned many time about his unacceptable behaviour, this reaction is understandable (although not excusable). In addition, we all are partially guilty in that, because we where too tolerant to a newbie Justus Maximus. I do not understand why another newbie has to suffer from that our mistake. In my opinion, the block can be lifted immediately after Andy will agree to retract this threat.

Secondly, I propose not to forget that this issue has only tangential relation to this thread, which has been initiated by Justus Maximus and it is de facto a renewal of this previous thread. Therefore, I propose to return to this topic, especially, taking into account that the norms of acceptable behaviour have been explained to Justus Maximus now, and the experienced editor who initially voluntarily decided to coach him/her through a collaborative approach by that moment gave up and does not see any value in continuation of a dialogue with him--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll leave Andy blocked for now, since he rather dances around a really unequivocal withdrawal of the offending statement. I can't blame him for being a grumpy Grump just now, though, and I hope people are watching his page and are prepared to unblock if/when he does withdraw it properly, for instance in line with Toddst1's crisp post. It's late in my timezone, so I won't be watching. But as I said, it would be nice to keep this editor. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I think you should unblock. This is a good new editor and even experienced editors would be driven to distraction by the situation on that talk page. --Snowded 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy should now be unblocked, as he has withdrawn his threat of legal action. Ks0stm 02:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for handling that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Return to Justus Maximus

Shall we return to User:Justus Maximus and that wall of text again.He's still (as in last week's ANI) turning what is basically a dispute about the interpretation placed on historical events by later scholars, into what seems to be a personal crusade to expose Marx and Lenin as Communist terrorists. Justus must somehow be persuaded that people are allowed to disagree with him, and further that he must not accuse the people who disagree with him of being closet Marxist terrorists. Snowded has been very patient, but I don't think he's got anywhere, Andy has been blocked after an unwise remark about legal action, and is waiting to see what we do. Paul Seibert is I believe correct that in the US at least, advocating or publicising terrorism is a criminal offence, so JM's unreasonable accusation of Andy goes beyond your average ad hominem. I don't see him warned for it, and I think a forceful warning from someone who can follow up an 'if you do this again you will be blocked' threat is the very minimum that must be done. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to say that accusing someone of being a terrorism advocate warrants a warning plus a short block, but given the time since the comment the block would end up being not so much preventative as punitive. So, I agree that a "final warning" of sorts where any further personal attacks or general incivility warrant a good 2-3 day block, especially if they are along the lines of accusing people of terrorism related things. I'll deliver a templated final warning, but anyone else should feel free to expand on it (or replace it) with their own composition. Ks0stm 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Elen and Ks0stm on forceful warning. Accusing other editors of criminal activity is not acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps from one of those already in this conversation is germane, using the clearly problematic assertion "Firstly, before we continue I expect you to retract your libellous statements and legal threats. Are you going to do that?" on 17 October. As you note, accusing others of criminal activity is not acceptable, and sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Collect (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh...that's one of those cases where I choose to solidly assume good faith in his intent and assume low clue in his word choice. I'd go for advising a little less strong word choice/rhetoric with that comment. Ks0stm 00:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

When I posted about this issue I noted that, since Justus Maximus is a newbie, the immediate sanctions against him are premature. I believed -Snowded 's voluntary mentorship would resolve the situation. However, our tolerance towards this newbie resulted in a block of another newbie (Andy), who faced the situation which, according to his limited WP experience, seemed unresolvable by him, and, as a result, resorted to legal threats.

However, the issue is not only in accusations in criminal activity. Justus Maximus seems to deeply misunderstand the policy: he believes that based solely on his vision of the subject he can accept of reject sources, which he arbitrarily calls "reliable" or "apologist"; he believes that based on the sources available for him he can reject what other sources say; he does not understand that commenting on a contributor is not acceptable; he does not understand that drawing own conclusion based on few quotes from historical documents taken out of historical contest is absolutely incorrect, etc. Someone, who is not considered by him as a personification of the devil (in other words, not I) should explain that to him. Any help is appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps JM would voluntarily go through a set of lessons (Mono's program comes to mind, but I believe it is still under construction, so perhaps one similar to it) with the objective of teaching him such core policies as Reliable Sources, No Original Research, No Personal Attacks, etc, to the point where he could explain what the fundamental meaning of these core policies are? At any rate, for the time being, he should be kept on a very short leash regarding personal attacks and civility (in line with the warning I posted on his talk page). Ks0stm 01:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would really be very helpful if a few other editors would explain OR and SYNTH to Justus, he either does not understand or is not listening. --Snowded 02:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd do that (I'm usually good at such explanations) except I don't think it would have any effect at this point in time. JM is smart enough to be very cagey intellectually and determined enough in his viewpoints that he is unlikely to willingly back down. Honestly, I think the best approach would be to warn him for disruptive editing, and if he keeps it up give him short block to get his attention. he needs to have a reason to settle down and listen, because he's (obviously) having a lot of fun spinning out arguments to support his position at the moment. --Ludwigs2 04:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

With regret I think you are right, it will take a block to get him to listen --Snowded 12:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think some of the above comments do appear to confirm rather than negate the impression that there is a bias here.

In particular, what the comments appear to ignore is:

(1) that AndyTheGrump engaged in personal attacks on me long before I even addressed any of the editors involved in the discussion.

(2) that Paul Siebert has been employing false statements as a pretext to exclude relevant material from the article and/or discussion.

(3) that editors like Paul Siebert are habitually permitted to use original research in their arguments whereas I am being attacked on the rare occasions I happen to do so (and only when requested by other editors to explain why I believe something to be the case).

(4) that at no point has it been explained how personal attacks by editors such as AndyTheGrump differ/are less offensive than mine.

Until such time as issues like the above have been objectively addressed I cannot but regard such comments as a continuation of personal attacks on me started by AndyTheGrump Justus Maximus (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, if your statements like those regarding the word strakh, Lenin's endorsement of terror, and the Bolshevik abolition of the death-penalty are not intentionally fraudulent, then why won't you admit that they are false and retract them? Justus Maximus (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it. But it is no excuse for more incivility and more original research. You have certainly crossed the line with serious accusations against other editors and lengthy discourses at Talk:Communist terrorism. It appears you are unwilling to follow the policies that WP imposes. TFD (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is evident from Justus Maximus's last statement that he has no intention of apologising for his grossly offensive personal comments, but instead chooses to continue his misrepresentations and insinuations. I am therefore going to seek a solution through the relevant Misplaced Pages channels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, of course I am prepared to apologize for any of my remarks (1) should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments" and (2) if you retract, and apologize for, your own personal attacks that, after all, were made first, logically and chronologically speaking.

As a sign of good will, I hereby give you a chance to do so by explaining why you alleged that I had "distorted the meaning" of the Engels quote.

Justus Maximus (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and original research are wrong no matter who does it

Then please apply that principle impartially to all.Justus Maximus (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, can you please provide a link to the supposed 'personal attack' of mine that was "first, logically and chronologically speaking". At that point, we can at least see what I said, and what preceded it.

As for "grossly offensive personal comments", if you are unable to accept that calling someone 'pro-terrorist' is grossly offensive, I can only conclude that you have a strange concept of what the words 'grossly offensive' mean. As has been pointed out several times already, it could reasonably be interpreted as implying illegality on my part. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Which 'Engels quote', JM?

Justus Maximus seems to have taken the opportunity here to repeat allegations about me, without providing any evidence. Can I ask how long I'm expected to wait for his response before citing it as further evidence of his non-compliance with Misplaced Pages standards? To ensure he has seen this, I'll post a further notification on his talk page, but I see no reason to wait indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus, can you please provide a link to the supposed 'personal attack' of mine that was "first, logically and chronologically speaking". At that point, we can at least see what I said, and what preceded it

AndyTheGrump, I meant of course the Marx quote. You ought to know exactly which personal attack I'm referring to unless you didn't read my post, above. If that is the case, please read it first.

Meanwhile, I repeat your statement below:

"the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis arguably distorted the intended meaning" - AndyTheGrump, talk page, 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC). Surely, you recall your own statements don't you?

The way I see it the facts of the matter are as follows:

(1) You claimed on the talk page that Marx’s article containing the statement on revolutionary terrorism (“The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna”) was obscure and you had not been aware of its existence. However, as I pointed out, it couldn’t have been obscure to students of Marx given that it was quoted by Marxists such as Kautsky. Moreover, Kautsky’s Terrorism and Communism is a Marxist classic. It follows that (a) as a historian specializing in Marxism you ought to have known where the quote was from, (b) as an editor participating in a discussion on Communist terrorism, you ought to have been familiar with a Marxist work on Terrorism and Communism, and as neither (a) nor (b) appears to be the case, (c) this raises very serious and legitimate doubts about your competence to participate in such a discussion.

(2) By claiming to know what Marx’s intended meaning was, you indulged in original research and took a pro-Marxist stand.

(3) The fact is that Marx is telling a lie in that article. The truth of the matter is that the number of demonstrators killed by the National Guard was between 6 and 18. Here’s what actually happened:

“When the National Guard tried to disperse the protesters, there were clashes, which escalated on 23 August. The Academic Legion, though refusing to join in the repression, was reluctant to side with the insurgents and stood back, a mere spectator to what followed. Lacking the support of the very people whom they regarded as their leaders, the workers stood no chance. Demonstrators were beaten with the flats of sabres, bayoneted and shot. Between 6 and 18 workers were killed, and between 36 and 152 seriously wounded (depending upon whether one believes government or radical counts). When the fighting was over, women from the more prosperous quarters of the city garlanded the National Guards’ bayonets with flowers … The Democratic Club shouted down Marx, who was then visiting Vienna, when he tried to argue that the violence was a class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. For Engels, 23 August was the moment when the middle class abandoned the cause of the people: ‘thus the unity and strength of the revolutionary force was broken; the class-struggle had come in Vienna, too, to a bloody outbreak, and the counter-revolutionary camarillasaw the day approaching on which it might strike its grand blow’. But Marx found that it was not only the middle class who were deserting the revolution; there was little sympathy for his ideas even when he addressed workers’ meetings. On 7 September, he left Vienna, grumbling at the stubborn refusal of the workers to see that they should be waging a class war against the bourgeoisie” (Mike Rapport, 1848:Year of Revolution, London: Little, Brown, 2008, pp. 230-1).

It follows from the above that Marx’s use of rhetorical flourishes like “massacres” and “cannibalism” was intended to deceive the readers and incite them to armed insurrection on false pretences. It is beyond dispute that the primary intention of the article was to incite to armed insurrection, as correctly observed by the authorities who closed down Marx’s paper on that very ground.

(4) The quote as initially provided by me illustrated Marx’s endorsement of terrorism and was relevant to the section “Views of Marxist theoreticians and leaders.” By contrast, the “intended meaning” as implied by your statement was irrelevant. It follows that your assertion “the replacement of the initial part by ellipsis, arguably distorted the intended meaning” is uncalled for and lends itself to being interpreted as deliberately offensive.

As already stated, I am prepared to retract any remarks of mine (1) should it be established beyond reasonable doubt that they do indeed constitute "grossly offensive personal comments" and (2) if you retract, and apologize for, your own personal attacks that, after all, were made first, logically and chronologically speaking.

So, if you are indeed interested in peaceful cooperation between editors, all you need to do is retract and apologize for your offensive remarks. It's very simple. Justus Maximus (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold up a second. JM, are you seriously saying that the "Marx quote" is the bit where it was stated your edit "arguably distorted" the meaning of the source? That's not a personal attack, by any stretch of the imagination. — The Hand That Feeds You: 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks that way, HandThatFeeds. It's worth noting that the (half)quote we were discussing was in the article even before JM got involved. He (usefully) provided a link to the original source, and correctly added the ellipsis to indicate it was part of a longer sentence. I provided the remainder of the sentence (though there are two different English translations available, and I think I used the wrong one - as I've noted on the article talk page). It is also worth noting that at the time I made this revision, JM made no suggestion that I was being offensive. This attempt of mine to make a perfectly reasonable edit to a contentious quote to provide some context has only later been identified by JM as part of a Marxist plot to censor him. He initially seems to have been unaware of the standards which apply to Misplaced Pages, and took any attempts to persuade him to conform to them as 'suppression' of his preferred sources. Almost from the start he was accusing others of 'falsehoods'. He has since argued that he doesn't agree with the need for reliable sources if they contradict his 'ethics'. He has chosen yet again to make a personal attack on me on the most ridiculous grounds. He writes that 'as a historian specializing in Marxism you ought to have known where the quote was from' which is surely an indication of his complete detachment from reality: I'm not a historian, and have never claimed to be. Neither have I actually claimed to be a 'specialist in Marxism'. I had merely earlier pointed out that the Marx quote wasn't in any of Marx's major works (it isn't), which is why I'd asked where it was from. Justus Maximus chooses to insinuate that I knew where it was from all along, and then uses this bogus assumption to 'prove' his ludicrous conspiracy theories. The man is clearly incapable of logical thought on issues he has any emotional involvement with, and thus cannot be anything but a liability as a Misplaced Pages editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The persistent refusal by Justus Maximus to conform to Misplaced Pages standards

As will be evident from the earlier section started by Justus Maximus here, he has consistently refused to conform to Misplaced Pages rules regarding civility. In particular, he has repeatedly described another contributor and myself as 'pro-terrorist' - a grossly offensive personal attack. He has also repeatedly been asked to withdraw such statements, and refused. He shows no interest in adhering to other Misplaced Pages norms either, and has instead argued that his 'ethics' override the need for reliable sources. On his own talk page he suggested that a "Marxist apologist brigade...controls the whole Misplaced Pages project" here, which seems a clear indication of his attitude towards Misplaced Pages, and should in itself be sufficient grounds for concluding that he can contribute nothing useful. I therefore suggest that he be banned from further editing until he withdraws his grossly offensive personal attacks and gives an assurance that he will conform to Misplaced Pages standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, please see my response above. Justus Maximus (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Justus, you are just wasting everyone's time, most of all your own. Misplaced Pages is not the forum to present original ideas and interpretations. I suggest you voluntarily refrain from editing anything to do with communism for some time. Work on other articles and learn how cooperation on Misplaced Pages works. I you do not do this voluntarily I will have to propose, that a topic ban be placed on you. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, I think there is a severe WP:COMPETENCE problem. Apart from the above discussion Justus appears to be editing an old version of AN/I to respond to threads, but does not appear to understand what he is doing? I've tried explaining as best I can but he is having trouble with understanding what I mean by an "old version of the page". Anyone else that can weigh in with help would be appreciated. Talk page thread --Errant 15:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by JPMcGrath on Gun laws in the United States (by state)

This is an issue that has gone on for months, the most recent events are chronicled at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Brady_scorecard.2C_maps:_saga_continues, where there are also links to previous threads on the same topic. The issue was decided by consensus months ago, and suddenly JPMcGrath appears again claiming "There has been no rebuttal; rather obfuscation, obstruction, and dissembling" to his arguments, despite being given links to more than 30,000 words of discussion, as Mudwater demonstrated. He has been warned, has been treated respectfully and politely by both myself and Digiphi, but continues to push this POV. His arguments have not changed, yet he continues to add this content against consensus. At this time his actions merit "disruptive editing", and I'm asking for a topic ban on this. Rapier (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through the talk page and had a good look at the article history. It is clear that JPMcGrath is trying to edit against local consensus. His language and approach might be a low level of tendentious editing, but it's mostly a content dispute. I will warn him to cease edit warring at the risk of being blocked. I saw no 3RR violations. Basket of Puppies 00:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What I am seeing is tedentious editing on both sides of a "no consensus" poll on the talk page.

The response to a "no consensus" is not to go edit war over it on the article itself. It's to go back and try again to find an option that everyone agrees to.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding an option that everyone agrees on may not be possible in this case. The discussion has gone on for more than seven months and now exceeds 30,000 words (yes, really). Many of the editors who have participated in the discussion have agreed that adding the Brady Campaign State Scorecard map to this article would violate NPOV by pushing a particular political agenda and by providing a soapbox for an advocacy group. Some have also stated that the map does not accurately assess the restrictiveness of the different states' gun laws. Others have suggested that the map might be appropriate for a different article -- for example, Political arguments of gun politics in the United States, or Brady Campaign, which currently does include the map -- but not this article, which simply describes the gun laws of the 50 states in as neutral and unbiased a manner as possible. At this point somewhat more than half of the editors have agreed on this, with a sizable minority not agreeing and saying that adding the map would be okay. Still others have floated the idea of balancing the map by also including another map that supports an opposing view, but there does not appear to be such a balancing map. Anyway, the article without the maps has achieved a very neutral point of view by simply presenting the facts of the laws, which are the subject of this particular article, without adding opinions of any kind. As I said, many editors have agreed that not adding the map is the best course of action. But editor JPMcGrath has refused to accept this and keeps adding it back. This is indeed contentious editing, as it has the effect of disrupting the article for the apparent purpose of advocating a particular political point of view. Here are links to the various discussions that have already occurred:

• Archived discussions:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#2009 Brady Campaign State Scorecard
  • Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rejected/45#Gun laws in the United States (by state)
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 1#Brady and other maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Archive 2#RfC: Should the Brady map be removed or retained?
• Discussions currently on the article talk page:
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Proposed removal of all maps
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard and other maps, continued
  • Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Brady scorecard, maps: saga continues

— Mudwater 00:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, adding the "Brady scorecard" to a state would be analogous to adding the NRA scorecard on a candidate (or anyone else's scorecard, for that matter) to a candidate's Misplaced Pages article. Having said that, YESPOV is indeed part of NPOV. The main point, though, is that editors must work in good faith to pursue consensus on how to present contentious topics. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely. While this isn't the place to argue content, I'll simply clarify that buried in those arguments is the point made by myself and others that an NRA map would be just as inappropriate. We aren't trying to push one point of view or the other, we're trying to remove all point of view and simply list the laws in an encyclopedic manner. When third-party analysis of raw data get interjected that is when POV problems occur, and as Mudwater stated above, there are already articles discussing the political debate about gun laws. The maps are included there and continuing to add them here despite clear consensus is the problem. Rapier (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a new clear consensus on that point. What I see is several editors who were on one side of the July "Remove all maps or not?" discussion - which an apparently uninvolved admin closed as "No consensus" - continuing the discussion and asserting now that you have consensus, without the participation of most of the other side.

Nothing in the new discussions invalidates the July discussion. No effort was made to revisit it with another clear poll / RFC. It seems like some previously active editors are less active now, but that doesn't invalidate their participation in the last clear poll / RFC type discussion.

ANI is not a replacement for going back to the page and holding another RFC. If those other editors are gone and it's a new consensus that's fine. But this is not the place - and attacking the lead map proponent for disruption is not the right approach - to solve the no consensus problem. Do it right, on the article. Get a consensus. If it's still "No consensus" then accept that. If it goes your way this time, with whoever shows up to bother to participate, then he will need to accept that as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We've had seven months and more than 30,000 words of discussion, including a Request For Comment, a posting on the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, and a Request For Mediation. A majority of editors -- including myself -- feel very strongly that adding the Brady Scorecard map is an egregious violation of NPOV, and also distorts the facts, while other editors don't agree and think that adding the map would be okay. It seems to me that if many of the participants agree that the map would be a major NPOV violation, and pushes a one-sided political agenda, that trumps other editors saying that it would enhance the article slightly by providing an attractive graphic of summary information. Also, part of why JPMcGrath's editing is tendentious is that he keeps saying that editors such as myself have not explained why adding the map would violate NPOV, when in fact we've just spent the last seven months explaining it, over and over and from many different perspectives. There's a difference between "you've explained the reasoning behind your opinions at great length and in many different ways, but I still don't agree," and "you haven't explained the reasoning behind your opinions," but the difference seems to elude JPMcGrath. So, I find it hard to believe that prolonging the discussion any further would have much benefit at this point. — Mudwater 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, that debate is still going on? As I recall, the main issue with that map is that it presupposes certain things and gives a value judgment as to each state's attitude toward gun control. The problem is whether that map presents an unbiased assessment. Since they themselves are its authors, obviously they are going to judge which parameters to be used. Now, if you had a similar map from the point of view of the NRA, those two maps would be interesting for the reader to compare, and see if they "agree" on each states' attitude toward gun control, even though the groups are obviously on opposite sides of the issue. That is, the NRA might consider a restrictive state to be a "bad" state, and the Brady bunch might consider it to be a "good" state - but it's possible they might rank the states the same way, just flip-flopped in order. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the forum for content dispute, but to clarify the argument is that all maps offer up a POV that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic listing of state laws, not that the "Brady" map alone should be removed. Let's please be clear on the prime mover is, and not allow this to become an issue directed at a single point. Rapier (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that a map like that could be useful, IF it were verifiable and not pushing a viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It may well be useful in the context that Bugs describes, but it's simply not acceptable to keep readding it as it's been done here. There needs to be the wider context that Bugs is talking about if there's any chance for this kind of advocacy ranking to be relevant in a general state article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will post my response as soon as I can get it together. — JPMcGrath (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor translating an article to another Misplaced Pages

I noticed Rapsar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also tr:User:Rapsar) has translated WP's article La Massana into Turkish Misplaced Pages here and here. WP's policy on translations is Misplaced Pages:Translation#How_to_translate; it says editors who are doing translations of foreign-language articles into English Misplaced Pages must attribute their source by writing both an edit summary in the translated article on the destination Misplaced Pages as well as a talk page notice, saying where on the foreign-language Misplaced Pages they obtained their source material. I think the same principle applies between any wikis. At the moment, trwiki's La Massana has no such attribution in an edit summary on the article or on the talk page.

I asked User:Rapsar to remedy this oversight on Turkish Misplaced Pages. He replied, "I didn't just translate it. I found some extra sources to write the article. BTW, we don't have any policy like this in tr. Wiki. So, I can't do this."

Although User:Rapsar is one of the most active and experienced editors on Turkish Misplaced Pages, I think his position is out of line with WP's copyright licensing GFDL and CC-BY-SA. As for Wikimedia Foundation's policy, I think the terms of use require editors on all Wikipedias to acknowledge their sources when doing translations of articles from other Wikipedias. If it is correct that Turkish Misplaced Pages does not have any relevant policies about translations, it seems there is potential to encourage widespread copyright non-compliance. For all I know this may have been happening for some time in other articles on Turkish Misplaced Pages, not necessarily translated by User:Rapsar. It needs further research by somebody fluent in Turkish; I am not, so I cannot check. Apart from Turkish, what is the current position on other language Wikipedias?

Are there any administrators here who could provide policy-based advice to User:Rapsar, and are there any Turkish-English bilingual administrators here who may be in a position to help Turkish Misplaced Pages come into copyright compliance? I have informed User:Rapsar of this thread. I hope this is the right forum to raise this issue; please say if it is not. Thanks. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure what the English Misplaced Pages can do about this other than advice the proper procedure...what goes on at the Turkish Misplaced Pages is outside our jurisdiction...however, I will admit in this case the lines are a bit blurrier since it involves cross-wiki activity. Ks0stm 17:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So, are we essentially just toothless dogs who can bark but not bite? What's the point of having a copyright in Wikimedia Foundation's projects? 85.94.184.115 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll let other people weigh in; I'm just not sure as to what to do. Ks0stm 17:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the way other projects are dealing with copyright issues, in particular the attribution requirements for the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, you should take it up with the wikimedia foundation or on meta. We at the English wikipedia are indeed toothless dogs. (Some people here may not be toothless, but that's something they got outside the English wikipedia.) Alternatively, I would suggest a good faith effort to communicate with the Turkish wikipedia (rather then one member if you believe the issue is widespread) in a first instance would be advisable. Most wikipedias do have embassies I believe (tr:Vikipedi:Büyükelçilik appears to be the Turkish one) and there is also Misplaced Pages:Translation which may help you find people who can help you comminicate if necessary. P.S. Well technically I guess English wikipedia contributors to the article in question may have grounds to sue people who have violated their license which is something they gained from here but that's obviously a dumb road to go down. Nil Einne (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Question might be better posed at Meta? Just a thought.    Thorncrag  19:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I left a note at the Turkish Misplaced Pages embassy pointing out this discussion and asking for someone who knows Turkish to bring it up for discussion at the appropriate place on that wiki. However, it wouldn't be a bad idea to also bring it up on Meta. Ks0stm 20:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will ask on Meta. Thanks Ks0stm, Nil Einne, Thorncrag for your thoughts. Meanwhile, since there are many admins on WP with experience of copyright issues, I'd appreciate hearing their thoughts too, although some of them tend not to edit much on Sundays. Please leave this thread open. I think it would be useful to have further input here once Meta have had a chance to consider the issue. 85.94.184.115 (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for a generic question on copyrights (I don't really know where to ask since it isn't really an issue for us per se but perhaps Misplaced Pages talk:Copyrights) but if your question is about the whether the Turkish wikipedia practice is okay, I would agree it's not. If they're using content from some under wikipedia with a CC-BY-SA license, even if they're adding additional info, they need to attribute the original source (which will have the edit history) in some way whether a link in the edit summary or in the talk page (precisely what is necessary I don't have enough experience to say). Even when copying within the English wikipedia, you are supposed to link to the original source article. Nil Einne (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I read you post at Meta page, so came here to ask a qustion. I edite in Russian WP generally, and I use the articles of English WP. please write, what you would like it be written, if the translation was made of English article to other language division of WP. Thank you in advance. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, an attribution to show where the article came from in an edit summary and on the talk page would be fine. I don't think the wording is important, as long as it includes a cross-wiki link to the article in enwiki, e.g. ]. I suppose you could use a wording similar to Misplaced Pages:Translation#How_to_translate which says editors who are doing a translation of foreign-language article into English Misplaced Pages must attribute their source by writing both an edit summary in the translated article as well as a talk page notice, saying where on the foreign-language Misplaced Pages they obtained their source material? 85.94.184.115 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Suicide notice

Suicide Reporting

Does anyone want to vote to change Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm to official policy? I'm not sure where to post this, but it seems it is the consensus right now, so why not make it policy?--TalkToMe_c 23:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with doing that. Access Denied  23:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those areas that isn't/shouldn't be subject to community consensus; the policy needs to come down from the Foundation, though probably with community collaboration.    Thorncrag  00:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I can't state how strongly I support this idea. Wonderful idea. I suspect Godwin will have something to say about it. He should be notified of this. However, there is nothing that states such a policy can only come from the foundation. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 8)No, it should not be policy, only a guideline. We cannot force people to carry out those actions, and we are certainly not going to sanction people for failing to do so. Further, it is ridiculously involved and sets out expectations that are unrealistic. Risker (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing a threat protocol internally right now, and consulting with similar organizations. I think it's likely that we'll emerge with some sort of guidelines, but I'm not comfortable mandating a particular course of action. In the meantime, the FIRST thing that anyone does should probably be to email emergencywikimedia.org, which notifies us. Then, continue with the steps at WP:SUICIDE. That way, we can get involved as soon as we are notified. Thanks for your concern, everyone. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If a person blocked for making a comment like this (for example Parasect, who is apparently a teenager, is now blocked from everywhere including his own talk page, and currently only has the standard ANI notification on his talk page) wishes to inform the WMF that there is no need to pursue discussions with the authorities further, what is the best way for that person to achieve that? And, should that be briefly explained on the person's talk page? Just thinking that, although we should assume suicide threats are genuine, we also should make it simple to avoid taking up more police time than strictly necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

instructions have been updated per your above statement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it policy at this time. First, although the current threat appears to be serious (or at least, to be a sincere cry for help), the majority of such threats are from attention-seeking teens: an official policy requiring us to give them attention might lead to an increase in threats, which might cause us to miss the real ones. Second, we traditionally don't require action from users or admins. And third, because this is an area likely to lead to real-world moral and legal consequences, I think that any policies regarding it should only be made with ample help from Mr. Godwin and the Foundation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A policy that says report the incident to should by no means be deemed controversial and it absolves users of any other obligations. It's then up to staff to decide what to do, as it should.    Thorncrag  00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong agreement with Risker and FisherQueen. No to policy at this time; many of these "threats" are merely trolling -- an anon scribbling on your talk page, "I'm going to kill myself" is not anything anyone should be obligated to report to authorities. This particular case is different because it's an editor with a history here. Beware hasty actions that have the aroma of a moral panic, which this one does. Individuals may report these things in accordance with their individual judgement. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I shall shortly be gone from here, for one reason or another. I'd prefer it if the fuss was minimised. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Er... Rod, could you clarify whether you're planning to log off for the evening, to retire from Misplaced Pages, or to commit suicide? This comment is a bit unclear for me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's report Rod. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm let's see. A teenager and established editor who makes a suicide threat is almost immediately blocked (including from his own talk page), doesn't even receive the courtesy of the standard talk page template for such things, and is reported to the police. An admin and established editor makes a rather more vague threat but of a similar nature, and it's a subject for levity. If my name started with M, I'd make some cynical but pithy comments about this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*sigh* another Malleus reference? Access Denied  01:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It was my first! Ever! I'll stick with "he who must not be named" in future, I suppose. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If it would be appropriate, would someone from the foundation please let us know how this situation turned out in the end? I think it would help alleviate some editors concerns if we know what the end result is, as I think we're all hoping for this to be resolved for the better. Ks0stm 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, should we really drop an AN/I notice on possible suicide user talk? For one, as has been pointed out already, if the user is just a troll it would seem to only serve their jollies, and for two, I see no reason to risk mis-interpretation of the message that the user is in trouble, particularly if they really are in a suicidal mind frame.    Thorncrag  03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the appropriate place to raise it, although emergency@ might've been even better - which is now in the guidelines (it wasn't before). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is blocking him policy? And if so/not, is it appropriate? I for one would be more for him being able to talk on his page... even if it meant watching what responses are posted. As long as he is talking... (and sometimes, that's all people need - and it give the chance to point him in the right direction - on that note, from scanning his userpage and realizing he's in the US, I posted the NSPH number). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 05:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy saying to do so. There is an essay saying that it has sometimes been done. It's not an easy situation for anyone. I personally would also support allowing him to post on his own talk page. Yes I'm sure there are potential drawbacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ks0stm, there are very few circumstances in which the police would report back the outcome to us, and even fewer under which I'd be free to share it here, unfortunately. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As we are discussing this I will reiterate the same advice I have given in the past (both on and off WP). Whilst we in LE are always happy to recieve notification of suicide threats such as this please do not simply report it as an emergency by default. These will always be acted upon as an emergency, tying up policy time and effort and risking taking away from other emergencies. They will wake up the ISP's and get log records and dispatch a patrol car :) Factor in how often this happens on the internet and you will not be surprised how often such responses occur. One common fall out is the poster/troll can be in trouble for wasting police time etc. Obviously; if the message seems urgent and clear then the right response is to call the police ASAP. But if the message is ambiguous, unclear or contains no immediate urgency then please report it as a routine matter. I realise that is something of a difficult distinction to make here, especially as non-experts, and so we should always err on the side of caution. But many incidents look a lot like trolling, so a little discretion will always be appreciated. Ultimately: we are not, and should not be, responsible for the actions of others. EDIT: although, to clarify, in this case contacting as an emergency was the right response. I'm only saying the above because of the vastly more vague suicide threats I've seen reported in the last few days :) --Errant 12:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not meaning to rain on the parade, but it seems WP:TOV was once up for policy/guideline and was rejected by the community. Just FYI. Basket of Puppies 15:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been up for policy multiple times, and failed. The reason that it's an essay is that there were two prior attempts to do a "real policy" that failed horribly badly; I wrote the essay to cover what admins were doing in best practice, and then various people have fought over making it a policy on and off since then.

There isn't and probably never will be unanimous agreement on it. There really doesn't need to be; if some other person doesn't want to get involved and objects to this way of doing things, that's fine; anyone who sees the situation and choses to do what most admins (and the Foundation) feel is a best practice, here it is.

Responding up a bit to Errant / tmorton166; Your point is well taken, but keep in mind that Wikipedians (even administrators) have no special training in determining how credible threats of suicide are. We've been told unanimously by law enforcement and psychiatrists that if any individual person feels that it's credible at all, reporting it and having the LE and professionals figure it out is appropriate. When people report, they need to do so accurately conveying what was written, so that we don't cause a mistaken response. But we aren't experts.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This point: When people report, they need to do so accurately conveying what was written is not, I think, currently mentioned in the essay, and is worth adding. There was a recent incident recently where someone had made an edit that to me seemed obviously just a lamentation about the problem of teen suicide and a past tense reference to a past victim; but it was reported to the authorities anyway. It may be appropriate to report such things because, as you say, we are not the experts in deciding what needs action and what doesn't. However, if that approach is taken, then it's essential that what is reported to authorities, is the exact text posted by the person, not an opinion about what we think it means. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll note here, since an update was requested above; the user in question is back on Misplaced Pages and therefore (implicitly) alive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevant link to information and unblock is here Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI /_CNTRB 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) - bit of a mess

Following User:Racepacket's recent move of The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) to Cornell literary societies and subsequent editing, User:Cmagha has cut and pasted the original version of that article to The Irving Literary Society and in the process removed all the edit history as well as creating an unattributed content fork. Also, Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1 was not moved when Talk: The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) was moved to Talk:Cornell literary societies and is now stranded, although I've added a link to it at the newly titled talk page.

I then contacted Cirt because he was the administrator who handled the original restoration of the article after this deletion review, if nothing else to merge the page history of Cornell literary societies to the fork The Irving Literary Society. Although, that's only one aspect of this tangle. However, he suggested that the issue should probably be dealt with here. I will notify User:Racepacket and User:Cmagha of this discussion as well as the talk pages of the relevant articles. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that almost all of the sources deal with a group of four of the student literary societies that existed at Cornell from 1868 to 1888. The sources cited indicate that the Irving (a coeducational literary society that included members from a variety of fraternities) held its last known meeting on May 23, 1887. A current undergraduate fraternity claims (without sources) that the Irving was "absorbed" into that male-only fraternity and that its membership has continued over the years as being co-extensive with the fraternity. They have incorporated a link to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) into their website used for rushing and member recruitment. I cannot find any secondary sources to support this claim or the continuation of The Irving as a registered student organization.

To fix up the article to reflect what the sources say (e.g., a discussion of a number of co-equal literary societies) I moved it to Cornell literary societies and changed the phrases "The Iriving and its peers" to "the literary societies". I have also found a number of WP:SYN, WP:OR and mischaracterization of sources problems, which I am trying to fix. As for the latest step, which is User:Cmagha restarted the Irving-centered article at The Irving Literary Society, there are problem because WP:ORG provides "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." So, absent a sourced connection to the Irving, the present-day local fraternity would not justify a separate article. I suggest that we place a notice on WikiProject Cornell, and mobilize an effort to improve the Cornell literary societies article and perhaps start an AFD on the latest content fork. I only became aware of this problem yesterday, and was not aware of Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. A would appreciate any technical help in correcting any mistakes made in the move. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I heard from two of the other editors after the title was changed; was somewhat confusing. There is room for both concepts, Racepacket's idea of a general article, and one on the Irving. The Irving article has been through review twice, the original AfD and then the petition to restore under deletion review. What has been harder to understand is the perceived animosity (language such as 'outrageous') and the persistance of the opposition to the article, despite some excellent help along the way. As Racepacket indentifies questions re: factual citations, the editors will address.--Cmagha (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this is a perfect example of how deletion review is not perfect. At a glance the article looks well crafted, and I think it was for this reason it passed an AFD review. The editors didn't actually take the time to read the sources for the article carefully and compare them with the wiki article. The article should never have been allowed to be recreated. It's chalk full of original research, misconstrued sources, peacockery, and inflated claims that have no supportig evidence. The main editor who contributed to the article has a clear conflict of interest and has repeatedly reverted and or ignored the advice of multiple experienced wikipedians who have tried to point out wiki policy regaurding original research, verifiabilty, etc. Those of us who supported deletion in the first two AFDs got tired of arguing and didn't participate in the deletion review process. If anything the re-created article is worse than the ones that got deleted before. Sigh.4meter4 (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ouch. I didn't learn how to revert until someone asked me to help with vandalism about a month ago, so that looks a little dubious, above. When compared to the original, this article does look spiffy, in part because of the great, if not somewhat tonal, coaching.--Cmagha (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I wouldn't blame the deletion review process per se. As poor as the "revised" article was (and still is in its current fork), it probably did have sufficient sources to minimally establish notability, at least for the mid-19th century Irving Literary Society at Cornell. Notability is the only remit of deletion discussions and reviews. They are not concerned with content and style issues unless there are BLP or copyright concerns. Content and style issues and COI concerns need to be addressed through ordinary editing. But whether there is eventually one article or two, the current title of the fork The Irving Literary Society is not suitable and should be moved back to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University). As was pointed out at AfD: The Irving Literary Society, there are multiple distinct Irving Literary Societies in the US, several of which are more notable than this one, have a longer history, and are still in existence. Voceditenore (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have moved and relinked the article Talk:The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University)/Archive 1. I have tagged the article The Irving Literary Society. However, "don't bite the newbies" can only go so far. I am a bit troubled by the apparent meatpuppet relationship between Cmagha and at least Coldplay3332. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• So this is resolved? We can just concentrate on improving both articles, Cornell literary societies and the Irving Literary Society? By the way, Coldplay3332 and Cmagha are very different people. No meat; no sock.--Cmagha (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ONE WEEK FREEZE requested on deleting US election/candidate articles

It is a week and a day before the U.S. elections, and suddenly a lot of candidate articles are being deleted (examples: Scott M. Sipprelle and Douglas Herbert). This is not the time for this. The world will not end if we wait a week, but we will get lots of unwanted news coverage if this continues prior to the election, seriously harming the reputation of Misplaced Pages. I have no quarrel if someone deletes an article which was slapped together in the past week or so by a rabid partisan and has no non-partisan voter information links, etc. I do have a problem with articles which have been around for months, show quite a number of people spending time and effort, and weren't discussed for notability until now. I wish I had caught some of them earlier myself (such as the Herbert article), but I didn't, so for now I added some links and did some formatting - and will be more than happy to nominate it for merging after the election is over. But imo it wouldn't be right to rush to judgement now, and certainly not to nominate all the 'challenger' articles now just so I could delete them in a week, the day before the election, as seems to be the 'new plan'. Think of Misplaced Pages's reputation. Several of us have been marking articles for merging, we have participated in discussions, but some articles were missed, and some articles didn't reach a clear consensus so we're waiting until after the elections. 'We the serious workers' have been trying to assume good faith. I can't say the same for these "johnny-came-latelies". (And yes, partisanship can be seen in deleting likely-to-win candidate articles for one party, and only "no-real-hopers" from another. Thanks for asking.) Flatterworld (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Douglas Herbert hasn't been deleted. It hasn't even been sent to AFD Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It had (very appropriately) been turned into a redirect to the article on the district, since this is a pretty pathetic excuse for a claim for notability; but another editor reverted the redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes just noticed . Sorry I missed that Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be simple: articles that meet the GNG and WP:POLITICIAN are kept, and articles that don't are removed. I think Tarc's approach on Douglas Herbert above was pretty good: redir for now, and if people happen to win the office then they would be notable and could have an article (which could just be retrieved from the history). How many articles on candidates for the UK Parliamentary Elections did we allow to persist earlier this year? An alternative to how Tarc was approaching it is that questionable notable candidates for offices can be put up for AFD, you know. I bet the questionably notable candidates for offices attempting to use Misplaced Pages to further their campaign would love that. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. We've consistently treated such candidates in many elections for many nations, states, provinces and localities the same way. In this specific case, I am not seeing much notability, yet. Resolute 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And at this point what is accomplished by sending one of these candidates to AFD when we don't know what the status will be when the AFD is over? Candidates sent over last week, no problem. If they are already at AFD, no problem. But let's hold off on any new noms because by the time the AFD is over the AFD will be over and we'll have a better sense of what is going on.---Balloonman 15:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)Strong Support I agree. At this point in time, sending articles to AFD will be counterproductive. Whether the candidate currently meets N or not, all we are going to do is end up with a number of AFD's and long debates over notability---which in most cases will not really be determinable until next Tuesday anyway. EG An article gets nominated for AFD tomorrow. The AFD runs it's course. We have a lot of people checking out Doug's page at the last minute to find out who the candidate is. They see the AFD tag and join in the discussion. Suddenly we have a score of politically motivated individuals chiming in on a debate concerning notability. If the AFD ends in favor of keeping the candidate, but they fail to win what happens? Do we keep the failed candidate because we ran an AFD the week before the election and the people who joined in the conversation were interested in the debate? Or if the AFD ends in favor of deleting the candidate, but they do win the position, thus becoming notable---do we delete the article because the AFD said to delete? In other words, by the time the AFD comes to resolution, we will have a clearer picture of who really meets our notability guidelines. In the mean time, I agree with Flatterworld, if we send a lot of articles to AFD because they haven't won yet, we might get a lot of coverage. Any time debating these candidates right now would be wasted and would likely be riddled with people coming to the AFD pages from outside of WP. Let's just put a moritorium on them until after the election at which point we can better and more accurately assess who is worth keeping and who we have to get rid of. Plus, at this point in time, the person(s) who are likely to nominate these articles are going to be the ones who have interest in the elections---eg more motivated by politics than by WP policies/guidelines.---Balloonman 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC) NOTEMoving ot Neutral I still think this is a good idea, but I just went through the last 3 days of current AFD's and 3 days worth of AFD's just prior to the 2008 election cycle. I was convinced that there would be some obvious examples showing how this had been abused, but I didn't see it being abused. Is it a concern? Yes. Am I willig to revisit it? Definitely, if you can show me how it was abused in 2008 and is being abused right now. So eventhough I can see the benefit of of the proposal, I'm not sure if I am convinced of the need.---Balloonman 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)NOTE 2: Moving back to support.Tarc has decided to make this into an issue and has decided to be pointy about these cases. In any AFD the guidance should be for the closing administrator. The closing administrator shuold not be acting to delete these cases until next Monday or Tuesday at the earliest---at which point, having this discussion becomes a moot point. Any guidance provided needs to be based upon the final resolution of the election. Any !vote taken prior to that is guesswork as to what the situation will be at that time.---Balloonman 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. If it were, we would have a lot more articles on people's sister's cousin's friend's Myspace bands. Syrthiss (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You are exactly right, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, which is why we SHOULDN'T be deleting anything until after the election. At this point running an AFD is wasted time and energy. In the time that it takes us to run an AFD we will have a more conclusive answer as to whether or not somebody is or isn't notable.---Balloonman 15:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose I understand where the requester is coming from, but this is inherently non-workable. Does this mean, for example, that every city council candidate, every non-starter candidate (though I like that Rent is Too Damn High party guy!) can set up a page on wikipedia and not have it deleted until after next Tuesday? Obviously we don't want a flood of non-notable candidates setting up pages on wikipedia and being retained unexamined. Finally, if we do this for the US, why not for other countries? Elections in Burma are coming up as well with thousands of candidates, minor and major, who should be covered by this generalized one week exemption. To be brief, this is an unworkable bad idea. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I would go along with a caveat, that this would only apply to people who are running for positions that are generally deemed notable (Governor, US Congressmen, and US House of Rep.)---Balloonman 15:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • That still lets in a host of minor candidates (like the Rent is Too Damn High party's Jimmy McMillan who is amongst seven candidates running for Governor of New York). Also, what about Burma?--RegentsPark (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The fact that you can mention the Rent is too damn high party and people know what you are talking about clearly indicates Jimmy's notoriety and the fact that he's become an internet sensation. As for Burma, we are only talking about positions wherein notability would generally be perceived if they won (Congressmen,Governor,Representative.) If we are talking about a Burmese position that generally conveys notability, then fine... but I don't think the Burmese get as rabid about editing wikipedia.---Balloonman 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • JM may or may not be notable but that's precisely what AfD is there for. Meanwhile there are four other candidates, and I saw them all on the debate, but even I can't remember their names. Bottom line, there are lots of countries and lots of elections with loads of minor candidates who are there just for the heck of it. I think this is a slippery slope that is best not ventured onto. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
          • RegentsPark, I was clear that I was talking about articles which have been around for months, NOT those recently created. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Balloonman. We can do all the cleanup needed next week. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Many don't even pass the requirements of WP:BLP. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTWEBHOST, and being on Misplaced Pages should never be used as an attempt to actually gain some kind of notability. I still have a userspace draft around of someone who was notable on their own and then ran for city council, lost, and the article was deleted ... there are too many wannabe's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• oppose subjects should pass notability. There are far too many no name, no chance of winning whatsoever articles out there. If they are notable they stay. If no they don't seems reasonable. We should not have a moratorium on removing fringe people who have no notability. The problem with most politician articles is noone cares until the week before the election so the only time to remove them without them having an unneeded article forever is now. -Tracer9999 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Misplaced Pages is not a free web hosting service for every third-party write-in candidate for city dog catcher and similar elected offices. Candidates that meet Misplaced Pages's usual criteria for inclusion should be kept while those that fail these standards should not be saved just because they might someday become notable. --Allen3  16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support And ask that sudden spates of negative information be avoided in any such BLPs. The deadline on WP is long enough for this. Collect (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as redirector. - I'll explain my rationalization here. Following participation in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andy Barr (Kentucky) last week, I decided to sift through United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 – complete list to see what else was there. What I found was a lot of people with Misplaced Pages articles who do not meet the threshold of either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, so I redirected them to the appropriate district race article and section. I left alone anyone with a hint of notability...i.e. state senators, mayors, city council, leading businessman, etc... Everything I redirected was the article of a person who had done nothing else but be nominated by their party to run for office; Rep, Dem, and Green were unspared. Even some of those who were only candidates but seemed to have demonstrated sufficient notability (i.e. Stephene Moore I left alone. Purposefully leaving these notability failures in place for a week under some kind of silly "freeze" proposal is tantamount to free electioneering IMO. Non-notable is non-notable, whether a week or a year before an election. Nothing was deleted, so if any of these people actually win, that simply gets undone; nothing is lost. I'd rather not waste AfD time on certain redirect results, so the desired outcome her would be for Flatterworld (and InaMaka now that I look at some contribs here), two warring factions of an ideological debate if I ever saw some, to restore the redirects. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • At the time the Stephene Moore article was created, she was considered the likely winner. I'm not part of some 'warring faction' here, and obviously you haven't checked out my contributions to figure that out. Flatterworld (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Oppose per BWilkins: if the fact that they're running for a notable positions means they suddenly hit the news in a week, then an article can be written at that point. But any subject which does not meet our notability guidelines now can and should be deleted, and any article simply attempting to use wikipedia to gain notability or advertise their polical campaign should be speedily deleted as G11. Note that I have not looked at the articles specifically so I'm not making any specific recommendations for AfD or speedy deletion in any particular case, but I strongly oppose a blanket against-policy "freeze" of taking these articles to AfD; the articles should be assessed against policy in the same way as any other article. GiftigerWunsch 16:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As per BWilkins and Giftiger wunsch - being a candidate no one ever heard of shouldn't guarantee an article, certainly shouldn't let people use us for publicity. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support and Clarification: I am talking about official candidates, on the general election ballot, for U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator. Many of these are involved in "Tossup" races, so our readers are indeed interested in learning about them - particularly in following the links to Project Vote Smart, Open Secrets, Follow the Money, the FEC, etc. Furthermore, I am talking about articles which have been around for months and no one was interested in deleting them. There are articles which were discussed/merged/deleted earlier, when tempers were a bit cooler. As I said earlier Douglas Herbert is an example of an article I wish I had caught earlier. Scott M. Sipprelle is another article I restored today, and I suggest you consider that. He's not a "no-hoper" (unlike Herbert), and there's definitely growing page views. Assuming we exist to provide information, and assuming there's some wisdom in crowds as to what they're interested in, I simply see no reason to delete all these articles right before the election.. Flatterworld (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Note the above comment is also by the nominator, so when/if it comes time to tally, don't double-count.

  It has nothing to do with no-hopers or shoe-ins, it has to do with the project's accepted standards for notability, and just being a candidate doesn't cut it on its own. An encyclopedia is not a campaign guide. Also, if you look at the complete list, the majority of challengers don't even have pages. I'd wager that the majority of what does exist for these non-notable figures were started by staffers or close-to-the-source partisans. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

But a candidate as you mention in a toss-up race would qualify because of significant coverage, yes? JodyB _talk 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:Politician does a fine job of handling these articles. Any candidate with significant coverage in reliable sources stays. No need to make some big change here. JodyB _talk 16:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, see ] which I restored today. Flatterworld (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment -- Here is another example: The next to last version of an article about Ed Potosnak, who is a Congressional candidate in the district next to that of Douglas Herbert. This article was turned into a redirect three days ago, but nobody has reverted it, so it's still a redirect, to United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey, 2010#District 7. I agree with the originator of this thread that the week before an election is not the time to be disappearing and/or reappearing articles about candidates, especially major-party candidates for a national-level legislature. In fact, I would make it a longer period than that. So I am neither supporting nor opposing the "one week freeze" since I don't think it goes far enough. I would go for a retroactive freeze going back to (say) the beginning of October, which I assume would be even less popular with those who oppose the current proposal. Then I think there needs to be a discussion about WP:POLITICIAN and whether it is too restrictive, but that can wait until after the election. Neutron (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it does a lousy job when there are hundreds of articles and only a week before the election. As I said, see Scott M. Sipprelle which I resotred today. Flatterworld (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That article should stay because it has significant coverage in reliable sources. JodyB _talk 16:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent example - you should have checked the discussion on it as there was clearly no consensus to delete and Tarc simply acted on his own. That's the partisanship I'm talking about, and why we need a freeze. Flatterworld (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

When in the linked example you start using phrases like 'it is an insult', and calling people partisan I start to think that you may be getting too heavily involved in this discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Syrthiss, you misread that. That was a separate comment about each District in the election article itself. I checked the official candidate list form the Secretary of State and found lots of candidate which weren't listed as candidates in the District section. Nothing to do with Potosnak. Please stop jumping to wild conclusions bsed on a quick skimming of a Talk page. Flatterworld (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I misread nothing. In the link you give discussion here (I agree with no connection to Potosnak), you say that to leave names out "is an insult". Syrthiss (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• • (ecx3)Until next week any discussion on these candidates is meaningless. Plus, if you are going strictly off of coverage, then any failed Senatorial/Governor/Representative from one of the major parties would be notable and this whole thing would be meaningless. Until next week, all people will argue is that there is a ton of coverage, but ignore the guidance about failed candidates.---Balloonman 16:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• It might be too early to close right now, but this does seem like a discussion which won't go very far unless something changes in what it is that is being asked/proposed here.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should not be an election campaign notice-board. Let the normal rules apply. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support Per Flatterworld.--InaMaka (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support While I understand the concern that Misplaced Pages can be used for political promotion by non-notable candidates, a week out from an election the risk of ill-intentioned deleting outweighs it. Arbor832466 (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So, we send the world a signal that Misplaced Pages is not for promotion except for a week before any election, when it is open house for candidates' campaign posters? JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Any disruptive nomination will be speedily kept. You're not proposing watching out for disruptive nominations, however, you're proposing allowing non-notable individuals to use wikipedia to further their political campaign and make them immune from community discussion. That cannot be allowed. GiftigerWunsch 17:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Does anyone else find it concerning that the last two support !votes have come from users who have been left a note by Flatterworld which isn't exactly neutral? "The deletes are being done by people I don't recognize being involved in any actual article work." GiftigerWunsch 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Well, Flatterworld did also post that same message to OrangeMike who appears to oppose above (supporting the redirect) at the same time. Syrthiss (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  I noticed that, but it doesn't alleviate my concerns that the message was campaigning, being a non-neutral message. It should have been a simple notification, not attempting to colour the discussion by suggesting that those in favour of deletion are somehow less entitled to their opinion. The user also should have informed those who proposed deletion or created the redirects, or it is also votestacking, addressing only those who the user feels may agree (the fact that Orangemike disagreed doesn't change that, I don't see Tarc being notified, for example). Actually Tarc was notified, but with an entirely different message (and a rather less civil one). GiftigerWunsch 17:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Tarc was the first person of the four people notified. Granted neutrally worded is the preferred manner, but he did notify people on both sides of the spectrum and did so promptly and in limited scale.---Balloonman 17:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Giftiger, I left messages for the only two Wikipedians who have been involved with lots of election and candidate articles on an ongoing basis this time around, including earlier discussions of when to delete, merge, etc. OrangeMike I remembered as being quite involved in 2008. You really should try viewing the contributions of each of us before you go into ooh!ooh! mode. (btw - I didn't appreciate Tarc's attitude, particularly after all the contributions I've made in this area. Anyone who calls me 'sport' in such a contemptuous fashion deserves whaevert they get, imo. 'Assume Good Faith' is not a suicide pact.) Flatterworld (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I can't say that I cared much for unilateral reversion of the redirects without thought or comment, so "Touché, Pussy Cat!. :) Tarc (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN exist for a reason. Notable candidates stay and non-notable candidates go (or get redirected to the appropriate election artic) per WP:Misplaced Pages is not a source for election candidate biographies. As I've stated quite a few times in related Afds, I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. If a non-notable candidate receives coverage in the context of the election, then per WP:BLP1E a redirect should be made to the election article. Location (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, if we're putting in bolded stuff here. I fail to see how this is different from any other form of crystal ballery. If the candidate later becomes notable, we can always put the article back iff such a thing happens. If not, why give such articles special treatment? Seraphimblade 03:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose.' The candidates that people are actually interested in will be covered by the media and they're notable. The others, no great loss. That's the point of WP:GNG.  Sandstein  05:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with some clarification - Many of these articles that are being proposed for deletion have existed for months. Why would all of the sudden a whole slew of articles for challenger candidates from major parties be considered non-notable now? Why not shortly after they were created? That is why I believe these AfDs are in bad faith. However, I do think that a moratorium on AfDs should be specific to federal legislative or gubernatorial races where the candidate is either in a major party that's on the ballot or is a prominent third party challenger (i.e. Tom Tancredo for the sake of argument in the Colorado gubernatorial election, 2010). As I said in one of the AfDs, it's not like these are articles for the city dogcatcher. --NINTENDUDE 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this raise a BLP concern?

I'm breaking this out into a separate area because I think Collect has made an extremely salient point that might get overlooked by people looking at this primarily from an AFD/Notability criteria. This is the final week before one of the most heated elections in American History. Venture onto any candidates page or issue and you'll see a ton of heated debates. I've been called to moderate a few over the past few weeks and it is never fun.

As the final week approaches us, we will be confronted with people nominating candidates for deletion based upon notability issues. This can be done in an attempt to discredit said individuals. As such, the nom itself would become a BLP concern. Even if the nom isn't, then there may be allegations/statements made on the candidates AFD pages that are not supported and cross the line becoming a BLP violation.

No we are not a campaign notice board, but there is no harm done to wikipedia in allowing these articles to exist for one week more (the length of time it would take to get an AFD through anyways) to find out who really does and does not meet the expectations of POLITICIAN. Any !vote now doesn't really matter, what happens in a week (when the AFD would end) will really play a huge role in whether or not an article is kept or deleted.---Balloonman 16:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I of course agree, but some of those 'Merge' notices (including some I posted myself) were made with the consensus of the workers at the time that they wouldn't be acted upon until after the election. We deleted and merged the obvious ones (such as a no-hoper candidate/staff doing a quick cut and paste from their campaign site, no outside refs other than those quoting the campaign site) but the rest we decided to give the benefit of the doubt for the time being. My crystal ball is on the blink, unfortunately. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"No harm" ? Really? Also, I will note again that I paid zero attention to party affiliation. As far as I can recall, (R), (D), and even a (G) all met the ax. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Er Tarc, you missed the entire point. Nominating them MAY DO harm, leaving them without an AFD tag avoids the BLP issue. And last time I checked noharm was an opinion on an essay, whereas no harm is one of our key policies. Guess which one wins?------Balloonman 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Lemme get this straight. Your argument is that readers coming here to look up info on the candidate would be negatively prejudiced by a big "This article is subject to deletion" banner, therefore we should forgo the AfD process? Like "hey, this clown can't even keep a Wiki article? Hah, I'm not voting for him then!" To that I would say bullshit. And honestly, I question the basic voting competence of anyone who comes to an "anyone can edit" to find honest information on a political candidate. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nominating an article for deletion based on the fact that it doesn't meet our policies is not a WP:BLP problem, and claiming such is a horrendous failure to assume good faith. GiftigerWunsch 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, deleting a Republican 'contender' and a Democratic 'no hoper' is hardly the same thing. I restored both, and will now check the others. I also note you're not the only one doing these deletes, which is why I posted the freeze request. Flatterworld (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be nominated with the intent of causing harm. In some cases it will be, but the reality is that the effect might be.---Balloonman 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's utter nonsense I'm afraid. Any article may be nominated for deletion if the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria, and it's not a BLP violation to nominate such an article. If you can demonstrate that specific articles meet our criteria, then they will be kept. If they don't meet the criteria, they'll be deleted. GiftigerWunsch 17:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact the article exists pose another massive potential BLP problem. In that people could edit them negatively/positively. So for that reason we should summarily delete all of these articles to avoid any such problems. Ok, that was sarcasm, but I think there is strong rationale for imposing strong delete requirements on non-notable politicians in the run up to an election, it's easily the biggest example of "recentism" causing a groundswell of NN articles. --Errant 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. The software flags a lot of vandalism-type edits which are then corrected. Flatterworld (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see the BLP concern here. As noted, our notability criteria is what it is. Either an individual meets it, or they don't. If they don't, their article can be put up at AFD, redirected, PRODed, etc. I see no value in changing our process because of what can only be characterized as highly speculatory fears of some kind of undefined harm resulting from us following our own policies. Resolute 19:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Who creates these?

Analysis;

• Scott M. Sipprelle > Demintz13 (talk · contribs)
• Douglas Herbert > Wikipeople101 (talk · contribs)
• Scott Eckersley > MO Ro mney (talk · contribs) (with a likely WP:COI from a Jeckersley (talk · contribs)
• Jim Meffert > Ribaldknave (talk · contribs) and contribs from Wildgopher47 (talk · contribs)
• John Flerlage > Crudblue (talk · contribs)

What we have here are one-and-dones using the project for political advocacy. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and who is likely to nominate them for deletion? People using the project for political advocacy. And when it goes to AFD who is going to participate? AFD regulars? Misplaced Pages regulars? In many cases yes, but for the next week we are likely to get a strong dose of political advocacy intejected in there. It would be easier and clearer just to wait.---Balloonman 17:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC) (NOTE:Redacted with italicized info added.)

Baloonman, I seriously suggest you start assuming good faith rather than accusing the entire community of acting upon political motivations, because such accusations simply make it clear that you have a conflict of interest here. GiftigerWunsch 17:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides the Tea Party article where I've been asked to moderate, you'll find that I haven't participated in any political articles/afds/etc---I find them tedious and laborious--especially at this point in time where we have tons of people crawling out of the wood work to participate on these articles. I think we would be much much better served waiting a week until we know who won and who lost. But I will concede that this comment might have been taken too broadly, as many people might not be motivated from that perspective.---Balloonman 17:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, the only arguments which are worth anything in an AfD discussion are arguments which demonstrate that the article fails to meet wikipedia policy or guidelines, such as WP:GNG and the like. As always, any arguments to delete an article on a notable subject without a policy-based rationale, will simply be ignored. Disruptive nominations will be closed as speedy keep. GiftigerWunsch 17:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

So for the next week, we will get "Delete, candidate is only a candidate, has not won the position, therefore does not meet WP:POLITICIAN." Which, come next Tuesday is outdated because the candidate did win and is now the Representative/Senator/Governor of a state? Waiting a week, the time it would take the AFD to run anyways, will give everybody a much better picture of who really meets our Notability guidelines and who doesn't.---Balloonman 17:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball; we can't predict whether they'll win their elections or not. At the moment, many of the candidates are not notable. That means at the moment, the articles should not exist. If they are elected and thus meet the notability criteria afterwards, the articles can be freely recreated. I would suggest that any of these articles which are deleted at AfD, should be userfied so that they may be easily updated and returned to mainspace if they do overcome the issues raised at AfD, otherwise they can be discarded. GiftigerWunsch 17:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's because we can't predict that it is a waste of time to have these discussions. Any AFD started after tomorrow, the election will be over before the AFD is over. Any discussion that occurs BEFORE the election results is largely predicated upon the final outcome of said election. That being said, I did move to neutral above because I'm not convinced this is a problem needing an answer or an answer looking for a problem. In other words, I think sending articles to AFD this week is a waste of time, but I don't think we need to legislate not sending them to AFD.---Balloonman 18:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If they win, then the articles get un...wait for it...redirected. No history lost, and editing goes on. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

While you snicker and smirk at our readers who were trying to find informationa bout the candidates BEFORE the election. Brilliant. Flatterworld (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the actions of Tarc, ininstating support of the ban. It should be noted that anybody who !votes in one of his Pointy AFDs should do so from the perspective of not whether or not the article meets notability today, but rather will it when the time comes to delete it?---Balloonman 19:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is extremely misguided guidance you're providing, then. Anyone who weighs in on the discussion should do so with reasons that are grounded in actual editing policies and guidelines, not gazing into Professor Trelawney's crystal ball to predict election results. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The earliest they can be deleted per policy is Monday night. The night before the elections. Any guidance provided re deletion/keeps will be premature/heated/and a waste of effort.---Balloonman 19:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not Misplaced Pages's job to serve as a platform for non-notable candidates in an election. People looking for information can go to the websites of those candidates and local papers, advocacy sites, etc. As to AFD being a waste of time, if there are five candidates in one election, all of whom are presently NN, only one would become notable next week. Four of those articles would still be deleted or redirected, and in the case of the winner, any admin with half a brain would simply close their AfD as mooted, since every "delete - nn" argument would be obsolete. Resolute 19:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And Resolute, what administrator with half a brain would delete an article the night before the election knowing that the candidate might win the next day? What kind of press would that garner wikipedia? I can see the headlines now: "Misplaced Pages Deleted the articles of 20 newly elected politicians due to notability the night before the election." At a certain point, common sense has to come into play. The only smart thing that an admin could do next Monday or Tuesday would be to relist the article.---Balloonman 19:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All 20 of which would be restored before the newspapers hit the stands. Of course, it is unlikely that anyone but The Register would care too much about that, and the obvious rebuttal is "they weren't any more notable than any other candidate before they were elected". Resolute 19:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Balloon, ca you pelase drop "they will be deleted" canard? They were, and hopefully will be again, R-E-D-I-R-E-C-T-E-D. That means that the casual reader that some are so terribly concerned for here will not meet a dead end, will not wind up in an "OMG WIKIPEDIA IS TEH SUXX0RZ!" press article on election night. As far as they are concerned, their "search" will simply take them to a congressional district section of their state's elections. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, you know very well that as far as our readers are concerned, your version of a Merge (which has only been a redirect in the articles you've hit so far) means the material is deleted because they won't see it. Or are you telling us to believe that our typical reader will know enough to scroll up to the top of the election article (because the redirect is to the District section), click on the redirect, then click on History, then look for the earlier 'long' version of the article, then click on that, and finally read it for the information you're claiming has not been deleted - as opposed to our readers assuming there never was an article, just a redirect from the get-go. And of course that's not even possible if they're using the mobile version of Misplaced Pages. You seem to be rather delusional about our readers. As far as our readers are concerned, you deleted the article. And they will not be able to rely on Misplaced Pages to learn about the candidate before they vote. And you think that's hilarious. Flatterworld (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Whelp, that's that

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby

I take the above straw poll as non consensus leaning towards oppose, for a "freeze", so off we go with a few trial balloons. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tarc: Flatterworld has made very good points and it is only a few days from the election. I noticed that you have taken it upon yourself--without any input from other editors or even rudimentary attempt to reach concensus--merge complete articles out of existence. Please see: Michel Faulkner. Under no circumstance does the discussion above give you the ability to be the judge, jury, and executioner of some of these candidate articles. The discussion process alone will take up the remainder of the time between now and Election Day. Please keep that in mind when you head out to release a "few trial balloons".--InaMaka (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because inviting community discussion as to whether an article should be deleted, per long-established, regular process, is the same as being "judge, jury, and executioner". GiftigerWunsch 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And I would take this to be a case of being extremely WP:Pointy---Balloonman 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a case of having to deal with several obstinate editors who wish to circumvent notability guidelines for the sake of an election, or (in Flatterworld's admission) for the sake of how the media may view the Misplaced Pages getting rid of candidate's articles before an election. I'd rather not take the time to create an AfD for every article that this crew has reversed a redirect on; I'd optimistically like to see a bit of snowfall on the two created so far, then come back here with that showing of consensus and handle the rest without the need of AfDs. Hence the "trial balloon" term. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who snowball deletes them will be doing so against polcy. The earliest these can be deleted, will be Monday night the night before the election. If we have a mass deletion the evening before the election, then I too would be thinking about what the media might say. No admin in their right mind would delete one of these articles the night before. Thus, again, I call it pointy.---Balloonman 19:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Invoking snow, where appropriate, is not against policy. If there are no valid keeps, I could see these wrapping up in a day or two. I have to think if I'd gotten on the ball with this a week or so ago then all this wouldn't have generated so much noise. But y'know, shit happens, and here we are on 10-25-10. I find the "but we're only 8 days away" argument to be quite poor. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry to but in but, the day we/you/I give a rat's azz what the media might say or write is a sorry one in deed, imho. Stick to policy/guidelines. Forget about the day before election business. There will always be something happening event/election wise....anyways, carry on :)...--Threeafterthree (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Invoking WP:SNOW is fine where the deletion is non-controversial. The discussion here should show that any such deletion, in this topic area and at this time, would be controversial, and thus SNOW does not apply. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If anything it will snow keep... and you might as well pull Scott's nom now and concede that he is notable.---Balloonman 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT. Tarc has also requested an AfD for Steve Raby, so I added him to the list above. Flatterworld (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a major problem

This poses a major problem, as several excellent points have already been raised. However, one point which I think is forgotten is that if we let every single candidate (official or otherwise) have an article we risk having articles for non-notable candidates (as in, no third-party coverage) which gives them undue weight, AND those articles are very exposed to BLP violations whereas they won't likely be watched well. It's a double-edged sword. The community really needs to decide how to handle this from a process standpoint and evenly enforce whatever process is adopted by consensus. This is very much like Schrödinger's cat: a candidate cannot be both notable and non-notable at the same time. I would argue that for several reasons, an candidate being on the ballot is not enough notability to warrant an article.    Thorncrag  20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and define and distinguish why A7 wouldn't be invoked either.    Thorncrag  20:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think A7 is an option, then you should probably review the CSD criteria. CSD is explicitly set for a lower threshold than N. All it requires is a credible claim to significance---anybody who is running for Senator/Representative/Governor clearly is making a credible claim to significance. So, even if an article clearly fails to meet N/POLITICIAN, that does not mean it is eligible for CSD.---Balloonman 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I would have no problem with limiting this proposal to the major parties for Senator/Representative/Governor. We've already had one person start AFD's to make a WP:POINT... if he had chosen to let somebody else do so (or even wait a few days) this would have probably blown over, but he made a conscious decision to do so and post that decision here (the epitome of POINT.)---Balloonman 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether running for office is a credible claim is a philosophical question, not a question of Misplaced Pages policy. Personally, I question if it is. But that's not up to me to decide (or you, respectfully).    Thorncrag  20:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again Balloon, it would be in your best interests to stop lying and misrepresenting my actions here. I have no "point" to make; I wish to see ANY article held up to our established notability guidelines. Whether it is a politician, a famous person's son, or a toy makes no difference to me; show that it is notable, otherwise it should be canned. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thorncrag, your first point is NOT what we're arguing. The argument for the freeze is only for deleting articles this close to the election which have been around for quite awhile already. imo it shows serious disrespect and contempt for some volunteers here who, I presume, have been working on these articles in good faith. Now it looks for all the world as if some thought it would be hilarious to let them seek out all this third-party coverage, format footnotes, do all that work - just so someone like Tarc could pull the rug out from under them a week before the election. Jerking our volunteers around is not in the Misplaced Pages mission statement. The campaigns have been going on for over a year in some cases, and it's disengenous for anyone to now suddenly claim that hundreds of articles have to be 'justified' right this second. Or in Tarc's case, simply deleted and redirected and letting the rest of us' 'figure it out' if we happened to stumble across them. Normal people post a 'Request for Merge' on both the from and to articles, and wait until consensus is reached. Look at the history of these articles, and anyone could have requested a Merge months ago and had it properly discussed. As we did for many articles. As for the consensus on treatment in general, we have one: once someone wins a primary election (yes, that counts as an election!) they're 'notable enough' that we would wait until after the election to merge any article someone might create for them providing it otherwise met the standards for an article. If the article needed work, it would be tagged as such and improved. Most arguing is about candidates prior to the primaries, such as: "Joe Blow created a website, claiming he's running, but his only endorsement is his mother." And yes, those arguments are fairly short. That's not what we're talking about here.Flatterworld (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not advocating any of the points asserted in this dispute, only stating that I felt that notability for candidates is an issue that is worthy of discussion, even if it was brought to the forefront of our collective minds by less than straightforward means. I was trying to re-focus the discussion away from the dispute and more into discussion on this guideline or policy.    Thorncrag  21:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Flatter, I think you are confusing Thorncrag and Tarc.---Balloonman 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• While I understand that this will all be more or less moot in a week, I don't believe we should have some sort of emergency injunction against AFDing these articles. Let's all just calm down and not do anything drastic in either direction, shall we? Some of these also-rans may still have received enough attention to be considered notable, and some of them not. Waiting a week to start parsing the wheat from the chaff seems reasonable, but there is no need to codify it. If there is a particular editor that is making numerous bad faith nominations we can revert and/or block them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec)Um, once again, there is no bad faith on my part, and you'd be hard-pressed to make such a charge stick, but hey, knock yourself out. I tried to take care of some of these by simple redirects, which were declined. Other editors before me tried PRODs, which were declined. Bringing these to AfD is simply the next logical step; what cannot be handled editorially now needs to be handled formally. I could have jumped straight to AfDs with these a week ago and avoided this "OMG ELECTIONS NEXT WEEK!!!" horseshit, but I assumed (incorrectly, given the caterwauling that has ensued) that redirecting and preserving the history in case the persons ever became notable would have been an uncontroversial middle step. Tarc (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I think you totally underestimate the amount of time it would take to check all the articles out every day.

• And now I've found a sort of 'reverse issue'. I just updated United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2010#District 5, wikifying Mick Mulvaney's name. So look at his article - as in, who worked on it after the article included that he was running for US Rep. User:Orangemike (see above). He made plenty of edits, but it never, ever occurred to him to link to the actual election article? Or include any of the usual non-partisan voter links (for which there's a handy-dandy template created years ago to save me the work of entering each separately)? Really? All we have here is the equivalent of 'spider food' - anyone googling the guy's name would go here, and only here. The links on the election page? They'd never find them. And User:Jerzeykydd worked on that article as well - he's blocked until after the election for reverting edits to add third-party candidates to election article infoboxes, but my argument with him was about his creation of tons of articles for Republican candidates, NONE of which had the usual non-partisan voter information, just a five-second cut-and-paste from the campaign website. (I fixed a lot of them, until I realized he could create them a lot faster than I could fix them.) He added the '2010 run for U.S. Congress' section in the body of the article about the election (it was already in the lede) and - how odd! - there's a blank line where the 'See also' link template would normally go. Circumstantial 'evidence' for sure, but he's another 'experienced Wikipedian' who's well aware of the election articles. Do we have people playing games here? Definitely. I'm just pointing them out. Flatterworld (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It's kinda hard to follow this train of thought. Are you accusing Orangemike of being a sock of this Jerzeykydd? Tarc (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • No, I think he's accusing Orangemike of having political bias. Either way, it's a pretty strong assumption of bad faith, and Flatter really needs to reign it in. — The Hand That Feeds You: 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Injunction against Tarc til After the Elections

Yesterday a proposal was made to freeze AFD nominations on political candidates. While I initially supported the proposal, I withdrew my support from the original proposal because I didn't see the need. There were some comments that if somebody were to start sending a slew of bad noms to AFD that we could deal with that, Beeblebrox wrote "If there is a particular editor that is making numerous bad faith nominations we can revert and/or block them." Shortly after I changed my position, Tarc makes the announcement that he takes So WHILE his actions are actively being discussed here he decides to make a WP:POINT by starting some AFD's on the subject. It should be noted that there was no clear consensus at the time (beyond my stating that upon reviewing the history that I didn't see the need for a general injunction.

Tarc immediately nominated two articles for AFD.

The first being Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert where the current !vote remains 8 keeps, 3 deletes, and 1 redirect. Nintendude, who as far as I can tell had no prior involvement in this discussion called the nom "obvious Bad Faith. While Brewercrew said that Wholly inconsistent with the spirit of our BLP policy. Unless they are unequivically unnotable (not this person), these afd's should be speedily closed per our BLP policy. The second being Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scott M. Sipprelle (2nd nomination) where the current !vote is 8 keeps, 0 deletes, and 1 redirect. Again it is called a bad faith nom by Nintendude and JodyB. In this AFD GiftigerWuncsh defends Tarc Can we stop questioning the faith of the user who proposed this with a very clear, policy-based explanation, and instead focus on refuting their points, also based on policy? A "bad faith" nomination is one which is made solely as vandalism or to cause disruption. Giftiger also commented on Tarc's page about the claims of bad faith. The Third AFD being Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby which currently stands at 8 keeps, 0 deletes, and one redirect. This time Giftiger writes, "(criterion 2.5) rationale clearly indicates that the nominator has failed to make any attempt to check for sources, since a very brief perusal of the links in the header here shows numerous reliable, third-party sources in newspaper articles. An identical rationale has been used for multiple other AfDs, and such a rationale very clearly does not apply here." InaMaka later wrote, "Man, what a waste of time and effort. There is merely ONE editor, Tarc, that wants to flat out destroy the work of many editors 7 days before Election Day. The information is going to be destroyed for no good reason other than Tarc wants to disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point."

user:Giftiger wunsch went on to strike his comment on Tarc's page wherein he initially stated, "frankly I'm getting fed up of the various accusations of bad faith being thrown around, especially in relation to your AfD nominations." Giftigier also wrote on tarc's page, "I do think it has become clear in this instance that the subject meets the general notability guideline and should be kept; therefore I'd ask that you withdraw the nomination and allow the AfD to be closed." I joined in saying that if such were to happen that I wouldn't pursue a general ban on AFD's ANI as I saw no need outside of Tarc's actions. Tarc responded with "Mr. Balloon, I do not value your opinion in the slightest. Withdraw yourself from my talk page. Now." So I left him with a final note warning him that, "if you do choose to bring other articles to AFD, then I will definitely consider it WP:POINT at which point, I will have no problem with taking this to ANI." His response was to delete the warning (no problem there, with the edit summary "What part of 'do not post here' confuses you? Will a colorful acronym help?"

After being warned that his edits were disruptive and that I would take him to ANI if he continued, he opened Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ed Potosnak. Guess, we will now have to show how Potasnak meets the GNG (but I can't do that til later). In summary, Tarc opened the AFD's DURING the discussion here with his post above basically saying, "I'm going to force the issue." People who are seeing the discussion disagree with him, even one of his bigger defenders has (apparently) started to see his noms as bad faith. And after getting a warning, he decided to do so again. In 4 years of Editing, this is probably the first time I've brought somebody to ANI!---Balloonman 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm

There was no consensus, leaning towards an outright oppose, for the "FREEZE" proposal. Since this coterie of editors (Flatterworld, InaMaka) were unwilling to reverse their reversions of articles that I redirected, the next logical step was simply AfD; what could not be handled editorially now had to wind its way through the red tape. I am not here to make a "point", and I have kindly told this user, in no uncertain terms, why that is the case. In these nominations, I did not single out a particular political party or a geographical region, I am not employed by any campaign or any candidate.

I have looked at dozens and dozens of challengers candidate articles over the last few weeks, and if there was even the slightest bit of notability beforehand...e.g. state congress, mayors, city council, I left it as is as it was an easy WP:GNG pass. Those I redirected, and subsequently had to nom for AfD, were of people who I feel fail both the WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I am quite on the deletionist side of things around here, and am fully aware that the bar I set for notability may not be quite as high as others do (i.e. I discount coverage of the candidate in local media as routine and not an example of the depth/breadth of coverage that WP:N needs). But guess what? That's why we have discussions. Ballon and Flatterworld and everyone else are free to weigh in at the AfDs. But honestly I am getting pretty sick and fucking tired of refuting this same "OMG POINT" accusation. It is demonstrably false, as I have no goal here other than to see Misplaced Pages articles held to notability standards, regardless of being a year or a day or a week from election time. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

While Tarc's stated goal may be as he says, the actions are different and suggests that he wishes to make a point. As you can see from the AFD's so far, he is largely alone in his thinking. I called on him to withdraw the nom of Sipprelle and wish he would do so now. These are not appropriate. The "facepalm" image doesn't suggest much of an interest in discussion either. JodyB _talk 16:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the facepalm is to express extreme frustration with people lobbing accusations at me that are 100% false. You included, now. I have stated quite clearly that I have nominated articles that in my assessment are failures of the notability guidelines. There is no grander "point" to be made, so please, drop the tinfoil hats. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• The time has come to ignore all rules and do what's best for Misplaced Pages. I can't believe somebody nominated Stephene Moore for deletion and that it was taken seriously, even by an administrator. People looking up major candidates such as Moore (and yes, it's a nationally watched race) for campaign research are one of the reasons why we're here; to produce a useful resource, and frankly, few things are more useful than that. Can we at least exercise more restraint here in chomping at the bit? Kansan (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WHOAH, hold up here...don't tie the Stephene Moore mess to me. That was a few weeks before all this, and if you'll take note of that AfD, I called to keep it. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • • I had not been aware of the Stephene Moore AfD previously, but looking at it now and in light of all these other AfD's, it does seem curious, Tarc. There you said that Mrs. Moore herself (not just the race itself) was notable because she is running for her husband's seat, and received coverage far and wide because of it. But don't you get tripped up on "notability is not inherited"? (A principle I don't think is always true, witness the hundreds of articles we have on people (some of whom are infants) whose sole claim to fame is that they are somewhere in the line of succession to the British crown, but that's a subject for another day.) Every candidate for Congress gets news coverage, and every candidate for Congress is running for someone's seat, usually an incumbent member of Congress. Now if she were running against her husband, that would be different in kind, not merely degree, from all these other races. But as it is, there just isn't enough of a difference. Please note that I am not joining in the call for an "injunction" against you, but I don't think your actions have been very helpful, either. Personally I think this is more evidence that the entire deletion/discussion process should be completely revamped, but that's also a subject for another day. Neutron (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I called to keep that article given the extensive media coverage that the woman had received in regards to running for her husband's seat. I think it'd be a stretch to apply "not inherited" to that, and I am usually the one trying to make those sorts of stretches. :) Tarc (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
          • As Balloonman pointed out, I accidentally posted in the wrong subsection and was not trying to accuse Tarc of being connected to the Stephene Moore incident. Kansan (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I think Kansan's comment was intended to go in the general discussion above, not in this specific subsection.---Balloonman 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I've asked Kansan to move the comment if it was intended for the parent section an not this one.---Balloonman 16:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
    • It was, but because it's been responded to and spawned a side discussion, I had better leave it at this point in time. I apologize for the mess. Kansan (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Support injunction. I am not sure exactly what Tarc does here on Misplaced Pages, but its certainly not encyclopedia-building. An analysis of his contribution history reveals drama-mongering, unpleasantness, among other problematic behavior. Most recently he tagged an article I expanded for speedy deletion with a nasty edit summary on false grounds. Not satisfied he started an afd discussion, which resoundly resulted in a consensus to keep. The article then earned a DYK.

While my run-in with Tarc is not connected per se with this issue, it is yet another example of Tarc's disruptive nature here at Misplaced Pages. There was nothing gained by his tagging Nava Applebaum for speedy and then nominating for deletion except to waste the time of the editors who are trying to build an encyclopedia. All these afd's are the same. None of them are getting deleted and they are just wasting editors' time both here and at afd discussions.

Tarc will most probably respond by attacking me, which of course will cloud the fact that Tarc, who is here since 2005 is nothing but disruption.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Appelbaum thing was a pretty disgusting affair, and quite the good example of why I touch the topic area very infrequently these days. There is no question at all that an article about a girl who died in an explosion is completely not in line with notability policy. As with much of the I-P topic area, partisanship ruled the day. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Frankly, if anyone but Balloonman was proposing this, I would have characterized it as a vindictive attempt to silence/censor someone with whom they are in disagreement. However, I do believe this is proposed in the same good faith that I believe Tarc nominated the articles at AFD under. Very few political candidates are notable, and there is no reason why America's mid-term election candidates should be treated any differently than any other locale's elections. The AFDs were fair game, and will resolve themselves as is natural in our system. There is no need for sanctions of any kind. Resolute 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I will say that I did not pose this for OrangeMike who has also nominated articles for AFD because I have no questions about OM, but rather for Tarc alone because of his flippant attitude. If he had waited until the ANI discussion above had resolved naturally, I would not have had any issues. The fact that he came in on an issue that he was involved in, declared victory, and immediately declared that he was sending up "balloons" is why people question this activity. His actions curtailed the discussion here because he wanted the people at AFD to decide---which is the definition of WP:point. He's had numerous people tell him to stop, including a former supporter, but he continues on and has indicated that he intends to continue. And then he attacks those who critize him.---Balloonman 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Tarcs actions seem in good faith to me, if you live in Kansas (or another American state) and your local papers are commenting on a election then a candidate may appear notable but in the wider picture, political candidates are not noteworthy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• comment ive only seen tarc a few times but he always seems interested in being rude and disruptive. it looks like he was violating the WP:POINT policy here. my interactions with him have always been unplesant such as for example here Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise). even if he has genuine good goals at wikipedia he goes out of his way to insult and be rude to fellow users. this current problem looks like he is just doing everything he does here to annoy people. i cant assume good faith when someone is so rude to me. Aisha9152 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Despite monitoring political biography Afs for a few weeks now, I have only became familiar with him in the last 24 hours. I have had no interactions with him to assume that this the slew of Afd nominations were made in bad faith. Although I completely agree with his reasoning, I think it was unwise to make those nominations prior to clear consensus in this ANI. Doing so has caused a reactionary response of "keep" in all of those nominations which will make it more difficult to delete or redirect what I perceive to be non-notable political biographies in the future. Location (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, even the supposed "disruptive" AfD brought up in the proposal here has gained support from other editors (even if it may ultimately end a keep, though that's not certain either, as AfD is not a vote), so I don't see how it's obviously disruptive. We can sanction people for making obviously bad AfDs (nominating George W. Bush or hydrogen), but I don't see how this is sanctionable behavior. It's exactly what AfD is designed to do—bring an article where it's in legitimate question whether it passes the content policies before the community for a discussion. Seraphimblade 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Severe case of bad faith by the proposer of this injunction. Corvus cornix_talk 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. You may disagree with Tarc's actions, but they seem to me a not unreasonable attempt to hold on to our agreed notability standards. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User Triton Rocker

Could someone please deal with Triton Rocker (talk · contribs) who's third edit after coming off a one month ban was to make a personal attack on my editshere in direct validation of a civility ban that has been imposed on him at British Isles Probation Log. Just in-case Triton Rocker says he didn't understand the scope of the ban here is the actual words left at his talk page by Cailil (talk · contribs) You are being placed under a behavioral editing restriction. This account may be blocked if it is used to make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil,personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton really doesn't like me so I'll leave this for another admin to decide, but the fact that this was their third edit after coming off a month long block combined with the rest of their block log leads me to favor an indefinite block. Maybe point them at the standard offer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• IMHO, I saw Bjmullan request that TR retract his statement earlier. Having viewed the post and Bjmullan's own phrasing above: "...was to make a personal attack on my edits". Clearly, it's directed at the edits, not the editor, as per WP:CIVIL. Sure, TR was careful to put a paragraph spacing between his own statement regarding bad faith and the generic and non-directed "...It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise...". By Bjmullan's own statement, it was an attack on edits, not an editor. An over-reaction IMHO, and although a bit of warning is possibly due, there's nothing actionable here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker was not only commenting on my edit at British Sky Broadcasting but accused me of provocative editing in general without producing any incident to back up his claim. A clear case of not assuming good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be sheer sophistry to argue that In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him. is a comment on edits, not the editor. I am not a great fan of bureaucratic definitions of civility, but a direct accusation of bad faith is about as personal as it gets.Fainites scribs 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Bjmullan's edit was to change "Britain" to "UK and the Republic of Ireland" in more than one place after another editor had chnage dthe infobox to "British Isles". One source uses "Britain" only. The other uses Britain pretty much except for page with map (hunted down) showing the location of it's offices in UK and the Republic of Ireland. Subsequently there was a bit of an edit war between named editors and IPs. Isn't this what WP:BISE was supposed to resolve? Fainites scribs 23:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There's so much activity on his talk page and block log it's a bit of a maze, but I thought at some point there was an agreement that he would stay away from this whole "British Isles" conflict. In any event "I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him" certainly is an accusation directed at an editor. Any time a user accuses another of acting in bad faith they need to be damned sure that is what really is going on, and should always provide diffs to substantiate such a claim. Especially if they have a notice on their talk page proclaiming that there is "too much snooping and snitching on the Misplaced Pages" and a section header they added so that everything below it is identified as "harassment." We don't need this kind of battlefield mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm waiting to see what his fourth edit is. And btw, there's no way to read "provocative and bad faith edit" as something other than a comment on an editor -- especially since ABF was specifically called out in the notice of his civility probation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am writing this for individuals who are new to this dispute and unaware of the issues involved. For those individuals who are already up to speed, please excuse some repetition as I make my introduction.

"Good Faith" has been established at WT:BISE that none of the contestants enter into edit wars, adding or removing the term "British Isles", without first consulting the community.

Mr Mullan, a support of the contingent who have for some time been habitually seeking to replace the term "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland", did so here;

• The 'edit' was not in good faith. Why?

The topic is about satellite broadcasting to the British Isles. It was agreed by the community that the terms "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland" do not include the Isle of Man nor Channel Islands which exist in the geographic area British Isles. They do not. A simple Google search taking seconds shows that the company broadcasts to the the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Common sense tell us that any signal going to the UK and Ireland would have to include at least the Isle of Man and more than often the Channel Islands. Therefore, Mr Mullan either knowingly or negligently introduced an error into the Misplaced Pages to support the ongoing campaign.

Mr Mullan is very aware of the issue of dispute and previous discussion. It is very difficult to read the editing introducing the error as but a provocation or a testing of the waters to see how far he can go. Courtesy would have been to brought it to WT:BISE but in this case there is no possible contention British Sky Broadcasting broadcasts to all of the British Isles.

* Why is our time being wasted there and here? It is just more LAME DRAMA.

My comment regarding my previous experience was not uncivil. It is either true or false. I could provide many example if anyone cares. Mr Mullan has an obsession with with me because of this British/Irish issue, follows my editing into other areas where he has had no interest, reverts my work and habitually reports me. This is just one more example.

I consider this a provocation where, e.g. the summaries are prejudicial and do not reflect the reality of my works. One such case would be the topic on Queen Elizabeth II, e.g. .

I would like to make it clear for newcomers to this dispute that I do not have a political or nationalistically motivated POV. My POV is that politics should be kept out of area which are not political and that the Misplaced Pages is not the place to decide international geonaming. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR Blocked

Well Sarek, now you've seen that fourth edit. I have imposed a one year block. There is not the slightest indication that this editor is ever going to get the picture. Looie496 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that Triton Rocker has been given a block. However he accused me of following him around and used Elizabeth II as an example of where I followed him. For the record, I first edited at the article on 14 January 2010, Triton Rocker made his first edit nearly eight months later on 22 September 2010. His third edit at the article was to remove a large section of the last paragraph from the lede. Surely he must have realised that on such a high profile article that the lede would have been discussed and agreed on the talk page? Triton Rocker continued his usual MO of making edits without first getting consent, personal attacks and not assuming good faith. I quote him from the talk page: Miesianiacal, I appreciate the "Monarchy of Canada" is one of your things and you want to make a big issue of the Canadian-ness of Elizabeth II. Putting your personal interest aside,..., Considering the similarity of your interests to MIESIANIACAL, regarding the 'Monarchist League of Canada' et al , can I ask you both not to use this topic for your own political soapbox?. And finally here is the edit summary from DrKiernan (talk · contribs) after reverting one of Triton Rocker edits; unexplained, contentious, potentially misleading....Bjmullan (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Logged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A year's block? lmao, I see this "civility parole" has been taken to the extreme as was to be expected. Simply incredible. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's incredible that he couldn't restrain himself in the face of multiple warnings. Support 1-year block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No BW it's become quite clear that TR doesn't take Misplaced Pages's behavioural policy seriously. He can count himself lucky we're still using blocks of definite duraion. All TR needed to do was be civil and AGF. Endorse 1-year block--Cailil 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good block.  Sandstein  13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well played Bjmullen. AGF: the gift that keeps on giving. Triton sounded like a sensible bloke actually, Bjmullen certainly never had anything substantive to counter on any content point of his, so in a way I'm happy he has been released from the depressing need to learn the game himself to be allowed to participate in such complex and debate worthy issues like, does a satellite signal obey geographic or political boundaries, and whether we need references for such daftness. Go and do something usefull with your life Triton, come back maybe when the Irish issue has had it's own arbcom case, and people are put under real civility restrictions, which enforce the whole policy, not just the easy bits that any old gamer can pick up and use so easily as a weapon, and which actually foster real mutual respect, not the fake kind, and allows real, relevant and clueful content argumentation to come first, not last, in these tedious face-offs. Still, what's next on the BISE agenda today. 'Does the British Isles have a coast?'. Well, that sounds like a perfectly normal question to ask, *AGF mode ON*..... MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TR should've stayed away from the BI stuff, until his sanction expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban instead of block?

I don't have a problem with a one year block, considering he just doesn't get it despite repeated warnings and blocks. However surely a better solution would be to just ban him from the British Isles area entirely, and interaction bans for any editors he's been in conflict with over the issue? This would allow him to get back to other areas of editing where he's apparently been productive. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering his campaign against "snitches", I suspect that he's going to have problems wherever he edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it's a good point. The reason I didn't propose a full topic ban last time was becuase TR already has Black Kite's limited ban (topic banned from editing) in place and I thought the civility parole would resolve his interaction issues - it clearly hasn't had that effect. That said TR did have a history of editing constructively at motor bike topics and I'd hope that when he comes back he returnes to constructive editing, thus banning him from what seems to be a hot-button topic for him might work - I'm open to discussing it anyway--Cailil 13:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This result seems odd. Apparently "commenting on editors rather than edits" is a blockable violation of a civility parole, and therefore a violation of WP:CIV? OK, if that's the operating rule, it should be applied everywhere, to everyone; that could make ANI a little complicated; some comments in this multipart thread appear to me to be comments on an editor. It seems to me, for instance, somewhat difficult to categorize speculation about future actions of an editor as "commenting on edits", since the edits haven't happened. So, could someone explain precisely why is such a terribly uncivil edit? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I don't find the comment overly un-civil. However, a striking-out of it wouldn't hurt either. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

While standing alone it wouldn't have been blockable, Cailil's civility parole specifically called out assuming bad faith. Since TR explicitly made an accusation of bad faith editing in the diff above, it was a clear violation of the parole.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation, Sarek. The "civility parole" invoked CP01 of WP:GS/BI, which does not refer to assuming bad faith, and so doesn't directly authorize any sanction specifically calling out "assuming bad faith". Or are you arguing that "no assuming bad faith" is authorized implicitly in WP:NPA or WP:CIV, which are mentioned in CP01? Furthermore, the application of the "civility parole" mentioned a "consensus" at ANI, and the link goes to Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Expansion_of_sanctions_at_WP:GS.2FBI, where I don't see the specific wording of the specific civility parole for Triton discussed. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording of his notification was quite clear. If he didn't like it, he should have appealed it -- and screaming about a "kangaroo court" is not an appeal -- instead of violating it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Any phrasing of any appeal could have been construed as a violation of AGF... Gimmetoo (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The user's talk page ("If you wish to harass me, please do so below.") in combination with the history is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality Misplaced Pages is better off without. However, the longest previous block was 1 month; it's possible that something less than a year would be better, like 3 months - assuming that there is any hope of the user reforming. (And if there isn't, we might as well indef now as wait for more trouble.) Rd232 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Call me an old softy, but I believe TR should be only topic-banned for a year. AFAIK, his behaviour on other topics is cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Per the discussion with NcmV at the implementation thread that kind of ban is problematic. However, as I said in the civility parole notice I'm happy to review it after 6 consecutive months of 'clean' editing on wikipedia (not just a 6 month holiday). That goes for the ban too - I'd be happy to review it or let it be reviewed by the community after 6 consecutive months of constructive editing. The ball is firmly in TR's court all he needs to do is accept and abide by policy in spirit and to letter - if he does that then the restrictions will be lifted--Cailil 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Triton Rocker came off his one month block @ 14:55 by blanking his user page. One hour and eight minutes later on on his third edit he attacked me. He never retracted nor did he accept that his edit was wrong. I believe that trying to get Triton Rocker to abide by any rules here would be very difficult. I fully support the one year block. Just for information (particular to Triton Rocker and MickMacNee) my name on Misplaced Pages is Bjmullan and not Bjmullen, Mullan or Mr Mullan. I would thank you to respect that. Bjmullan (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't talk to me about respect. In response to this 'attack', you threatened Triton in not one but two places, you went to his talk page saying incivil and baiting things like "When will you ever learn?", and you filed this ANI report, all before he had even made another edit, let alone had a chance to accede to your demands to redact the comment and flaggelate himself. You should frankly count yourself lucky that the adminning of this topic area is so transparently one sided. Wait a few minutes, and I'll probably get a months block for mispelling your user name, even though it was clearly just a mistake. Any admin interested in your insinuation it was anything other? I didn't think so. Or maybe you can petition for me to be put under a spelling probation eh. I'll start saving my pennies to fight the case you will clearly inevitably bring for mental anguish. You do anything and everything except actually defending your content edits, so if you're looking for respect, don't look in my direction, I am not one of these people who believes AGF is indefinite and one-sided. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

On good faith, and being taken for total mugs

OK then, if people think that we should all AGF to a man in this topic, let's take a wander to the BISE page and examine the latest report shall we? It concerns the novel Storm Warning. Nobody really knows anything about the article or the book, but that's not really important. User HighKing, whose last god knows how many edits have been in or around BISE (I stopped after 500, SPA much?), has clearly gone looking for an article that uses the term, and has found one he thinks he can get the term removed from. It's usage there is not inaccurate, and it has yet to be established why the original editor used it (nobody is even bothering to ask), but HighKing has helpfully suggested how it can be removed, anyway, and asked if anyone has any arguments for or against this, in the wonky way that has somehow been established for BISE, even though supposedly, polling is evil. There are of course, no compelling arguments either way, but for some reason, we are not allowed to question HighKing's reasons for making this, and other, suggestions, without ever coming up with a guideline to mandate such a systematic programme of literary changes. So, would an admin like to suggest what the good faith response to this situation actually is, without breaking the holy AGF? Unless or until admins get real, and call a spade a spade, and deal with it as a whole, then the only thing that will pass for enforcement in this area is this sort of gaming nonsense, while the pedia gets systematically cleaned to adhere to a certain POV, i.e., that 'British Isles' no longer exists as a term, and any and all usage of it at Misplaced Pages has to conform to completely ridiculous sourcing requirements similar to that applied to 'terrorist', or 'palestinian', infact, even worse half the time. This is time wasting POV pushing nonsense, and it is no suprise people like Triton, who are not prepared to play the game, are so easily eliminated from it in this way. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick you were already warned this month for your behavour at WP:BISE xfd. This is an enforcement thread of an editor under editing restriction. Your issues with BISE and other users are a seperate matter. If you have an evidenced and substantive issue with another user then put it to the community in a concise and neutral way, so that within the parameters laid down in the Troubles RfAr or the BI topic probation we can deal with it, or open and RFC, or try mediation - there are multiple avenues of disute resolution to try. However, wikipedia is not a soapbox and your above edit is in breach of that and of WP:BATTLE. Take a step back and reconsider your approach, and seriously if you have evidence of people misbehaving show me I'm happy to look at it--Cailil 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention that Mfd. That was in effect a mini-Rfc on BISE. And the majority opinion of uninvolved editors who bothered to comment?. Their consensus was that it was an illegitmate cabal-like venue which is responsible for POV pushing. What a shocker, a complete surprise, you could have knocked me down with a feather. What was also not a surpise, was that this outcome was completely, totally, and utterly ignored. Just like it is repeatedly ignored here. Just like it would be repeatedly ignored after a full Rfc. Mediation? Would not even be accepted, let alone approached in good faith. Prior arb case? Out of scope (infact, it is the reason HighKing moved into this dispute full time). No, the only people who can do anything about this, short of another arb case, is you lot, and pretending that this latest incident is somehow completely seperate and unrelated to the behaviour I outlined above, is really not the way to go. There is no actual rule that I'm aware of, that you are supposed to restrict yourselves to investigating just the content of the initial report, not least if there is an underlying cause, which there so clearly is. If you want to prevent such reports coming every few months, until the end of time, then for crying out loud, stop ignoring these things. Nobody is ever going to take this through an Rfc just to be ignored, and it is arguably far too late for that anyway, the root causes date back years, and it is far too beneficial for the gamers to keep the status quo for them to ever take any notice of such a thing. On that score, from where I'm standing, Bjmullan's threats, demands and general incivility towards Triton fell foul of every single paragraph of BATTLE. And that was from a grand total of five or so edits. It all worked out pretty well for him though eh? He is the guy laughing his ass off right now at having eliminated an opponent from BISE, because he is now free to carry on and resume the TE style discussion which it looks like another poor and unsuspecting example of that extremely rare beast, a relatively neutral and uninvolved at BISE editor, Quantpole, is about to experience. Maybe he will lose his rag eventually too, find out that nobody in the admin corps even cares why, then say something daft and get himself put under probation, and then suffer the same fate as Triton. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Gamers? Jeepers, ya get involved with BISE & you're labeled for life. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick you aren't going to get another warning. Stop soapboxing. Stop treating wikipedia like a battleground. And stop attacking other users. Your above edits in this thread and on TR's talk page are in violation of these policies.
If you have evidence of disruption by other users present diffs, show patterns of behaviour in diffs and leave out the editorial please - we can all can make up our own minds whether the diffs constitute disruption or not.
Again if you want to present evidence of something go ahead but do so in concise and neutral way with diffs. If you are unwilling to do so, and unwilling to attempt dispute resolution you should not make edits that disrupt enforcement threads related to it--Cailil 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I am about as unwilling and unable to deal with this issue, as everybody else was unwilling and unable to deal with POV pushing on Climate Change, or on Isreal-Palestine, or on Macedonia, etc etc etc. You want diffs? Well, i gave you enough info to be going on with, but if you want specifics, what about this from Bjmullan just now, Perhaps you could explain why you think using UK + I is wrong. That was after the person he is speaking to had already stated how he thought it was wrong. This is just the latest example of precisely the sort of incivil and tendentious editing that is the reason editors like Triton are so easily gamed off of that page and into a year's block. You will note that this is Bjmullan talking to the editor who is also relatively new to BISE, and merely trying to give his opinion. So, now you have a diff, what now? Am I still soapboaxing or disrupting this thread with an entirely unrelated issue? Should I still fuck off to the looney bin I apparently rode in from and castigate myself for not having written all this up in an Rfc before mentioning it, or is someone actually going to step up here? And before anyone says 'not blockable', I am only after just the slightest indication that admins will even acknowledge that this one particular edit, which took 5 seconds to find, is an example of incivil/TE behaviour (i.e. in this case, do not deliberately ignore other people's already stated opinions). I won't bore you with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern needed to get a block if not stopped, I just want to see if there is any market at all among the admin corps for enforcement of this kind of problematic behaviour, to give all of us who are heartily sick of it, just some indication that NPA/AGF are not the only things that matter here, and that the whole of CIVIL is relevant under this civility parole regime, not just the easy bits. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Agree. Unfortunately, when, like TR, you are already under restrictions you are easy meat if you can't keep a cool head. Bjmullens edit was not good but TR knew he shouldn't be getting involved in edit wars. Fainites scribs 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Request yes-no finding re disruptive editing

Is PiCo disruptive? And what to do if so?

• On 21 Sep, PiCo inserts one edit set to Joshua full of sourced assertions.
• I check and immediately identify via detailed edit summaries my position that every new sentence on Israel history misrepresented its source. Seems straightforward.
• I begin discussion, determine that all sentences were copied from an Israel history, and take discussion there.
• For over 1 month, PiCo does not permit even one full sentence of my initial edits, which I consider very basic WP:V fixes, to be added to the article, but permits only very minor sidecar changes. My only original changes PiCo accepted without continuing to undo (comparison) are to add 1 clause, change 1 clause, change 1 source (details).
• Simultaneously, PiCo makes sweeping changes (also visible in that diff) to everything from the Persian period on, without any discussion. I do not interest myself in those massive changes because discussing the first edit set has taken so long, but it indicates a double standard.
• PiCo is occasionally supported but usually alone in discussing with me. I try TALK, DISENGAGE, MEDCAB (no takers), WARN, ANEW for warring. PiCo is first recommended to take a month off the topic, then told if DR (RFC) is followed all is forgiven. RFC drags on with those clause concessions I mentioned, and it stalls with nobody else joining. I try 3O, no dice. I try NORN, no takers. So no third-party mediation is happening but no advance is being made. And this is omitting a lot.
• Specific evidence of disruption during this attempt to conform one edit set to its sources: Near-zero progress toward my improvements (comparison diff above). Border-skirting near-warring behavior (ANEW diff), which has not stopped but still skirts. Evasion by undoing later rather than immediately (same diff, second edit from top). Lack of collaboration passim. Not using "unsigned" and "interrupted" (search talk for those I added), and not flowing comments readably. Asking me to get his sources for him (e.g. search Finkelstein), breaking WP:BURDEN. And probably some things mentioned in my steam-blowing, such as ownership that tends to drive away editors per WP:DE.
• Evidence of bad faith: The near-zero progress with 200K recent talk (including mine, granted). Obliviousness and unhearingness (second-to-last graf). Repeatedly ignoring itemized issue lists and starting his own, which has the appearance of intending to divert discussion into a "handled" category (NORN diff). Undoing challenge tags as if that closes a discussion when he ought to know it didn't (third-to-last graf in prior diff, and passim). Repeated, apparently studied disregard of the same questions and explanations (also DE; too many diffs to list). These are just a start. On his first edit on this page, he forgets what he already said about his own sources elsewhere; then he dissembles later as if he hadn't.
• And that's not to mention the actual content dispute passim (that last diff is a good start), over why PiCo thinks WP is not misrepresenting the sources ("misrepresents reliable sources" is straight WP:DE); nor my question about what other damage PiCo has done assuming a disruption finding; nor several related issues not arising from PiCo's defending this one Sep 21 edit, such as PiCo's relevant block log.

Please help. JJB 08:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear everyone: JJB is a sincere editor who is genuinely puzzled and frustrated that his edits are not being accepted. Part of the problem - perhaps a lot of it - comes from the very small number of editors involved, which means that he's interacting mostly with me, and he has no confidence in my good faith. So coming here is undoubably a good idea.

Now, his points: John complains that this all started when I made a set of edits to the article on Joshua, replacing what was already there with a longer, better organised, and better sourced version. (JJ calls this an "edit set"). JJ checked the edits and decided that they weren't supported by the sources. He then crossed over to the History of ancient Israel and Judah article, which is where the text came from, and started reverting all these statements - because, he thinks, they're not supported by the sources. All 20 or so of them.

At this point the trouble starts. My own view is that the sources do support the statements in the article. So I revert John's deletions/edits. But John can't accept my explanations - he's still convinced that it's all lies, or misrepresentations, or whatever. And because we have very few active editors on this topic (it doesn't have a lot of sex appeal, I must admit), we have this impasse.

How to get out of it? John's most recent post on the article talk page says, "besides BRD, BURDEN, and NOR, I've now tried AGF, ABF, DISCUSSION, DISENGAGE, WARN, 3O, RFC, MEDCAB, ANEW, and NORN, and you maintain an air of circumspectness (usually) and nobody else shows up and nothing happens. I have never seen such a tremendous wall built to fortify such an inherently flawed single edit set. Now, what options remain?" Good question. He really has tried all the options. But let's try something: one of the forums he tried was NORN. It's meant to deal with original research, but I don't object to that. I think we can do there what John wants. He has about a dozen sentences that he wants a source-check on. I'm suggesting that we put them up on that thread on NORN, one at a time (12 at once is probably a bit of a turn-off) and invite other editors to judge whether they statements are or are not supported by the sources. (By the way, what exactly is "circumspectness"?). PiCo (talk) 09:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The above and PiCo's NORN interference demonstrate my points well as to disruption. *PiCo's air of circumspectness (e.g., professed innocence) is clearly expressed, but its actual effect is to deflect this board from my real request, a review of PiCo's editing for disruption, and to distract to another request, the NORN board, as if solving that one solves this one. (It doesn't: the following points are further examples of the disruption, not of the sourcing problems.) *Further, on NORN, he switches my question (detail) twice to avoid answering it as stated, behavior I anticipated by describing it above. This second deflection has the effect of further downgrading the NORN issue to distract from the OR concepts (listed elsewhere ad nauseam) that appear in his sentences but not provably in his sources. *Just a moment ago in the "Tagging" section of the article talk he was trying to do all my concerns at once (again), and now he is trying to do them one-by-one (again), which would have no rhyme or reason to the alternation except that it correlates neatly with whichever method might put off the consensus-building longer. (*While I have that diff up, I'll mention its repeated appeal to me to read a few pages back here, a chapter there, to find the needle that isn't in the haystack, contrary to WP:BURDEN; and not even defending Smith p. 27 but still insisting on keeping it, contrary to WP:V at large.)

*PiCo's (may I say) breeziness in both these edits appears to be friendly and enfolding toward me, but it is all the more difficult to accept in good faith due to the (constant) undercurrent of failure to answer questions, as stated above. *He acts as if we're just getting started (at NORN changing my point 7 to point 1) as if he has no responsibility for the stalling for the past 5 weeks in doing what he seems so blithe to do now. (*Even the clause concessions that he made came only immediately after my warring report and ceased shortly after.) *After changing my question to an obvious strawman, he pulls a clause of Lemche out of context as if the strawman question is answered, voila. *He then further directs the conversation with "Answers on a postcard" as if he hasn't provided at least 40% of the 200K talk. *He makes a finding above of "lies" or whatever, when the word I generally used was "verification failures", and I only recently also started using "misrepresentations"; he cannot diff me using the word "lies" in this sense.

If PiCo would quietly let NORN proceed, it might finally answer my concerns of five weeks ago. But my concern right now for this board is a finding of disruption, or not, and appropriate advice. JJB 09:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you John. Of course, some people might think that the editor who tags 20 consecutive sentences in a single paragraph and refuses to think that he might be mistaken about even one of them is the disruptive one.... PiCo (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see no merit in this request. I see a lot of wordiness and little substance; the only concrete problems I can see in the history of the last few days are on JJB's side: abusing mass tagging with baseless "failed verification" tags, and messing up the talk page by interjecting his own comments among those of others in rather confusing ways. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, which is why I removed some of JJB's excessive tags. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor can I see any merit in this. Sorry, JJB, but I spent about an hour looking at this, and I also can see no disruption from PiCo. Your own conduct seemed problematic to me at several points through the conflict, however. I haven't touched any of the articles mentioned, nor commented on any of the related talk pages, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Then *PiCo describes 12 tags on my established list as "20 tags" above, while apparently knowing that it's 12 tags; then *PiCo projects his own talk-page cluttering onto me. *PiCo, as already noted, is the one who repeatedly creates interjective comments without proper templating, which I have always tried to enfold in a readable way. And as Ohiostandard may allude, Future Perfect at Sunrise and Dylan Flaherty have prior interaction with me.

Ohio, the primary disruption lies in the fact that an unsustainable couple paragraphs are being maintained without essentially any give or willingness to build consensus. I have seized at whatever bones of compromise have been offered on occasion, to make peace on (say) points 1-6; but this very slow process does not appear to me to be free of disruption from others. I rather thought that if 200K of discussion only amount to three minor concessions, as I diffed, there is something wrong, and if it's me I'm wide open to being told, if the charge is not emotionally loaded. Ohio, I would definitely appreciate a list of the "several points" you observed, preferably at my subtalk. As for the comments above, I can see that my timing is wrong for this board, so I will watch myself closely and adjust strategies (again), especially if someone has specific charges. (ADD: I have made a concession on point 7 and switched from my 12-not-20 tags to one tag at a time, in accord with the seriatim discussion, though I disagree with the approach.) But I would appreciate a second uninvolved editor chiming in. JJB 16:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks

Communicat (talk · contribs) has a long history of tendentious editing which is forming a significant barrier to progressing articles. Admin User:Georgewilliamherbert has previously looked into this in August and gave Communicat a stern warning on 25 August for 'fringe POV-pushing' (see also Talk:World War II/Archive 41#Communicat and fringe-POV pushing and the subsequent discussion) which was followed by two blocks for uncivil comments over the next few weeks. In short, Communicat has a tendency to want to add information which is not correct in articles (even when the sources they provide demonstrate this to be wrong) and is pushing a fringe source which has repeatedly been found to be unreliable and is edit warring when other editors try to remove the dubious material they add. I will provide two recent examples that demonstrate that this behavior is continuing:

• Communicat has been seeking for some time to include a claim in the World War II article that the United States was in charge of the civil administration of North Korea in the years after World War II, despite the country being occupied by the Soviet Union. This began with a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page on 9 September (see Talk:World War II#Arbitrary break onwards) in which there was no support for including such a claim in the article. Despite this on 17 September they added material to the article which strongly implied that the US was administering all of Korea and added some further questionable claims about how the division of the country took place (diff) which I reverted. This lead to further discussion of the topic on the article talk page in which the sources Communicat was providing to support their view were eventually demonstrated to say exactly the opposite (Eg, they stated that the USSR did in fact administer North Korea after the war) - see the posts from 1 October onwards (particularly the posts by Hohum and myself on 3 October) and other sources which demonstrate that the USSR was administering North Korea were provided. On 10 October Communicat edited the article again but did not include this claim about Korea (diff) - I reverted this again as there was no consensus to include the changes and it contained several other dubious claims (this reversion was supported by the other editors active on the article's talk page).
• Despite this, on 24 October Communicat added what was pretty much the text on Korea which had been rejected in the World War II article to the Aftermath of World War II article (diffs), again implying that the US was administering all of Korea (along with lots of other changes). This was reverted by User:Edward321 (diffs), leading to an edit war between him and Communicat. The end result is that Communicat is still trying to include statement about the post-war administration of Korea which had no support from other editors and was proven to not be supported by the sources he or she was providing. I note that Communicat has a history of turning existing articles into POV forks (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Controversial command decisions, World War II.
• As the other example, Communicat has a long history of wanting to add dubious material sourced to someone named Stan Winer. Despite discussions at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Industrial capacity and production, Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#WW2 origins of Cold War, Talk:World War II/Archive 39#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 45#User: Communicat and Talk:History of South Africa#new sub-section: extra-parliamentary activities (and in passing in several other locations) which concluded that this author is not a reliable source, Communicate is still adding material referenced to self published works by this author to the History of South Africa article (diff: on 17 October) and edit warring to restore it after it was removed by Edward321 (diffs: (20 October) and (21 October). Once again, he or she is ignoring a consensus which has arisen from extensive discussions and repeatedly adding dubious material.

As such, it appears that Communicat has not learned from their previous warnings and blocks, and is continuing to push POV claims using sources which have either been found to be unreliable or to not support their position. Responding to this clearly disruptive editing is wasting a lot of other editors' time and I ask that they be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what this issue is doing on this "incidents" notice board. This is a content dispute.

Responses to some points presented above:

1. Quote: "forming a significant barrier to progressing articles". – The article Aftermath of World War II is or was unsourced crap. It was received absolutely no attention for many years. I have advised Communicat to work on that article instead of trying to tweak the limited space in the WW II article. I cannot see how Communicat's interest in the aftermath article could be a significant barrier to the article's progress!
2. If Communicat's "text on Korea" had been rejected in the World War II, it was mainly because of the space constraints in the "aftermath" section of the WW II main article. There has been extensive discussion on the relative importance of topics on the talk page. There seems to be a consensus that the section needs to be pruned down, but no consensus on what is important.
3. Stan Winer may not be a reliable source for WW II, but he is an respected South African journalist and a reliable source on the History of South Africa and apartheid.
4. The issue of the "civil administration of North Korea" has been blown beyond all proportions. The sources seem to support Communicat's wording, but I do not know if the interpretations people are trying to make of this are correct.
5. The last edit by Comminicat in the WW II article was on October 10 after extensive discussion and preparation on the talk page. This was blindly reverted by Nick-D two hours later. He made one edit in all of September with similar results. If any conclusions can be drawn from the edit history, it is more indicative of edit warring and stonewalling by Nick-D.

It seems that the content issues are mingled with some kind personal antipathy against Communicat. These dissenting editors are now extending the dispute to new articles they have never before been involved with. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat has a record of making edits that are not supported or even contradicted by the sources he cites. Communicat's most recent attempt to argue against this was to dismiss the sources that contradicted him as the product of McCarthy Era censorship. This is in spite of Communicat previously arguing that some of these sources were reliable and ignores the actual publication dates of most of the sources.

Communicat's most recent edits to Aftermath of World War II involved him deleting a large section of sourced material as well as adding material that is not supported by the source he lists. The source does not mention Under-Secretary of State Joseph Grew and does not say Churchill "virtually declared war" on the USSR in 1946. Commincat's edits were also vague, so I clarified that Operation Dropshot was a contingency plan developed to counter of future attacks by the USSR if they occurred. As the differences show, I clearly explained this in the edit summaries. Communicat blind reverted this and the rest of my edits.

Communicat has also been trying against consensus to introduce a self-published fringe source, Stan Winer, into several articles for an extended period of time as well as repeatedly advocating Winer on several talk pages. Communiucat is the only editor to think this source is reliable. That's not why I listed Communicat on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I listed Communicat because he posted a (now deleted) file claiming to be to be the copyright holder, Stan Winer. The picture has since been reposted without Communicat making that claim. (Information provided by Petri Krohn leaves me with strong doubts that Winer is the actual copyright holder for the picture.)) Even after all of this, Communicat continues to try to use Winer as a source.

Communicat is often less than civil. He has been blocked twice for lack of civility and the statement that earned him his first block is still there on his user page without any retraction or apology. Edward321 (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly been making accusations that Communicat is falsificating sources. When you have been proven wrong, you have chosen new forums to make the same unfounded allegations.

The "large section of sourced material" communicat removed from the aftermath article was left-over material from the WW II article I had moved there – right before I asked Communicat to work on the article. I see little harm done if it is removed from the lede section, especially if corresponding material is added to the relevant sections.

The last reference by Stan Winer you have listed above was added on 1 September 2010, to the article History of South Africa. As I said earlier, Winer is a published authority on that topic.

As to the copyright issue, I have expressed no doubt that Winer is the copyright owner of the picture of prime minister B. J. Vorster. The only place where it appears uncut, apart from Misplaced Pages, is this article by Winer.

Overall, you seem to be arguing that Misplaced Pages should reflect an Anglo-Saxon, Western, or at minimum, a Northern point-of-view. Things look very different from the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have read and understood this thread. I refute all false allegations by Edward321 and Nick-D who appear to be working in tandem against me. I will not respond further in this forum to their allegations. These and other matters are currently the subject of an application to Arbcom, which application was formally lodged by me shortly before the apparent retaliatory posting of this incident notice. Communicat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

I don't think the crux of this issue is a content dispute. It's about disruptive behaviour. Communicat endlessly argues even when blatantly proven wrong, in the face of overwheling disagreement, when he has little to no support. He throws insults about bias and conspiracy, even accusing uninvolved administrator Georgewilliamherbert of bias when he tried to help. He has repeatedly pushed for Winers inclusion on WWII articles, and still refers to him on WWII talk pages, in the face of unanimous rejection by editors who voiced opinions there. Diffs to support this appear in earler posts in this thread, so I won't duplicate.

Communicat does, very occasionally, do something constructive, is suddenly polite, helpful, and engages in reasoned discussion. But it is sporadic and random. (Hohum ) 16:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Hohum on this. It's not about content. Sometimes, Communicat is pleasant and collegial, but mostly, he accuses everyone of belonging to a cabal that is out to get him. The simple truth of the matter is that Communicat typically is asserting a fringe position that no one else agrees is valid.

Contrary to what you assert, Petri Kohn, Communicat has quoted from sources that contradict him. He often cherry-picks quotes from various authors when the full context or other parts of the works contradict him explicitly. Two such instances are discussed at and . --Habap (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues here are already discussed at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Edward321. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Incident entry regards Communicat's behaviour, the Arb request is aimed at Edward321's, with no other involved party currently named by Communicat. (Hohum ) 17:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Free space?

Moved from WT:PHYS, as a courtesy

It appears that the link in Free space for footnote 31 has been altered to refer to an incorrect web page. The correct link is Correa and Correa, bottom of page 36. I'd be delighted to fix this myself, but I am forbidden to do such things. Brews ohare (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This matter escapes my abilities: the google scholar search here produces links that allow access to the document, but copying the link once you arrive doesn't take you back to this source but to the Anit-Misplaced Pages web site. Brews ohare (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be best to remove this link altogether. If I copy this link into the browser: http://www.aetherometry.com/publications/direct/AToS/AS3-I.2.pdf I get the paper; but a link like this: source redirects to the Anti-Misplaced Pages site . Brews ohare (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that you are also banned from this page (WT:PHYS) as well (see motion 6). I don't know what you don't understand or is what unclear about what all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed consist of, but out of all places on Misplaced Pages, this one is certainly covered in the ban. I'm gonna do you a favour and move this request to WP:AN/I, where it should have been made in the first place, instead of bringing you to WP:AE. Wheter someone else brings you there however, is another question. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User problems notwithstanding, there is a problem with the link which I cannot fix. Copy and paste the link is fine but clicking gives you another link which is the anti-wiki site. JodyB _talk 14:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a really sneaky embedded change. I don't know if it can be fixed, since it seems to actually be a part of the link. It's clearly purposeful in its placement there. I'd say that alternatives should be sought for, since I don't think this can be undone. Silverseren 15:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like a redirect at the site end; as best I can make out the site recognises Misplaced Pages as a referrer and redirects a click to the Anti-WP page. Copy/paste avoids that issue. --Errant 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have pulled it out completely JodyB _talk 15:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That script in fact serves the anti-Misplaced Pages page when any resource on www.aetherometry.com is requested with a wikipedia.org HTTP referrer. The link in question is not the only use of that site in article space at current. I'd suggest that this unprofessional behavior inherently compromises that site's ability to serve as a reliable source (assuming it was to begin with), but I'll hold back from going on a link-stripping hunt until there's some consensus to do so. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I definitely don't have any respect for the Aurora Biophysics Research Institute now, not that I knew about them before this. Silverseren 15:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and added it to the blacklist. My reasons are that is not what users expect nor what is portrayed in the link. It's not malware but it could be viewed as spammy. I would love someone to double check my work and in the event I deleted the main page please restore it! JodyB _talk 15:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• aetherometry.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Added {{LinkSummary}} for easier analysis on the use of the link. --- Barek (talk) - 15:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just put in a WebCite request at http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aetherometry.com%2Fpublications%2Fdirect%2FAToS%2FAS3-I.2.pdf&date=2010-10-26 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is moot - at least for now - as the article has been redirected to Vacuum. I think there is some editing history/conflicts/issues there so I will leave to the ones more knowledgeable. JodyB _talk 16:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The site was also used as a ref on Orgone, using the link: http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/expose.php

I think that was the only other article-space use of the site. So an alternate should be found there as well. --- Barek (talk) - 16:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Webcite links probably isn't the best method of replacement either. Most, if not all, of ABRI's publications are through "Akronos Publishing," which appears to be wholly in-house, and their work does not appear to be cited outside of a veritable academic walled garden dedicated to anti-relativity physics. The RS board may disagree with me, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that ABRI, Akronos Publishing, or aetherometry.com (or any of the other domain names hosted by the same organization) constitutes a reliable source. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As a general note, Aetherometry.com, and it's publications in general is a bunch of aether-embracing / "orgone energy" quackery . I'll search through the database and remove all links to it since it fails WP:RS all across the board. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, they might not be taken as a WP:RS on, say, mainstream articles concerning physics or biology; but up to this incident I'd have been happy using that site as a source when discussing fringe beliefs.

It caused me some confusion at first; I was unable to replicate the redirection on either my work or personal PCs but that was in chrome. The redirect "worked" once I dug up IE and Firefox though. (I don't have any particularly interesting config / plugins / extensions on any of the three browsers; perhaps Chrome has some quirk in handling document.referrer or whatever). bobrayner (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Chrome, that's correct. Chrome's ... funny about passing referrer data. As for the reliability of the ABRI stuff within the fringe topic, even then I'm not sure. It has a lot of visibility, but that's in part because it has its own in-house publisher. With virtually no one else directly commenting on what they produce, I'm not sure even the limited threshhold for WP:FRINGE is met. But I'll leave that to others. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Siamesehare, repeated copyright issues, and repeated creation of non-notable articles, templates, etc...

Could someone talk a look at User talk:Siamesehare and see what the best course of action is? The half a zillion warnings doesn't seem to deter him/her. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well - it seems, he/she is having trouble understanding the fair-use policies, i would suggest someone leaves a non-automated message on his/her talk page and see if he/she responds. I think Siamesehare is not responding to the messages just because they are automated. If the user continues to upload images inappropriately after the non-automated message is left on his/her talkpage, then i suggest a block, because this user is in lack of communication and fails to abide by our fair-use policies. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 21:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem on BLP noticeboard

• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)
• Griswaldo (talk · contribs)

Ronz (talk · contribs) and user QuackGuru (talk · contribs) have unfortunately teamed up to stonewall a debate on the BLP noticeboard here. The debate has been going on at length for a few days, with Ronz as the sole figure claiming that there is some BLP issue. He has presented no evidence that there is any BLP issue involved, despite being asked repeatedly to do so. Yesterday I made a final request for him to explain why this was a BLP issue . he refused to do so, quibbling over other details with other editors , . I reminded him again here that he needed to give an explanation, yet he was still non-responsive and tried to mark the issue as 'stuck' . Consequently I closed the issue 'resolved as unfounded' . there was then a quick series of reverts: Ronz , Griswaldo , Ronz again , Me , Ronz again , Griswaldo (who removed the archive entirely) , and I restored it here ), and then finally QuackGuru stepped in here. . His involvement is because he and Ronz have been spamming my talk page (something like 50 or 60 posts between the two of them over the last couple of days- check the history), and have been discussing me independently .

As far as I can see, Ronz is engaged in desperately tendentious editing, edit warring, user page harassment, and possibly wp:canvassing, all to cover the fact that he cannot make even a mildly convincing case that there is a BLP issue about Barrett. As other editors have reminded him, he is a bit sensitive on the issue of Barrett, and I can accept that, but he's gone a bit off the deep end with it this time.

I'm also a bit tired of the way he plays political games. He is repeatedly saying things like "It was worth a try looking for ways to work with you", or "If you're not willing to discuss the matter" , or "Can we work out some compromise" , or "shall we get a third party to work with us both" , as though he were actually interested in achieving a compromise. But each time I try to work with him he back-peddles: here I ask him what he'd like for a compromise , but he says he doesn't have anything in mind ; here I suggest that we take the issue to wikiquette as a third party , but he refuses . This is such an obvious effort to create the impression of being reasonable while actually being completely unreasonable - essentially another stonewalling tactic like his refusal to explain the BLP issue above. it's very disconcerting, and I don't quite know what to do about an editor who is so obviously comfortable trying to game the system.

I'll go notify him and quackguru now, and leave the discussion up to you guys. --Ludwigs2 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm probably the biggest BLP Hawk on this site, but I can see no issue here. In order to assess the reliability of a source, one needs to discuss the credibility of the person making the claims. Everything here looks like fair comment and justified discussion. I think stuff like this should probably be aggressively archived once a conclusion is reached, and pages ought to be {noindex}, but even that's probably being over-cautious. Nothing here is libellous in my quick checking, and nothing is gratuitous. (Of course, I may be missing something.)--Scott Mac 18:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
• I concur with Scott Mac: there is no BLP issue to justify the edits made in the name of BLP. Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion on BLPN dispute below --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Two FYIs:

1. Ronz has apparently decided to boycott this ANI discussion and respond to commenting editors on their talk pages (e.g. , and see his explanation here). I anticipated this, but I don't suppose it makes much difference.
2. It seems likely that the WQA listed below will be closed and merged in here, to avoid separate discussions. I'll remove the link below if that happens. --Ludwigs2 20:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ronz

(merged related discussion from WQA per suggestions there)

Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to think that he can act unilaterally in ways that are, in my view, disruptive to the project.

I encountered Ronz when I engaged an RS/N request regarding Weston A. Price and a source being used in that entry by fringe health critic Stephen Barrett - see here. The consensus in this discussion, as well as a similar discussion at the FT/N, has been that Barrett, while a notable critic of contemporary fringe science/health theories is not a reliable source on Weston Price, or the historical context in question. User:Ronz appears not to accept this and has been acting disruptively in relation to those whose comments appear to him to be at all critical of Stephen Barrett. In fact he appears so "sensitive" to criticism of Stephen Barrett, that others regularly comment on it when they encounter his behavior - , . Over the last few days Ronz has being acting disruptively in this area, at times under the claim of WP:BLP and of protecting Barrett from "libel" and "defamation".

• Removing talk page comments he doesn't like, then collapsing them after being reverted and edit warring to keep them collapsed, and then finally after being reverted again putting his own subject headings over the comments.
• Issuing BLP warnings to editors who in good faith are trying to evaluate the reliability of Barrett as a source - Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, BruceGrubb, and Griswaldo
• Unilaterally deleting talk page comments, claiming that they are BLP violations - ,

I should note that Ronz did not refactor the comments he deleted or ask the editor who posted them to refactor the comments but instead chose to remove them in entirety. When he started these deletions a couple of editors who objected, reverted him, myself included. I tried to tell him to get some outside input on the BLP matter since he appeared alone in his belief that there was a violation. He made no efforts to do so, and just kept reverting. It was made clear to me that since a BLP concern was raised by Ronz I should not edit war to restore them so I stopped reverting him, and instead started a thread at the BLP/N. Not a single editor commenting at the BLP/N has agreed with Ronz assessment of there being BLP violation in the deleted text, yet Ronz is now trying to WP:GAME the system by tagging the conversation as "stuck" and later as having "no consensus". He did the same thing at the FT/N discussion, also declaring it "stuck" and edit warring to keep it in, despite a clear consensus on several matters. He doesn't agree with the consensus of course, and it relates directly to Barrett's reliability as a source on Weston Price, of course. In my view this activity is disruptive. Ronz clearly has a "sensitivity" when it comes to Barrett and it isn't helpful. What can be done?Griswaldo (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The actions of removing other people's comments, hiding them, edit-warring on closing discussions, and the use of BLP warnings on other users involved in the discussion does seem like a major issue that needs to be addressed. These are not actions that a good-purposed contributor to Misplaced Pages should be making. Silverseren 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Block Ronz for 24h in order to prevent further disruption. Basket of Puppies 21:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that 1) Ronz has been notified, 2) has chosen to respond on individual talk pages, rather than here at ANI, and 3) Basket of Puppies' comment is, at this point, an unimplemented suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd support BoP's suggestion, just for the continued refactoring of talkpages. Ronz can carry a torch for Stehpen Barratt all he likes, but that doesn't give him the right to rewrite what other people wrote, or try to unilaterally shut down discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just received a message from Ronz on my talkpage. It's rather odd for him not to discuss the issue here and instead badger people on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

When someone tries that with me, I usually just delete the edit and tell 'em to come here. It can be a tactic for dispersing the argument all over the 'pedia, and preventing it gathering momentum in any location. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was about to suggest that it's probably wise for Ronz not to put in an appearance here - he's so far into the red on this issue that I don't think there's much he can do to salvage things. But I'll bow to Elen's suggestion as being both more honest and more practical. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

First, "As long as discussion is happening, blocking is not required." The FTN dispute is moving along nicely in contrast to where it was just a day ago. I've indicated that I will continue to discuss the BLPN issues, just in a venue where WP:CON and WP:TALK are followed. Are there any other disputes that aren't being discussed that need to be? --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, there's still the above-mentioned issues to cover:

1. disruptive editing: your refusal to provide a meaningful rationale for the BLP dispute, your refactoring of talk page comments without discussion, and your tendentious efforts to keep the from being closed as unfounded despite your refusal to provide a rationale.
2. user page harassment: Your multitudinous posts to the user talk pages of the people you are arguing with (since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me), mostly argumentative posts or warning templates.
3. gaming the system: deceptive practices such as your attempts to make it look like I wasn't trying to cooperate with you, or your initial intent to avoid this ANI thread.
4. apparent canvassing to help an edit war: why else would QuackGuru (who had not participated in the BLP thread to that point) suddenly appear to carry out a revert just moments after you reached your 3rr limit?

As far as I'm concerned these all still need explaining. each individual act may or may not be explainable, but as a whole they speak to a definite intent to disrupt things sufficiently that you could block losing a BLP discussion that you had no grounds to begin in the first place. That is not responsible editing. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN dispute

You asked for a review. We reviewed it. No one is seeing any issues.--Scott Mac 22:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to BLPN, then note the comments there by two other editors at 12:37, 24 Oct and 14:50, 23 Oct.

Further, there is nothing written in WP:BLPTALK on how to handle material "related to making content choices." The exception was made initially 04:37, 25 November 2007 , and appears to be related to discussions beginning here on preventing exceptions to BLP in talk space. --Ronz (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

User Zucchinidreams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has raised an RFC at Talk:Peter Sutcliffe#A request for comment on Rodhullandemu's behaviour (and also at User:Rodhullandemu/Request for comment) claiming that "His behaviour has been monotonous and of a consistently POV and unreliable tone," and that "Rodhullandemu has deleted neccessitated and extremely verifiable information. His continuum of edits is deforming for the community at large." There is no evidence of this, and it appears only to be a way of evading the "2 user" criteria for initiating RFC/U, and out of some kind of revenge because he does not like being wrong.

But there's more. This is part of a pattern of tendentious and disruptive editing that he has been carried out on Peter Sutcliffe, ignoring requests from other users to discuss his editing and respect consensus, ignoring explanations about image use policy (even uploading images to Commons and falsely claiming permissions and licensing for them , and claiming ownership of other images on his talk page ). He has reported an IP to AIV that hadn't edited since June 2008 and claimed that this was "after final warning" - he obviously hadn't checked that a warning had been issued as the talk page would have shown him last being communicated with in May 2008 when a 55 hr block was issued. This follows a few days after he reported an IP who hadn't edited for a year . He blatantly lied to another admin claiming I had re-edited his comments on my talk page to make them say something else and asked for me to be blocked.

His whole history of contributions is one of disruption, and I'm afraid that this is either someone who is being deliberately disruptive for schizzles and giggles, and feigning naivety, given that he wikilawyers so much, or someone who - and I'm trying to be delicate here, not uncivil - has some underlying problems which are preventing him from getting the point. GwenChan 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not respond to such ludicrous and fatuous allegations, with the caveat of ones that are WP:POV. The editor disliked my editing because it conflicted with her WP:POV (Point of view) they've replicated the incidents above to display a false flag of pseudobehavioural edits, which I haven't taken part in. The links above have been replicated ad naseum.

1) The consensus point- the information on that file was being shuttled from place to place, and as such was minor editing, incapable of causing any reasonable minded person any trouble.

2) The imagery- the imagery was reverted on a copyvio so that I could proof-read the address, but I appeared to miss the cut button, so the defunct link was kept on the page. That really is not bad faith, but assuming I meant anything by it, was, and is.

3) The blocking of the I.P- I mistook the history page as a flagged warning, and will undo it, although WP:GOODPRACTICE suggests bringing that up on the editor concerned's (my) talk page.

4) The second I.P- My computer was undergoing updating and I blindly followed through the process, and I will apologise for that publically, and to the party involved, here, as a matter of public record.

5) The comments I had made on the user concerned's talk page said they were pushing a point of view; therefore they ARE NECESSARY AS PART OF WIKIPEDIAS THREE CORE POLICIES.

6) I asked for her to block because she had re-factored my assertions about her editing being POV, and I asked for her to be blocked for only a few hours.

No one fair minded would accuse me of anything more than accidentally eidting wrongly, but being good in faith when I edited wrongly.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not have POV on the article which has been the main focus of your disruption - it is not "POV" to ask you not to remove given names and ages of victims, for example. That is common sense. Similarly it is not "POV" to ask you to discuss major edits to the article on the talk page.
• Deciding to remove information and sections against consensus does cause reasonable minded people trouble, and reasonable minded people do not do it.
• The imagery was not reverted so that you could proof read the address, you reverted it persistently after at least two other editors took the image out due to it being tagged CSD for copyvio. You then claimed you were the owner of the image.
• The blocking requests of the IPs (and I didn't mention the drive-by CSD tagging you did, which although you later went back and reverted, you didn't strike out the CSD tag from the user's talk page) is indicative of your editing - you don't read what's actually on the screen before pressing buttons. At the absolute minimum you should be blacklisted from automated editing tools.
• Accidents do happen - but not with such frequency and consistency.
• Another example of your persistent refusal to listen to other editors' advice - you were just asked not to take red links out of articles, and despite acknowledging that request you then go back in to the main space and start doing it again!
• Once again, you are blatantly LYING and accusing me of altering your comments on my talk page to make them say something other than that which you wrote. I did no such thing, and to accuse me of doing so is the fucking pits. GwenChan 21:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have three questions for Zucchinidreams.

1. Please provide a diff substantiating your accusation that Gwen refactored your talk page comments, that is, post a link to the change she allegedly made. I can't find it in the history of her talk page. An example of a diff is contained in my next question.

2. When you made this comment (that's a diff right there) on your talk page, were you claiming that you own the image to which you were referring?

3. If you were so claiming, was that claim truthful or untruthful? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The I.P I reported put seriously pornographic images onto a page. They needed to cool down their editorialising.

Gwen chan refactored my comment in the section on her history that says reply, goodbye. I sent an e-mail to the makers of the image, but have yet to recieve copyright info- however, one incident does not a ban make. As for the red-links, they were nonsensical, and removed correctly, and I'd advise Gwen chan to read WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK before she comments on my history page. It is a lie to say I was warned about not refactoring red links; in fact, the message warned about unnecessary removal of red-links, and I have complied with that message. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I read through Gwen-chan's talk page history (it's not very long). It seems to me that Zucchinidreams behaviour is not stellar there and includes failure to assume good faith, falsehoods (about Gwen chan refactoring Zucchinidreams comments), posting twice after being asked not do so, and making threats. Jon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.53.235 (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Stalker?

I noticed a comment from another editor popping up on the talk page of Hemingwayswhisky (talk · contribs), accusing them of stalking and doing nothing but undoing their edits. A quick glance reveals they may have a point. Does anyone care to look closer and ponder possible action? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I figured I'd do him the courtesy of giving him a warning but, yeah... his account consists basically of reverting my posts, most of which are spelling, etc. Thanks. John2510 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

At first sight it looks like a true bill. Do you have any idea why or if it is another editor you are aware of? Fainites scribs 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I dunno... There was a guy in Pittsburgh who threatened me (and ultimately an admin) a couple of months ago, no telling if this is him... reincarnated: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=383763596 —Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not so much basically, as completely, it seems. (Was the other user notified of this discussion?) Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(Okay, so there's 1 edit that wasn't related to John2510.) Is there any situation you know of that would have spawned such a direct edit summary? Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I placed a note on both editors' talk pages, yes. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well unless there is a very good explanation it looks like a straightforward attack account. Fainites scribs 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There appear to be a few sporadic IPs that John2510 reverted in Siberian Husky, all of them making the same edit as Hemingwayswhisky but none in the same range. It might be the same person who got frustrated at being reverted and just decided to go after John2510 having nothing better to do. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I came to the same conclusion. I have to say that edit warring over light verses heavy loads is insanely dumb given that both terms are subjective . Why not loads up to # pounds or something similar? Theresa Knott | Hasten to trek

There's some indication that this is the same guy that threatened me and an admin a couple of months ago. Using an IP address he made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Owens_%26_Minor&diff=378432901&oldid=378401340, which was restored by the subject editor here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Owens_%26_Minor&diff=prev&oldid=391153240. I don't believe I edited at that page at all... so he didn't follow me there. Can someone trace the subject's IP and determine if it's in the same area (Pittsburgh), and therfore likely the same editor that previously threatened physical violence? Thanks John2510 (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)